Phillip Jones wrote:
BJ wrote:
Leonidas Jones wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Leonidas Jones wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones schrieb:
/snip/
Phillip, I would be careful about making statements that you cannot
backup, it will damage your credibility.
10 times faster? Come on now! I tried disabling tabs, and opening
windows instead, with no gain in speed at all. The same links open in
new tabs just as fast as new windows.
Not to mention, I often have 10-20 tabs open at a time. Trying to keep
track of that many windows is a nightmare.
I realize this might not be your work model. If you only have a couple
or three open at a time, it probably works, and if it works for you,
that's great. But 10 times faster? Please provide some data to back
that up.
Lee
YMMV.
But for me its like the difference between night and day. And, it was
related to having Multiple windows open for going each link in a page
rather than reusing the same window.
I don't have the luxury of one of the newfangled 8 GB , quadcore
machines. I'm still using just a lowly 1.67GB PowerPC Machine. Plus I
have a Slow DSL Line (1 mb synchronous). so setting to open in same
window sped up for me as I said.
As you know, I don't do tabs.
Well, then how the heck do you know its 10 times faster???
I will detail the tests I ran.
I do have a fast iMac, with a fast cable connection.
I cleared the cache, and opened my my.myway start page. I opened 20
links in tabs, 10 were my.myway pages, and ten were external links.
I then cleared the cache, and repeated with opening new windows.
There was virtually no difference. The my.myway pages show the load
time, and most gave the tabs a slight edge, but from my standpoint, I
didn't actually notice a difference. All the pages opened quickly,
whether tabs or windows.
Knowing that you have an older Mac, I reran the same test on my PowerMac
G4, running Tiger. Its a 450 mhz with 640 MB of ram, far slower than
what you are running.
Same results, if anything, the tabs were faster, though it was not
noticeable as a user, within less then a second.
Interesting to note the old PowerMac pulled the pages just as fast as
the iMac Intel.
iMac Intel, OS X 10.6.2
3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo
4 GB RAM
PowerMac PPC G4
450 MHz
640 MB RAM
Same internet connection, same SM 2.0.2, same speed. I've always said
that older machines are far from dead as far as the internet is concerned.
Phillip, I respect what you are trying to do here. I agree with a lot of
it, some of it I disagree completely, but I respect it none the less.
But, when you say things like "10 times faster" with absolutely nothing
to back it up, and indeed, when it is just clearly so wrong, it damages
your credibility, and people are much less likely to take you seriously.
Lee
I think Phillip tends to exaggerate sometimes, so I don't take something
like "10 times faster" literally, but rather I think it means just
"faster" . . . how much actually is debatable, but your tests seem to be
more precise. Nevertheless, I do take him seriously, just with a grain
of salt.
On the topic of "faster", I think you put it well when you said "from my
standpoint, I didn't actually notice a difference". Most discussions on
browser speeds boil down to maybe a few seconds "faster", which a user
isn't really going to notice as significant.
There are, however, times when the speed IS noticeable, and in that
regard Phillip's testimony sometimes leaves me wondering . . . "was it
really all that much more fast, or is this '10 times' thing just a
matter of a few puny seconds?" I don't necessarily think it is "wrong"
for Phillip to do that, so I might disagree with you there, but I do
agree that it stretches the credibility of the statement if you take it
literally.
BJ
I based on my opinion *my systems* . I have two G-4's, a 500 Mb and. and
1.67GB PowerBook 17" slow compared to the Intel machines of today. plus
they just have one processor with one core, and cache speed is 100mb on
the G4-500, one 167 Mb on the 1.67GB. the G4-500 had 1.5 GB memory.
The 1.67Gb has 2 Gb.
Now if I had one of them new 8 core 4 GB machines, may be difference
would barely be noticeable. But on my machines the improvement when I
finally figured out how to reuse the same window was dramatic, for me 10
times was the difference.
Now if I could stop the SeaMonkey Crashes I'd be happy:
Since 10/29/2009 I've had ten Crashes. And I've actually had two or
three others That I cleared out before this.
In the entire history of SM 1.x including crashes caused by the full
circle crash reporter I had maybe 6 (in about 5-6 years). And I used
almost as many as many extensions and themes as I use now. Most are
triggered during reading email/news.
Incidentally they have the same Reason for crash:
EXC_BAD_ACCESS / KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
