> It pisses me off when I see these swapfile explosions. Fifteen years ago if > you'd given me the specs of Apple's puniest 2013 computer, and told me a > browser couldn't trivially have 200 web pages open at once, and that it would > matter if I left the browser running for a day, I would have thought you were > nuts. > > --Andy
Agreed. I think that web browser designers have gotten sloppy and "we have all the resources in the world" mentality. I think that whoever design the current HTML standards should have to try to implement a reference implementation that does 100% perfect, in a 32 MB machine. Yes, I said MB. 32 MB is a huge amount of space for programs and data. There is no reason, at all, that I should need 400 MB just to start up a browser. On a 1 GB PPC machine, I could easily browse the web with room left over. Heck, back on a 32 MB 68040 machine, web browsing was relatively simple and easy. There's no reason for browsers to be gigantic sloths. There's no reason for a standard that says "Remote execution of arbitrary code cannot be prevented by the end user without addons to modify the browser". And there's no reason for a web browser not to run that remote untrusted code in a sandbox that can be dumped if it's a memory leak, or at least identifiable as to which sandbox is the leak. Fifteen years ago, 1999, ... was that when FF 3 was new? ... It was after the end of the pizza box, I think it was post tables, before the whole "div and CSS layers and the web page is now a layout language" thing too over. _______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
