On 7/27/2013 3:47 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote:
You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or
figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is
something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a
hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is,
that's essentially irrelevant.)
Unless, of course, you run out of physical memory, and start thrashing.
Needing more memory than the machine currently has available can easily
cause a particular program to run a hundred times slower.
The older a machine is, the less memory is likely to have been configured
on it (memory gets significantly cheaper every year).
The current motherboard in this one is somewhere 5 - 7 years old (maybe
older). It's old enough it's got an AGP video slot.
The board maxes out at 2GB RAM & that's what is installed.
I had a problem with the system locking up that appeared to be memory
related (particularly to how Windoze leaks memory over time) so I went
ahead and replaced all the memory, upgrading to max at that time.
I recently added an AGP video card (figured I'd better do that while AGP
cards were still available) and that's helped a tiny bit.
Bottom line is I had a version of FireFox that ran efficiently on THIS
machine until Mozilla started badgering me to "upgrade". The "upgrade"
is NOT!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
