In article , Steve Fryatt
wrote:
> > If you're not a programmer, then consider contacting Steve Fryatt and
> > persuading him of your correctness.
> Not much persuasion necessary: this has niggled me for ages, too. :-)
> r11081 tries to use a "modified moving average", which if I remember my
> m
On 14 Dec, Daniel Silverstone wrote in message
<20101214115541.gb3...@digital-scurf.org>:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:52:45AM +, David H Wild wrote:
> > The time remaining is always calculated as if the current downloading
> > speed would remain constant at the present value. This is unli
On 15/12/10 03:21, Richard Porter wrote:
On 14 Dec 2010 David J. Ruck wrote:
On 14/12/2010 09:52, David H Wild wrote:
The time remaining is always calculated as if the current downloading speed
would remain constant at the present value. This is unlikely to be true as
speeds tend to vary consi
On 14 Dec 2010 David J. Ruck wrote:
> On 14/12/2010 09:52, David H Wild wrote:
>> Netsurf is improving regularly, for which I am very grateful, but there is
>> still a "silly" with the display of progress when a file is being
>> downloaded.
>>
>> The time remaining is always calculated as if the c
On 14/12/2010 09:52, David H Wild wrote:
Netsurf is improving regularly, for which I am very grateful, but there is
still a "silly" with the display of progress when a file is being
downloaded.
The time remaining is always calculated as if the current downloading speed
would remain constant at t
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:52:45AM +, David H Wild wrote:
> The time remaining is always calculated as if the current downloading speed
> would remain constant at the present value. This is unlikely to be true as
> speeds tend to vary considerably and so the time remaining figure is not
> reall
