In article mpro.mgxcqe03fwazk01j8.li...@stevefryatt.org.uk,
Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
On 20 Jan, Richard Torrens (lists) wrote in message
5310fde37bli...@torrens.org.uk:
The main problem I find is not the speed, but the fact that there is a
buffer somewhere
On 22 Jan 2013 Richard Torrens (lists) wrote:
In article mpro.mgxcqe03fwazk01j8.li...@stevefryatt.org.uk,
Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
On 20 Jan, Richard Torrens (lists) wrote in message
5310fde37bli...@torrens.org.uk:
The main problem I find is not the speed
On 20 Jan, Richard Ashbery wrote in message
5310f9b9afris...@gotadsl.co.uk:
In article 2737921053.r...@user.minijem.plus.com, Richard Porter
r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
On most applications, including messenger Pro, the speed of the pointer
in relation to the scroll wheel on the mouse
On 20 Jan, Richard Torrens (lists) wrote in message
5310fde37bli...@torrens.org.uk:
The main problem I find is not the speed, but the fact that there is a
buffer somewhere that stores scroll clicks, so that scrolling continues
after the wheel is stopped.
That's in RISC OS, and happens
On most applications, including messenger Pro, the speed of the
pointer in relation to the scroll wheel on the mouse is just about
right, but on NetSurf it is much too fast so it's almost impossible to
use on long web pages. Is there any way to adjust the scroll wheel
speed for NetSurf
Richard Porter wrote
On most applications, including messenger Pro, the speed of the
pointer in relation to the scroll wheel on the mouse is just about
right, but on NetSurf it is much too fast so it's almost impossible to
use on long web pages. Is there any way to adjust the scroll wheel
On 19 Jan 2013 John Rickman Iyonix wrote:
Richard Porter wrote
On most applications, including messenger Pro, the speed of the
pointer in relation to the scroll wheel on the mouse is just about
right, but on NetSurf it is much too fast so it's almost impossible to
use on long web pages
Richard Porter wrote
Are you using HID? NetSurf scroll speed on Iyonix is fine with it.
HID? Sorry that doesn't mean anything to me apart from 'high intensity
discharge'.
I bought it from RComp some years ago for 15 pounds here is an extract
from the helptext
On 19 Jan 2013 John Rickman Iyonix wrote:
Are you using HID? NetSurf scroll speed on Iyonix is fine with it.
HID? Sorry that doesn't mean anything to me apart from 'high intensity
discharge'.
I bought it from RComp some years ago for 15 pounds here is an extract
from the helptext
I'm sure most of you will already have downloaded newer versions of
the NS test-builds but for those who haven't its worth doing if only
for the improvements to the scroll wheel speed. Scrolling is more akin
to what one expects in StrongED and EasiWriter.
Excellent work Steve.
--
Richard
On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
mpro.lkcwd100016oo0066@powys.org:
On 27 Apr at 19:49, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
Please try r12243.
I suspect this bear of little brain needs some assistance here:
As I understandf it, the latest version on the
r12243 does seem quite a bit faster here as well on my trusty Risc PC. Well
done the team.
--
Chris
Running 12243 on an Iyonix 5.16; subjectively it doesn't seem
noticeably faster than earlier versions and
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ still fails to format correctly, but
it's good to see development of a modern RISC OS browser continuing at
a brisk pace, so well done, keep up the good
On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
mpro.lkcwd100016oo0066@powys.org:
On 27 Apr at 19:49, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
Please try r12243.
I suspect this bear of little brain needs
On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
mpro.lkd2te2hm0068@powys.org:
On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from
the entries under Recent SVN Activity further down the page: as I
In a mad moment - Steve Fryatt mumbled :
On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
mpro.lkd2te2hm0068@powys.org:
On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from
the entries under Recent
On 28 Apr 2011, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
On 28 Apr, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
mpro.lkd2te2hm0068@powys.org:
On 28 Apr at 11:26, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
Just download the current build. You can see what rev it's up to from
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:09:06 +0100, Erving wrote:
Sometimes something stops working, as I keep a selection of previous
revisions
I can get some idea of when this happened to try and find the cause. If other
revisions were still available it might be possible to locate the change that
was
In article adbc5fa551.r...@user.minijem.plus.com,
Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011 Michael Drake wrote:
Restart NetSurf, open a browser window and resize it vertically so only
the toolbar is showing.
For the first test (thumbnail index) the time is around 6.7s
Hi Michael
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:39:23 +0100, Michael Drake wrote:
However, reflowing the page made redrawing the entire window necessary.
I've just made a change that should reduce the amount of document
reflowing we do, and therefore the amount of plotting to screen.
I know this wasn't
On 27 Apr 2011 Chris Young wrote:
Images without sizes always seem to load stretched initially before
they find their proper size. I can see that this will add in some
additional processing for resizing images that don't need to be
resized - probably causing some document reflow too. Is
In article
out-4db86571.md-1.4.17.chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk,
Chris Young chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk wrote:
Images without sizes always seem to load stretched initially before
they find their proper size.
Initially, we layout the document before we have the
In article 2a18a0ca51.r...@user.minijem.plus.com,
Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
I don't like it either, especially if the image dimensions are
specified. It would be better to truncate or wrap the text if it
doesn't fit.
Please try r12243.
--
Michael Drake (tlsa)
On 27 Apr 2011 Michael Drake wrote:
In article 2a18a0ca51.r...@user.minijem.plus.com,
Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
I don't like it either, especially if the image dimensions are
specified. It would be better to truncate or wrap the text if it
doesn't fit.
Please try
In message 51ca8a0eb2t...@netsurf-browser.org
Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
Please try r12243.
I'd be interested to know the speeds you get
No objective tests (hence the unusual snip point), but I have the
impression on Slashdot, The Register, etc. that r12243 is
of a thumbnail index.
NetSurf r11515 28s
Test 2 - following a link to the latest forum post from the top 10
latest posts page.
NetSurf 17s
Out of interest, what speed do you get if you set incremental_reflow
to 0 in the Choices file? If your test pages have changed, please
test again
In message 51a40d4023t...@netsurf-browser.org
Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
Out of interest, what speed do you get if you set incremental_reflow to
0 in the Choices file? If your test pages have changed, please test
again with the original settings first.
I've
to the latest forum post from the top 10
latest posts page.
NetSurf 17s
Out of interest, what speed do you get if you set incremental_reflow to
0 in the Choices file? If your test pages have changed, please test
again with the original settings first.
Also out of interest, I performed
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:21:30AM +, Martin Bazley wrote:
incremental_reflow=1: 25s
incremental_reflow=0: 20s
I'll definitely be leaving it off. (Also using an Iyonix.)
Thing is, when we implemented this, you probably thought it was a
significant performance improvement, and for most
On 11 Feb, Richard Porter wrote in message
564212a451.r...@user.minijem.plus.com:
On 11 Feb 2011 Michael Drake wrote:
Out of interest, what speed do you get if you set incremental_reflow
to 0 in the Choices file? If your test pages have changed, please
test again with the original
at a
bit less than SA RiscPC speed on my system. I get:
Incremental Non-Incremental
URL 1: 5.7s 4.5s
URL 2: 7.7s 8.5s
I'm using a broadband connection. What processor and internet connection do
you have with the RiscPC, Richard?
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
and click on the link Mk.VI.
Less than 5s with incremental reflow on.
I've just tried these two tests on RPCemu, which I /think/ is running at a
bit less than SA RiscPC speed on my system. I get:
Incremental Non-Incremental
URL 1: 5.7s 4.5s
URL 2: 7.7s 8.5s
I'm using
In article 1ab017a451.r...@user.minijem.plus.com,
Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
Try the other test. Go to http://www.minimarcos.org.uk/galleries.html
and click on the link Mk.VI. This takes you to the bottom of a
largish thumbnail index. It was taking a lot of time to
In article 4d4be8bb.7040...@druck.org.uk, David J. Ruck
dr...@druck.org.uk wrote:
Coding in assembler is a big disadvantage for any sizeable amount of
code. You wont find any modern web browser written in assembler, it
would be insane.
Perhaps that is the only way that a programmer knows? I
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 12:03:17PM +, ba...@e-allen.me.uk wrote:
In article 4d4be8bb.7040...@druck.org.uk, David J. Ruck
dr...@druck.org.uk wrote:
Coding in assembler is a big disadvantage for any sizeable amount of
code. You wont find any modern web browser written in assembler, it
The NetSurf web site says:
Efficiency lies at the heart of the NetSurf engine, allowing it to
outwit the heavyweights of the web browser world. The NetSurf team
continue to squeeze more speed out of their code.
I've been doing one or two comparisons on a 300MHz Kinetic RiscPC
running OS 6.16
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:42:03AM +, Richard Porter wrote:
The NetSurf web site says:
Efficiency lies at the heart of the NetSurf engine, allowing it to
outwit the heavyweights of the web browser world. The NetSurf team
continue to squeeze more speed out of their code.
I've been
On 04/02/2011 11:42, Richard Porter wrote:
The NetSurf web site says:
Efficiency lies at the heart of the NetSurf engine, allowing it to
outwit the heavyweights of the web browser world. The NetSurf team
continue to squeeze more speed out of their code.
I've been doing one or two comparisons
On 4 Feb 2011 Rob Kendrick wrote:
Now obviously there's a big advantage in coding in assembler for a
specific processor family rather than using C and making the code
portable,
I wouldn't call it an advantage. And none of the browsers you list here
are written in assembler; they're all
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 12:00:49PM +, Richard Porter wrote:
Also, NetSurf implements *FAR MORE* of HTML and CSS than either Fresco
or Oregano. The amount of work it is doing is an order of magnatude
greater.
The test pages were 'any browser' compatible so Netsurf didn't have to
In article 66463fa051.r...@user.minijem.plus.com,
Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
The NetSurf web site says:
Efficiency lies at the heart of the NetSurf engine, allowing it to
outwit the heavyweights of the web browser world. The NetSurf team
continue to squeeze more speed
On 4 Feb, Richard Porter wrote in message
26fe40a051.r...@user.minijem.plus.com:
On 4 Feb 2011 Rob Kendrick wrote:
Also, NetSurf implements *FAR MORE* of HTML and CSS than either Fresco
or Oregano. The amount of work it is doing is an order of magnatude
greater.
The test pages
On 4 Feb 2011 David J. Ruck wrote:
On 04/02/2011 11:42, Richard Porter wrote:
The NetSurf web site says:
Efficiency lies at the heart of the NetSurf engine, allowing it to
outwit the heavyweights of the web browser world. The NetSurf team
continue to squeeze more speed out of their code
On 4 Feb 2011 Rob Kendrick wrote:
As I said, you know where the sources are if you think you know better.
Point noted but I think the 'dancing around' is more of a design
problem.
--
Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 01:29:02PM +, Richard Porter wrote:
On 4 Feb 2011 Rob Kendrick wrote:
As I said, you know where the sources are if you think you know better.
Point noted but I think the 'dancing around' is more of a design
problem.
The problem is not as simple as you appear
On 4 Feb 2011 Steve Fryatt wrote:
Also, define any browser compatible. These days, I'd take that to mean
lots of CSS and not Fresco-friendly; YMMV.
What I mean is that they will format as intended on any browser (well
maybe not early versions of mosaic) even if it doesn't support CSS or
On 4 Feb 2011 Brian Jordan wrote:
One thing occurs to me; you are using r11515 which is a development build
of Netsurf which has with it a warning Notice: At any given time these
builds may be unstable or have verbose logging enabled which could
compromise performance of the browser, have
On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100
Steve Fryatt wrote:
Maybe font canning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts
have
been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space
somewhere
y retaining font data
Paul Stewart wrote:
But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it are
temporary files?
Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical.
That's as maybe, but putting !Scrap in a RAM disc is an archaic practice
dating back to the use of RISC OS 2 and
On 28 May 2009, Tony Moore old_coas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
[I] didn't file a bug report. Perhaps I should do so now?
Done
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2798361group_id=51719atid=464312
Tony
On 29 May, Paul Stewart wrote in message
54662.1243577...@phawfaux.co.uk:
On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc,
But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it
On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:29:03 +0100
Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
There's temporary, and temporary. Also, until someone (Adam
Richardson, IIRC) came up with Cache, RISC OS didn't have defined
somewhere to store non-transient internal data that isn't
choices. As such, Scrap
Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
the fonts].
Whilst I appreciate that the 10 times greater length of time spent
running
In message 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com you wrote:
Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
the fonts].
That is odd.
In article 52ef6d6250.wra...@wra1th.plus.com, Gavin
Wraith ga...@wra1th.plus.com wrote:
In message 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com you
wrote:
Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems
to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less
that 3 seconds. [I am not
In message 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com Roger wrote:
Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
the fonts].
[snip]
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
In article 28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote:
Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.
This can happen if you have
In article 0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote:
Second response:
Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at
6.4MB?
That shouldn't matter.
Please could you zip up and e-mail me the contents of your Choices
directory for
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
In article 0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote:
Second response:
Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at
6.4MB?
That shouldn't matter.
Please could you zip up and e-mail me
In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote:
OK, have sent that privately Michael.
Thanks.
This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.
The reason for the slow load and big
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote:
[snip]
This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.
The reason
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote:
OK, have sent that privately Michael.
Thanks.
This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
contains a whopping 202MB in 5866
In article 715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk,
Tony Moore old_coas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger Darlington roger...@freeuk.com wrote:
[snip]
This also
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
In article 715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk,
Tony Moore old_coas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
In article 55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com,
Roger
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100
Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote:
Maybe font canning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts have
been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere
y retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used?
Hello :)
Please can somebody try accessing the following site in NetSurf and
tell me how it compares speed-wise to any other page:
http://www.amigaimpact.org
It is painfully slow in my port (takes about 8 seconds to page down),
so I want to know whether it is something in my code slowing it down
In article
out-4a1af8a4.md-1.4.17.chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk,
Chris Young chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk wrote:
Please can somebody try accessing the following site in NetSurf and
tell me how it compares speed-wise to any other page:
http://www.amigaimpact.org
In article
out-4a1af8a4.md-1.4.17.chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk, Chris
Young chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk wrote:
Hello :)
Please can somebody try accessing the following site in NetSurf and
tell me how it compares speed-wise to any other page:
http://www.amigaimpact.org
On 25 May 2009 Chris Young
chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk wrote:
Hello :)
Please can somebody try accessing the following site in NetSurf and
tell me how it compares speed-wise to any other page:
http://www.amigaimpact.org
It is painfully slow in my port (takes about 8 seconds
In a mad moment - Michael Drake mumbled :
In article
out-4a1af8a4.md-1.4.17.chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk,
Chris Young chris.yo...@unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk wrote:
Please can somebody try accessing the following site in NetSurf and
tell me how it compares speed-wise to any
In article f3b6206150.pnyo...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk,
Dr Peter Young pnyo...@ormail.co.uk wrote:
About ten seconds here; RISC OS 5.14.
Surely you're including fetching, processing and formatting? The actual
redraw (i.e. rendering when scrolling up and down) should be near-instant.
Michael
--
71 matches
Mail list logo
