On 14 Oct 2012 as I do recall,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:29:33PM +0100, Martin Bazley wrote:
> > The thing which is *really* annoying about using NetSurf on a USB drive
> > is the enormous amount of time it takes to quit - up to thirty seconds
> > on a bad day!
[s
In article
,
Chris Young wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:31:48 +0100, Rob Kendrick wrote:
> Is this a RISC OS-only feature, as thumbnails get lost here after
> quitting?
Yes, but it's broken on RISC OS anyway.
--
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:31:48 +0100, Rob Kendrick wrote:
> > I'm at a loss to understand exactly what 'bitmaps' NetSurf could have
> > 'modified' in the course of the session, or where it's 'saving' them to.
> > All I know is that this is a horrendously inefficient operation!
>
> They're probably
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 02:08:09PM +, Tony Moore wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2012, Rob Kendrick wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I'd like some feedback on this. Specifically;
> >
> > - Are people noticing any difference in load times?
>
> SARPC / RISC OS 6.20:
>netsurf-2012-10-02_20-23-02 17 secon
On 13 Oct 2012, Rob Kendrick wrote:
[snip]
> I'd like some feedback on this. Specifically;
>
> - Are people noticing any difference in load times?
SARPC / RISC OS 6.20:
netsurf-2012-10-02_20-23-02 17 seconds
NetSurf #461 15 seconds.
RPCEmu 0.8.9 / RISC OS 4.39:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:29:33PM +0100, Martin Bazley wrote:
> The thing which is *really* annoying about using NetSurf on a USB drive
> is the enormous amount of time it takes to quit - up to thirty seconds
> on a bad day! This seems to be dependent on the amount of browsing done
> beforehand.
The following bytes were arranged on 13 Oct 2012 by cj :
> In article <20121013172217.gg7...@pepperfish.net>,
>Rob Kendrick wrote:
> > I would expect to see the most significant improvement on a
> > StrongARM RiscPC using the on-board IDE where the IO is a
> > significant bottleneck and time
In article <20121013172217.gg7...@pepperfish.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> I would expect to see the most significant improvement on a
> StrongARM RiscPC using the on-board IDE where the IO is a
> significant bottleneck and time to decompress insignificant.
I would think there would be a signifi
Hi,
We recently ported the Squeeze executable compressor to run natively
under Linux so we could squeeze the NetSurf !RunImage. This shrinks the
size of it from around 6.6MB to around 3.8MB.
I'd like some feedback on this. Specifically;
- Are people noticing any difference in load time
