Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Richard Porter
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", ha

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Richard Porter
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

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Rob Kendrick
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

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Richard Porter
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/ mai

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Richard Porter
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 the

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Steve Fryatt
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 t

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Brian Jordan
In article <66463fa051.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>, 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

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Rob Kendrick
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 hav

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Richard Porter
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

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread David J. Ruck
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

Re: Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Rob Kendrick
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

Speed

2011-02-04 Thread Richard Porter
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