In article <mpro.lgk2k204hzm9s01kl.li...@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt <li...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote: > On 13 Feb, Brian Bailey wrote in message > <51a4df40f4bbai...@argonet.co.uk>:
> > I really look forward eagerly to each upgrade to NetSurf and very much > > appreciate the effort put in by the dedicated few, but I am more than a > > little baffled by the above modification. What is its purpose, please? > The background needs to be cleared to a known state at some point, > unless the subsequent redraw is guaranteed to fill the whole area. > NetSurf's doing the job itself, which is usually far less intrusive than > asking the Wimp to do it for us. Without at all fully understanding what you have said, it does, to my mind, beg the question, if the Wimp is perhaps faster and perhaps more more efficient, in this case, then why ask NetSurf to do the job? Just asking! > I don't know the background behind r11644, but I'd imagine that there's a > pretty good reason for the change. > > Clearing the background to white and the redraw 'seems' to take ages. > Can you give us an example site that shows this and tell us what > hardware and screen mode you're using? Again, I can't see a problem > here: there's no visible flicker with the new build. Ah, now I understand what I have been observing. On my machine, OS 4.02, there was a momentary flicker prior to r11644. Never gave it a thought before.
