Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 for fonts that will probably never be used? It's stored in !Scrap (in a file called RUfl_cache). On this machine, with a few fonts installed, it takes up 277K. I think that's a reasonable price to pay for improved text display. 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 are temporary files? Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical. Regards -- Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK. Be Bold. Dare To Be Different. Use RISC OS (http://www.riscos.com). It's blue and from outta town - The A9home (http://www.advantage6.co.uk/A9hsplash.html). A9home Compatibility page - (http://www.phawfaux.co.uk/a9home/compatibility.asp).
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 floppy discs, where to transfer data between applications, you would have to reinsert the system disc containing !Scrap. These days it's not beneficial and bad practice for at least 4 reasons:- 1) Applications mainly use RAM transfer for exchanging data between each other, so already work faster than disc, and faster than a RAM disc. 2) Some applications such as Photodesk may need to store 100MB or more of data when processing large images. 3) The RAM disc on the Iyonix actually has a lower peak transfer rate than the ATA 100 disc! 4) Some applications store transient data in !Scrap, which can be regenerated, but takes additional time at startup, e.g. NetSurf Cheers ---David -- Email: dr...@druck.org.uk Phone: +44-(0)7974 108301
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 are temporary files? 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 seems to be the best compromise. Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical. Not really. Not least because it isn't inconceivable that something could try and store a lot of data in Scrap, use up all the available free RAM, and crash (or at least fail -- but I wonder how many RISC OS apps really /do/ check WimpScrap transfers for disc full errors?). -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 seems to be the best compromise. Actually, that was my idea, and Adam has taken forward, and developed upon. :) Search the developer's list's archives back to almost 3 years ago; 12 June 2006, in a thread called RUfl_cache. I don't think the idea got enough momentum to really take off; the suggestion being that not enough people sabotage their own system by putting !Scrap into a RAM disc for it to be worth it. B.
Can no longer access photo stats on Flickr.com
Hi Been using the recent test build of Netsurf and generally been able to get around www.flickr.com where I have photo's. If I go into my flickr page and click on the graph icon where I can see the photo statistics of how many people have viewed them etc, Netsurf falls over and and finishes saying Netsurf has detected a serious error and must exit I've always been able to click on this link for a long time and now it fails :( So are there any users out there who have a flickr account and can try theirs ? as you need a flickr account to try yourself. Using 5.14 29th May 2009 13.30r7623 Brian -- Check out Brian's pics at: www.flickr.com/photos/httpflickrcomphotosbrian or http://dslruser.co.uk/index.php/gallery?func=detailid=79032
Re:Can no longer access photo stats on flickr.com
Hi again. Wanted to post this as I re-downloaded version 2.1 23rd May 09 and I don't suffer the problem on Flickr, so something has changed on the test build. Regards. Brian -- Check out Brian's pics at: www.flickr.com/photos/httpflickrcomphotosbrian or http://dslruser.co.uk/index.php/gallery?func=detailid=79032
