Ed Mullen wrote:
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
>> GerardJan wrote:
>>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
Chris Ilias wrote:
On 12-05-23 6:33 AM, Daniel wrote:
Chris Ilias wrote:
On 12-05-22 6:03 AM, Daniel wrote:
Just exported my current places.sqlite and got a HTML file of 302.8KB.
I wonder what I've got in the 3.6MB file!!!
Mostly, your browsing history. Plus meta data, like when you last
vi
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Something to add to the discussion..
Tonight I've been downloading some fan fiction Video's. When I first
opened the Download Manager, it's screen (History) was blank!!
I's that right?
Yes!! That's why I wrote it!!
Tonight, without deleting
gjikkl wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Jahwohl master gjikkl!
MAster? no, I know computer and I can tell when someone talks nonsense and think
they know what are they talk about, you should be more humble and accept the
correction, because if you feel I'm making myself superior I'm not, I ju
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Jahwohl master gjikkl!
MAster? no, I know computer and I can tell when someone talks nonsense
and think they know what are they talk about, you should be more humble
and accept the correction, because if you feel I'm making myself
superior I'm not, I just know more
On 12-05-23 6:33 AM, Daniel wrote:
Chris Ilias wrote:
On 12-05-22 6:03 AM, Daniel wrote:
Just exported my current places.sqlite and got a HTML file of 302.8KB.
I wonder what I've got in the 3.6MB file!!!
Mostly, your browsing history. Plus meta data, like when you last
visited each site, how
Daniel wrote:
Something to add to the discussion..
Tonight I've been downloading some fan fiction Video's. When I first
opened the Download Manager, it's screen (History) was blank!!
I's that right?
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Daniel wrote:
So, o.k., in my old bookmarks.html file, that is 3.6MB I could have
still had all my history, but I just deleted my current History and then
re-exported the current places.sqlite file and it (HTML) still came out
as 302.8KB!!
OK, sounds right.
Note:- I
Daniel wrote:
So, o.k., in my old bookmarks.html file, that is 3.6MB I could have
still had all my history, but I just deleted my current History and then
re-exported the current places.sqlite file and it (HTML) still came out
as 302.8KB!!
OK, sounds right.
Note:- I've still got addresses in
Chris Ilias wrote:
On 12-05-22 6:03 AM, Daniel wrote:
Just exported my current places.sqlite and got a HTML file of 302.8KB.
I wonder what I've got in the 3.6MB file!!!
Mostly, your browsing history. Plus meta data, like when you last
visited each site, how many times you've visited each site
On 12-05-22 6:03 AM, Daniel wrote:
Just exported my current places.sqlite and got a HTML file of 302.8KB.
I wonder what I've got in the 3.6MB file!!!
Mostly, your browsing history. Plus meta data, like when you last
visited each site, how many times you've visited each site, and any
stored f
Daniel wrote:
MCBastos wrote:
So, if Daniel has a bookmarks.html file over 3.6 megs, particularly one
without many favicons, well, it probably contains an humongous number of
links.
Just exported my current places.sqlite and got a HTML file of 302.8KB.
I wonder what I've got in the 3.6MB f
MCBastos wrote:
So, if Daniel has a bookmarks.html file over 3.6 megs, particularly one
without many favicons, well, it probably contains an humongous number of
links.
Just exported my current places.sqlite and got a HTML file of 302.8KB.
I wonder what I've got in the 3.6MB file!!!
--
Dan
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 21/05/2012 12:32, Paul B. Gallagher told the world:
Daniel wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Daniel wrote :
Yes, it's grown to horrible proportions, about 3.6 megs. Shame on me.
My bookmarks file, places.sqlite, is 10 MB and not
MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 21/05/2012 12:32, Paul B. Gallagher told the world:
Daniel wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Daniel wrote :
Yes, it's grown to horrible proportions, about 3.6 megs. Shame on me.
My bookmarks file, places.sqlite, is 10 MB and not causing me problems!!
M
Interviewed by CNN on 21/05/2012 12:32, Paul B. Gallagher told the world:
> Daniel wrote:
>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote :
>>>
>>> Yes, it's grown to horrible proportions, about 3.6 megs. Shame on me.
>>
>> My bookmarks file, places.sqlite, is 10 MB and not causing me problems!!
>
>
Daniel wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Daniel wrote :
Yes, it's grown to horrible proportions, about 3.6 megs. Shame on me.
My bookmarks file, places.sqlite, is 10 MB and not causing me problems!!
Mine's over 20 MB, no problems.
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Pau
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Daniel wrote :
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
gjikklwrote :
Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has
been initiated and they say will continue to improv
Daniel wrote :
> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>> gjikkl wrote :
>>
>>> Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>> Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has
>>> been initiated and they say will continue to improve ove
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
gjikkl wrote :
Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
initiated and they say will continue to improve over time, for now he
have to settle for a F
Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote:
Daniel wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
initiated and they say will continue to improve over time, for now he
have to s
Interviewed by CNN on 20/05/2012 01:10, Libertarian Lilly told the world:
> gjikkl wrote :
>
>> Jean Zebloski wrote:
>>> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>>
>> Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
>> initiated and they say will
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote :
> gjikkl wrote:
>
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
>>
>> Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
>
> Pray tell, what pages are opened in those 18 tabs?
>
Here's 10
Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote :
> Daniel wrote:
>> gjikkl wrote:
>>> Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>> Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
>>> initiated and they say will continue to improve over ti
gjikkl wrote :
> Jean Zebloski wrote:
>> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>
> Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
> initiated and they say will continue to improve over time, for now he
> have to settle for a FAT SEAMONKEY, t
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote :
>>
>> Gerard had to have mis-typed. No modern PC has anything less than 512
>> Mb to 1 Gb of RAM.
>
> GerardJan frequently does. He has also freely admitted that he
> occasionally forgets his medication. ;-)
>
>> My PC (one of five) has 4 GIGA-bytes of RAM
Ed Mullen wrote :
> Gerard had to have mis-typed. No modern PC has anything less than 512
> Mb to 1 Gb of RAM.
>
> My PC (one of five) has 4 GIGA-bytes of RAM.
>
resolved, yes
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla
"Paul B. Gallagher" wrote :
> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>
>> But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
>> how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
>
> If he has only 4 MB of RAM, he's running a wristwatch, not a computer.
> He must've meant 4 GB.
>
Of course.
Hey, I still hav
Daniel wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
initiated and they say will continue to improve over time, for now he
have to settle for a FAT SEAMONKEY, t
Daniel wrote:
> Beauregard, just for a further test, so you would know how much
> graphics, etc, is loaded in the viewed pages, I just opened twelve tabs
> all addressed to http://www.seamonkey-project.org/. vsize 668MB ..
> which is roughly the same as what I was getting for my earlier three
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
MCBastos wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty told the world:
The reason I asked is because your half-gigabyte is way far and above
what I get from a similar number of tabs. If one is checking memory
used by *tabs*, one does not normally load up a dozen different pages
gjikkl wrote:
Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
initiated and they say will continue to improve over time, for now he
have to settle for a FAT SEAMONKEY, that's getting t
MCBastos wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty told the world:
>> The reason I asked is because your half-gigabyte is way far and above
>> what I get from a similar number of tabs. If one is checking memory
>> used by *tabs*, one does not normally load up a dozen different pages
>> filled with images a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM
used.
Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
Pray tell, what pages are opened in tho
Interviewed by CNN on 18/05/2012 16:23, Beauregard T. Shagnasty told the
world:
> The reason I asked is because your half-gigabyte is way far and above
> what I get from a similar number of tabs. If one is checking memory used
> by *tabs*, one does not normally load up a dozen different pages fi
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
Pray tell, what pages are opened in those 18 tabs?
You want URLs? Shit, I have no
gjikkl wrote:
INstead why don't you ask yourself: "am I making stupid assumptions
based on information I recollected myself as true?" How can you assume a
PC would have 4MB of RAM? not even a Cell phone has that little, if you
don't know anything about computers I'd suggest to shut up and inform
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
gjikkl. Just for funnsies, How about opening just 12 tabs and reporting
on a more comparable
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
Pray tell, what pages are opened in those 18 tabs?
Minor detail !
__
gjikkl wrote:
INstead why don't you ask yourself: "am I making stupid assumptions based on
information I recollected myself as true?" How can you assume a PC would have
4MB of RAM? not even a Cell phone has that little, if you don't know anything
about computers I'd suggest to shut up and inform
gjikkl wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> gjikkl wrote:
>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM
used.
>>>
>>> Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
>>
>> Pray tell, what pages are opened in those 18 ta
gjikkl wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
gjikkl. Just for funnsies, How about opening just 12 tabs and reporting
on a more comparable case.
__
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
gjikkl wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
Pray tell, what pages are opened in those 18 tabs?
Sorry I can't.
__
gjikkl wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
>
> Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
Pray tell, what pages are opened in those 18 tabs?
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
___
INstead why don't you ask yourself: "am I making stupid assumptions
based on information I recollected myself as true?" How can you assume a
PC would have 4MB of RAM? not even a Cell phone has that little, if you
don't know anything about computers I'd suggest to shut up and inform
yourself bef
Ed Mullen wrote:
Win 7 32-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 12 tabs open. 155,740 Kb of RAM used.
Win 7 64-bit, 4Gb RAM, SM 2.9.1. 18 tabs open. 519,296 Kb of RAM used.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozill
Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
Because it makes ineficient use of cache, but works toward that has been
initiated and they say will continue to improve over time, for now he
have to settle for a FAT SEAMONKEY, that's getting thiner VERY SLO
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
tab,
isn't that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4
Rufus wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
tab,
isn't that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physica
Ed Mullen wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
isn't that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
sinc
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
If he has only 4 MB of RAM, he's running a wristwatch, not a
computer. He must've meant 4 GB.
4Mb is /massive/, man : the first computer on which
I worked had 8K ! (Clary 404, sequential architecture,
but a very powerful instruction set : one of my 3rd-
year student
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
But if GerardJan has (only) 4Mbytes of physical memory,
how does he fit that 41 meg tab into it?
If he has only 4 MB of RAM, he's running a wristwatch, not a computer.
He must've meant 4 GB.
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallaghe
Ed Mullen wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open
tab,
isn't that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
sinc
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
isn't that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
sincerely,
Huh? 41me
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
isn't that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
sincerely,
Huh? 41megs>> 4Mbyte
No, 41 m
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
isn't that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
sincerely,
Huh? 41megs >> 4Mbyte
No, 41 m
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote :
> GerardJan wrote:
>> Libertarian Lilly wrote:
>>> Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab,
>>> isn't that WAY excessive?
>>>
>> good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
>>
>> sincerely,
>>
> Huh? 41megs >> 4Mbyte
>
No, 41 mega
GerardJan wrote:
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab, isn't
that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
sincerely,
Huh? 41megs >> 4Mbyte
___
support-seamonkey ma
Libertarian Lilly wrote:
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab, isn't
that WAY excessive?
good enough for me, i have 4Mbyte physical memory
sincerely,
--
~Vink
http://vinkesteijn.info
mailto://g.j.f.vinkeste...@hotmail.es
http://ciudadpatricia.com
on Windows7
Come to think of it, if SM is using about 41 megs of RAM per open tab, isn't
that WAY excessive?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
NoOp wrote:
On 05/15/2012 10:58 AM, chicagofan wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
about:memory will show you all of the details.
What are "dirty" heaps? :)
bj
You mean 'heap-dirty'?
Hover yo
On 05/15/2012 10:58 AM, chicagofan wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
>> On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
>>> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>>
>>
>> about:memory will show you all of the details.
>>
>>
>
> What are "dirty" heaps? :)
> bj
You mean 'heap-dirty'?
H
NoOp wrote:
On 05/15/2012 10:58 AM, chicagofan wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
about:memory will show you all of the details.
What are "dirty" heaps? :)
bj
You mean 'heap-dirty'?
Hover yo
NoOp wrote:
On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
about:memory will show you all of the details.
What are "dirty" heaps? :)
bj
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-sea
NoOp wrote :
> On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
>> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>>
>
> about:memory will show you all of the details.
>
>
>
Interesting, thanks.
I had about a dozen tabs open at the time, that may have caused it.
A lot of thi
Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
On 05/14/2012 05:22 PM, Jean Zebloski wrote:
> Why would Seamonkey be chewing up 430 megs of RAM all the time?
>
about:memory will show you all of the details.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozill
67 matches
Mail list logo
