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?
18 matches
Mail list logo
