On 15 May 2005 at 10:35, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On May 14, 2005, at 10:55 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: > > Andrew, what was the problem with the Buy.com site? Were windows > > just slow to load? Or did something not work? Firefox is so small > > and efficient that I have trouble believing it could have been > > related to lack of memory. Perhaps one of the servers was backing up > > from volume? That would have affected any browser, though. > > Windows were *glacially* slow to load. As for the possibility that > these problems might have been remotely based--well, let's just say I > don't believe in coincidences. . . .
You believe this despite the fact that everyone else who uses it says it's not slow for them? > . . . I get a new browser, take it for a test > run to a site I've visited many times before w.o incident, and get a > traffic jam; that tells me all I need to know. --I then trashed > firefox, rebooted in OS9, and repeated the same navigation in > Netscape, w.o the slightest problem. IMO the possibility of the > observed behavior being coincidental is remote in the extreme. Well, I'd say your estimation of probabilities in this case is completely off. But, if I'm remembering correctly, didn't you upgrade a rather old computer to OS X? So, maybe your hardware is substantially slower than what most Mac users are working with. But correct me if I'm misremembering. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
