Re: Scroll wheel speed
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 that stores scroll clicks, so that scrolling continues after the wheel is stopped. That's in RISC OS, and happens when the app doesn't take scroll events as quickly as you produce them. See also scrolling via PageUp/Down. The effect seems much less now than of old. Presumably Netsurf flushes the buffer when it returns to look at the scroll wheel? BTW: there seems to be a change recently. I have a Macro inserter and previopusly User|iPassword|m would enter user and password as it should. Recent issues (815, 827 - not tried others) do not accept |i as a TAB. UserPassword is entered in the User box, |i is ignored. -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!
Re: Scroll wheel speed
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, 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 when the app doesn't take scroll events as quickly as you produce them. See also scrolling via PageUp/Down. The effect seems much less now than of old. Presumably Netsurf flushes the buffer when it returns to look at the scroll wheel? That doesn't help either. It's particularly annoying with Edit when you have a cpu-intensive process running in background. Edit jumps one line every time it gets in. With NetSurf it's the opposite. I try turning the scroll wheel very slowly and nothing happens, then slightly faster and it jumps more than a page. BTW: there seems to be a change recently. I have a Macro inserter and previopusly User|iPassword|m would enter user and password as it should. Recent issues (815, 827 - not tried others) do not accept |i as a TAB. UserPassword is entered in the User box, |i is ignored. I've noticed that recently I've had to log into my forum every session. Previously I stayed logged in using a cookie. The forum scripts haven't changed. Could this be something in NetSurf or could it be caused by some security change on the server. Most of my hosting problems are traced to mod-security settings. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Scroll wheel 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 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 independently of the global settings? Mouse movement itself is OK. RiscPC, OS 6.14, NS #822 Scroll speed on my Iyonix/BB is perfect especially for long pages. It was painfully slow on earlier versions. I would certainly not want it going any slower. IIRC, NetSurf has special-cased scroll wheel support for the different versions of RISC OS, due to differences in the implementations between the systems. When I added support for scrolling the new frames, I tested it on RISC OS 5; I have no access to RISC OS 6, and so am unlikely to ever test the different set of code that gets used on that system. Unfortunately HID as suggested by John wouldn't work on the RiscPC because it was designed for the Castle Technology USB stack. Correct. HID also complicates things, as it removes some of the quirks of the vanilla RISC OS 5 scroll wheel support. I'm fairly sure that I tested NetSurf with and without HID running, however. -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn RISC OS Show Saturday 20 April 2013 http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Re: Scroll wheel speed
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 when the app doesn't take scroll events as quickly as you produce them. See also scrolling via PageUp/Down. -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn RISC OS Show Saturday 20 April 2013 http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Scroll wheel speed
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 independently of the global settings? Mouse movement itself is OK. RiscPC, OS 6.14, NS #822 -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Scroll wheel speed
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 speed for NetSurf independently of the global settings? Mouse movement itself is OK. RiscPC, OS 6.14, NS #822 Are you using HID? NetSurf scroll speed on Iyonix is fine with it. -- John Rickman - http://mug.riscos.org/
Re: Scroll wheel speed
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. Is there any way to adjust the scroll wheel speed for NetSurf independently of the global settings? Mouse movement itself is OK. RiscPC, OS 6.14, NS #822 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'. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Scroll wheel speed
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:- ... !HID is the front-end for a number of modules that provide low-level support for USB devices in the HID Class (HID - Human Interface Devices). The HID Class consists of many input devices, such as keyboards, mice, touch tablets, barcode scanners, joysticks, etc. At the core of this application is the USBHID module that services all HID Class devices directly. It takes away control from the standard USB driver and implements many new features. Some additional modules are provided which will greatly enhance the functionality of the USB sub system. The WimpKey module allows complex actions to be linked to the special keys found on most modern USB keyboards. As most wireless keyboards don't have status LEDs (they would exhaust the battery), a new module, called KeyLEDs is supplied which will add three LEDs to the iconbar. The module WimpScroll allows you to use a wheel mouse to scroll the window under the pointer. Additionally any extra mouse buttons and scroll wheels on some keyboards may be used as well. -- John Rickman - http://mug.riscos.org/ Encouraged by superficial notions of evolution, Which becomes, in the popular mind, a means of disowning the past.
Re: Scroll wheel speed
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:- ... !HID is the front-end for a number of modules that provide low-level support for USB devices in the HID Class (HID - Human Interface Devices). ... Thanks for the explanation. No I haven't got !HID. I have WindowScroll but not WimpScroll. I can set the scroll speed globally through !Configure but not for a single task. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Massive improvement in scroll wheel speed
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 Ashbery Wakefield 2012 - Saturday 28th April http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk
Re: Speed
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 NetSurf download site http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/riscos/testbuilds is recompiled, possibly with new version numbers, at least once a day. AFAIK it's recompiled at least once an hour, when changes made to the source code in the repository warrant it. I can see no mean of precisely downloading r12243. Can someone advise on how I may do this? 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 write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
Re: Speed
r12243 does seem quite a bit faster here as well on my trusty Risc PC. Well done the team. -- Chris
Re: Speed
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 work! George In message 51caf82f97cvj...@waitrose.com Chris Newman cvj...@waitrose.com wrote: r12243 does seem quite a bit faster here as well on my trusty Risc PC. Well done the team. --
Re: Speed
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 some assistance here: As I understandf it, the latest version on the NetSurf download site http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/riscos/testbuilds is recompiled, possibly with new version numbers, at least once a day. AFAIK it's recompiled at least once an hour, when changes made to the source code in the repository warrant it. I can see no mean of precisely downloading r12243. Can someone advise on how I may do this? 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 write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Re: Speed
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 write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? Why would you want to download r12243 specifically? You were advised to try r12243: that version or any later one will do[1]. In effect, being told to try rX means -- to all intents and purposes -- download a new test build and try it. 1. The only time it doesn't is if the change in question has subsequently been undone. As Rob says: a) this isn't common, and b) if the change in question has been reverted, you probably didn't want to test it anyway. I only mentioned that to stop the pedants biting, but it seems to have failed... -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
Re: Speed
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 SVN Activity further down the page: as I write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? Why would you want to download r12243 specifically? You were advised to try r12243: that version or any later one will do[1]. In effect, being told to try rX means -- to all intents and purposes -- download a new test build and try it. I have just tried r12243 on an RPC (RO 402)and can confirm the general (subjective) feeling that it is a fair bit faster, except for heavily image laden pages. Great work lads! and Thank You. -- |)[ |)ryn [vansmail to - brynev...@bryork.freeuk.com
Re: Speed
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 the entries under Recent SVN Activity further down the page: as I write this, the latest entry there is still r12243. However, as Richard says, later builds (ie ones with higher 'r' numbers) will still contain the same changes unless one of the developers specifically undoes them again for some reason. And the last sentence confirms the problem. There is no means of actually downloading any specific revision number and instructions to do so are plain misleading. Or do I have this wrong? Why would you want to download r12243 specifically? You were advised to try r12243: that version or any later one will do[1]. In effect, being told to try rX means -- to all intents and purposes -- download a new test build and try it. 1. The only time it doesn't is if the change in question has subsequently been undone. As Rob says: a) this isn't common, and b) if the change in question has been reverted, you probably didn't want to test it anyway. I only mentioned that to stop the pedants biting, but it seems to have failed... 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 the cause, or at least in which revision it occured. We are constantly warned that dev builds may be unstable, so, as I access the internet on a friends computer I always leave it to auto load the latest stable version and change to the latest dev build if I have problems with a site. -- Erving
Re: Speed
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 the cause, or at least in which revision it occured. I see where you're coming from, but to do so would take up an awful lot of storage space on the server, and encourage downloading of versions we are trying to obsolete. There is no benefit to going back to older revisions, except in specific cases where something has broken, and even then the user ought to be reverting back to the last stable (release) build - after submitting a bug report of course! Usually if we know what has broken, referring to the SVN logs allows us to pinpoint when this happened anyway, and building older revisions ourselves is always an option if it comes to that. Chris
Re: Speed
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 (as opposed to 29.1s for a full height window) OK, so the reason for this is the viewfinder / vpod. On your system, actually plotting the page to the screen is expensive (as all the data needs to be transferred across to the podule). Reflowing the page wasn't taking long at all. 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. Please try r12243. I'd be interested to know the speeds you get for your test page with: A. pre-r12243 with incremental_reflow set to 1 (on) B. r12243 with incremental_reflow set to 1 (on) C. r12243 with incremental_reflow set to 0 (off) all with the same, full, window size if possible. The test page was: http://www.minimarcos.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?,b=MM,v=display,m=1296606335,s=4,highlight=#num4 Cheers, -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed
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 directed at me, but since you are working on related code I'm curious about something. 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 there any reason why they are loaded stretched instead of at their native size? I see it often on small images - the little platform icons on www.aminet.net did it before your recent change. I've just seen a couple of forum icons do the same with the new code, which is why I suspect it is only happening with images that don't have sizes specified. I'll see if I can find a URL that exhibits the problem. Chris
Re: Speed
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 there any reason why they are loaded stretched instead of at their native size? It looks to me as though the images are stretched to fit the Alt text. 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. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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 images (unless they happen to be cached). If the document tells us what size to make an image (e.g. with img width=M height=N href=... or via CSS) then we can make the box the correct size from the start. If the document doesn't tell us what size the image will be displayed at, we need to wait until we have fetched it to set the box to the correct size. However, since we show the document before fetching the image, we have to make it some size initially. Before the image is available we show the image's alt text, so the size of any alt text becomes the (currently imageless) image box's size. Until my recent change, we always used to do the latter, ignoring an image's given dimensions. The render code always renders images to the size of the image box, regardless of the image's intrinsic dimensions. This is correct e.g. for img width=M height=N href=... where the image is to be shown at MxN, whatever the image's intrinsic dimensions. So to get back to the question, you are seeing an image plotted at the alt text box size. This is simply because something has caused that part of the document to be redrawn between the image becoming available (fetched and decoded), and the document being reflowed to give the box the correct new size. The document needs to be reflowed (i.e. have the layout code run on it again) when images without given dimensions are fetched because the presence of an image can affect the layout of other content on the document. Are scaled image plots particularly expensive on your system? It should be less common now. -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed
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) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed
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 r12243. That is a massive improvement, and it seems a lot faster too. Thank you. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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 /much/ snappier than previous versions. My thanks again to you and all the NS crew! Dave
Re: Speed
In article 564212a451.r...@user.minijem.plus.com, Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote: On 11 Feb 2011 Michael Drake wrote: In article 66463fa051.r...@user.minijem.plus.com, Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote: Test 1 - following a link to near the bottom 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 with the original settings first. Wow! 8s and 6s respectively - infinitely better on all counts! Right, can you save the addresses of the two tests as ANT URL. Restart NetSurf, open a browser window and resize it vertically so only the toolbar is showing. Then drag your ANT URLs onto the URL bar and tell me the time recorded in the statusbar for each. Keep the pointer over the URL bar while it loads and have incremental rendering on. -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed
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 changed that on mine and it seems fast, however the performance problem I find with Netsurf is that it single tasks and interferes with sound and video replay. Are there setting that can be changed? (I don't mind if as a result of such a change, it is a bit slower) -- Jess
Re: Speed
The following bytes were arranged on 11 Feb 2011 by Michael Drake : In article 66463fa051.r...@user.minijem.plus.com, Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote: Test 1 - following a link to near the bottom 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 with the original settings first. Also out of interest, I performed a highly unscientific test (with a stopwatch) on this page: http://london-underground.blogspot.com/ incremental_reflow=1: 25s incremental_reflow=0: 20s I'll definitely be leaving it off. (Also using an Iyonix.) -- __^__ Your pet, our passion. - Purina / _ _ \ Your potential, our passion. - Microsoft, a few months later ( ( |_| ) ) \_ _/ === Martin Bazley ==
Re: Speed
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 examples you'll only notice that it's not if you use a stop watch. B.
Re: Speed
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 settings first. Wow! 8s and 6s respectively - infinitely better on all counts! This should be the default, or at least it should be in one of the configuration subwindows. Is there any reason why we wouldn't want users to mess with this option? If not, I'll add it to the RISC OS config interface as it looks as if it could be useful on the slower hardware. -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn RISC OS Show Saturday 16 April 2011 http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Re: Speed
On 11 Feb, Michael Drake wrote in message 51a418f545t...@netsurf-browser.org: 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 reformat the table, redraw the page and then reposition it to the on-page name tag every few images. 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 a broadband connection. What processor and internet connection do you have with the RiscPC, Richard? -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn RISC OS Show Saturday 16 April 2011 http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Re: Speed
On 12 Feb 2011 Steve Fryatt wrote: On 11 Feb, Michael Drake wrote in message 51a418f545t...@netsurf-browser.org: 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. 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 a broadband connection. What processor and internet connection do you have with the RiscPC, Richard? Kinetic RiscPC 300 MHz (StrongARM). ADSL - PlusNet up to 2Mbps. Ethernet router/switch to Unipod interface. The page formats almost instantaneously on the Macbook with Firefox so I don't think line speed is a significant factor. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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 reformat the table, redraw the page and then reposition it to the on-page name tag every few images. Less than 5s with incremental reflow on. -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed
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 think that StrongEd is written in Assembler and I don't think that Fred Graute, the current maintainer, knows any 'C'? Or perhaps he is just insane.. :o)) Or perhaps I'm wrong.. -- Barry A. 'Don't stop doing things because you're getting old, otherwise you'll get old because you stop doing things!'
Re: Speed
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 would be insane. Perhaps that is the only way that a programmer knows? I think that StrongEd is written in Assembler and I don't think that Fred Graute, the current maintainer, knows any 'C'? Or perhaps he is just insane.. :o)) Or perhaps I'm wrong.. Insane's it. There was /some/ reason to write applications in assembler when all we had were 4MHz ARM2s. These days we don't, and we also have freely-available high-quality compilers. Writing things in C is /significantly/ easier than assember assuming it's not just some trivial toy. And it also means your code is useful elsewhere. Talking about the performance of NetSurf, a journalist on the Ziff Davis Network recently said NetSurf is one of the fastest web browsers you'll find: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/desktop-apps/2011/02/04/top-10-linux-browsers-how-i-rate-them-40091669/10/ (Although the chap is clearly confused about something, as he thinks plug-in support is a web standards compliance issue.) B.
Speed
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. Test 1 - following a link to near the bottom of a thumbnail index. Fresco 2.13 15s Oregano 1.1017s Netsurf r11515 28s Test 2 - following a link to the latest forum post from the top 10 latest posts page. Fresco 4s (when it worked properly) Oregano 6s Netsurf 17s 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, but the main reason seems to be that NetSurf is trying to reformat the whole page over and over again, taking note of dimensions only after the images have been downloaded. The other browsers do a quick format observing dimensions where given, download the images and then reformat if necessary. Oregano seems to fill in the visible part of the window first which is a nice feature, but in the above tests I waited for the page to finish downloading. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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 doing one or two comparisons on a 300MHz Kinetic RiscPC running OS 6.16. Test 1 - following a link to near the bottom of a thumbnail index. Fresco 2.13 15s Oregano 1.1017s Netsurf r11515 28s Test 2 - following a link to the latest forum post from the top 10 latest posts page. Fresco 4s (when it worked properly) Oregano 6s Netsurf 17s 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 written in C. but the main reason seems to be that NetSurf is trying to reformat the whole page over and over again, taking note of dimensions only after the images have been downloaded. 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 other browsers do a quick format observing dimensions where given, download the images and then reformat if necessary. Oregano seems to fill in the visible part of the window first which is a nice feature, but in the above tests I waited for the page to finish downloading. You know where the sources are, etc... B.
Re: Speed
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 a 300MHz Kinetic RiscPC running OS 6.16. Test 1 - following a link to near the bottom of a thumbnail index. [snip] Test 2 - following a link to the latest forum post from the top 10 latest posts page. [snip] How about URLs so people can see what those pages contain? Such as CCS elements which the older browsers will just ignore. 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 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. -- David J. Ruck email: dr...@druck.org.uk phone: +44(0)7974 108301
Re: Speed
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 written in C. OK, so that takes away one possible reason for the difference. but the main reason seems to be that NetSurf is trying to reformat the whole page over and over again, taking note of dimensions only after the images have been downloaded. 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 do far more than the other browsers. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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 do far more than the other browsers. As I said, you know where the sources are if you think you know better. B.
Re: Speed
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 out of their code. I've been doing one or two comparisons on a 300MHz Kinetic RiscPC running OS 6.16. [Snip] 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 you fallen foul of this? Maybe a comparison with the most recent release version might give a different result. -- _ Brian Jordan Virtual RPC-AdjustSA RISC OS 6.20 _
Re: 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 were 'any browser' compatible so Netsurf didn't have to do far more than the other browsers. I'm not sure that logically follows. NetSurf still has to know how to do far more than the other browsers, for pages that /do/ contain more modern features, and selective amnesia might be even more inefficient overall. (I don't know for sure as I don't know that much about the layout engine in NetSurf, but your logic seems faulty to me). Also, define any browser compatible. These days, I'd take that to mean lots of CSS and not Fresco-friendly; YMMV. -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn RISC OS Show Saturday 16 April 2011 http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Re: Speed
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. I've been doing one or two comparisons on a 300MHz Kinetic RiscPC running OS 6.16. Test 1 - following a link to near the bottom of a thumbnail index. [snip] Test 2 - following a link to the latest forum post from the top 10 latest posts page. [snip] How about URLs so people can see what those pages contain? Such as CCS elements which the older browsers will just ignore. Test 1 has no CSS or javascript. Test 2 has some inline style elements and javascript (http://www.minimarcos.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?,b= MM,v=display,m=1296606335,s=4,highlight=#num4). I don't think the javascript contributes to the formatting of the page - it's more concerned with confirming delete requests, which obviously doesn't work in NS. 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 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. According to Rob the older browsers were written in C anyway, so that's not a factor. I agree entirely with your second sentence for a whole raft of reasons, but execution speed isn't one of them. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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 to think it is. The progressive relayout/reflow it does while fetching is there for good reason. And even if it weren't doing it, NetSurf would probably still be slower. Just because a page doesn't use any of the features NetSurf has that Fresco etc do not does not mean that the assoicated code is never executed, or data structures magically shrink, etc. In the future, NetSurf should be faster; we already have plans on how we're going to do that, and outlines for it all are on the development wiki. B.
Re: Speed
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 javascript. I am using css to enhance the appearance, but not things like position:absolute. If I use javascript there's always an adequate noscript element. That doesn't apply to third party software like Blah, though I haven't updated it beyond version 7 for compatibility reasons. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Speed
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 you fallen foul of this? Maybe a comparison with the most recent release version might give a different result. Good point. I've run the tests with NS 2.6. The results were: test 1 - 48s (but 5s returning to the same page) test 2 - 19s (also 5s on return to the page). So the initial rendering is slower in 2.6 (much slower for the thumbnail index) but cacheing is a lot more effective. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that works.
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.
Speed of loading NetSurf
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 NetSurf may allow Netsurf to perform (when already running) much faster than Oregano2, is there any way of speeding up the loading/running of NetSurf? Both weigh in at about 5MB total of code. [Running NetSurf 2.1 (but any other version takes about the same length of time).] -- Cheers Roger If you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else.
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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. For me (NetSurf r7590, Iyonix RO 5.14) from clicking on !NetSurf's icon to the appearance of its iconbar icon takes under a second. Or were you referring to the time it takes to download a particular webpage? I find that that depends upon the vagaries of the internet - time for domain-name lookup, etc - and the size of the page. -- Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com) Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all the fonts]. That is odd. For me (NetSurf r7590, Iyonix RO 5.14) from clicking on !NetSurf's icon to the appearance of its iconbar icon takes under a second. Only six or seven seconds here on a strongarm RPC, NetSurf 2.1, RISC OS 4.02 -- Russell Hafter - Mailing Lists rh.li...@phone.coop Need a hotel? http://www.hrs.de/?client=en__MTcustomerId=416873103 (NB This link needs Firefox to work)
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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] Actually, I would like to suggest that the time taken for font scanning is now an issue since NS 2.1. It now takes several minutes to scan fonts on my home machine. Yes, I know its only on the first time NS is run, but I can't help thinking that this is all wasted time. After all, NS isn't going use all these fonts. Its only likely to need the standard set of ROM fonts. Maybe font scanning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts have been scanned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere by retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used? Regarding non-font-related load time I don't seem to have a problem on Virtual RPC. Its certainly not taking 30 seconds. Mike
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 a vast global history or collection of cookies. If you go to global history window and the cookie window and manager and delete unwanted stuff, does it get faster? Global history: [iconbar menu] Open Show global history Cookie manager: [iconbar menu] Open Show cookies Second response: Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at 6.4MB? -- Cheers Roger My friends think I'm surreal, but I've never been near a sword
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 NetSurf. You can find it by double clicking OpenChoices in NetSurf's application directory. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 the contents of your Choices directory for NetSurf. You can find it by double clicking OpenChoices in NetSurf's application directory. OK, have sent that privately Michael. This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files. -- Cheers Roger Oh no! I've only just managed to get it all in of kilter.
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. I'm not sure why we put that option in the Security section. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago. It seems that expiry doesn't work correctly. I filed a bug report on 3 October 2007: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1806826group_id=51719atid=464312 The Cache contains thumbnail images, which should be displayed in the expanded entries in Global history. However, the association, between url and thumbnail, appears to be lost when NetSurf is quit so that, apart from those relating to the current session, the thumbnails - and cache - are superfluous. I described this problem, on 3 Dec 2008, in message 03ccf80750.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk but, in the absence of any response, didn't file a bug report. Perhaps I should do so now? Tony
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 files.. The reason for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. I'm not sure why we put that option in the Security section. OK, thanks Michael. with the scrapfile cache deleted, and it set to 28 days, it loads in a matter of 2 seconds :-)) -- Cheers Roger Do you Yahoo? Not if I can help it, but I do yell the occasional 'Yabbadabba Doo'
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 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 cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago. If I understand it right, the site history setting controls how long things like thumbnails are kept in the cache. I think the global history is fixed at 28 days. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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 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 for the slow load and big cache is you have NetSurf set to remember a year of browsing history. In NetSurf's choices choose Security, and lower the value for Duration in Site history. The default it 28 days. In my copy of NetSurf, Site history is set to 1 day, but Global history still has entries for Yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, Last week, 2 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago. If I understand it right, the site history setting controls how long things like thumbnails are kept in the cache. I think the global history is fixed at 28 days. The User Guide says otherwise: Site history NetSurf records all the web sites you have visited as part of its global history feature. Entries can be deleted from the global history window directly and NetSurf allows the length of time items are kept in global history to be configured. Duration This option can be used to set the length of time entries are stored in global history, before they are deleted. Setting the duration to zero days turns off the global history feature. Tony
Re: Speed of loading NetSurf
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? 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, which is sadly a common misconceived practise (certainly on Iyonixes!) I did specify a !Caches to go along with !Scrap at one point; and a developer (whose name is clouded in an evening of real ale) has taken the idea on; but I don't believe anything actually uses it. B.
NetSurf rendering speed test
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 or something which affects the core. Thanks Chris
Re: NetSurf rendering speed test
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 On RISC OS, scrolling that page is just about as fast and smooth as any other page. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: NetSurf rendering speed test
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 Seems like any other well served page: loads in a couple of seconds and scrolls immediately and smoothly with page up/down or with window tools. Iyonix RISC OS 5.15 and NetSurf r7518 HTH [Snip] -- Tim Hill, www.timil.com
Re: NetSurf rendering speed test
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 to page down), so I want to know whether it is something in my code slowing it down or something which affects the core. About ten seconds here; RISC OS 5.14. With best wishes, Peter. -- Peter, \ / zfc Tm \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52 Anne\/ ____\ England. and / / \ | | |\ | / _\ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \__ pnyo...@ormail.co.uk
Re: NetSurf rendering speed test
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 other page: http://www.amigaimpact.org On RISC OS, scrolling that page is just about as fast and smooth as any other page. RiscPC 130Mb 4.02 NS r7542 - Slightly faster to load than the register, perfectly smooth scroll - interesting Franglais in some links :) -- |)[ |)ryn [vansmail to - brynev...@bryork.freeuk.com
Re: NetSurf rendering speed test
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 -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
