On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:29:03 +0100
Steve Fryatt wrote:
> There's "temporary", and "temporary". Also, until someone (Adam
> Richardson, IIRC) came up with Cache, RISC OS didn't have defined
> "somewhere" to store "non-transient internal data that isn't
> choices". As such, Scrap seems to be the
On 29 May, Paul Stewart wrote in message
<54662.1243577...@phawfaux.co.uk>:
> On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick wrote:
>
> > And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc,
>
> But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it
> are temporary file
On 28 May 2009, Tony Moore wrote:
[snip]
> [I] didn't file a bug report. Perhaps I should do so now?
Done
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2798361&group_id=51719&atid=464312
Tony
Paul Stewart wrote:
But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it are
temporary files?
Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear logical.
That's as maybe, but putting !Scrap in a RAM disc is an archaic practice
dating back to the use of RISC OS 2 and floppy
Paul Stewart wrote:
> On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick wrote:
> > And is another reason why people shouldn't keep !Scrap in a RAM disc,
> But isn't the whole idea of !Scrap, that all the files stored inside it
> are temporary files? Therefore storing !Scrap in a RAMDisc would appear
> logi
On Fri 29/05/09 00:12 , Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100
> Steve Fryatt wrote:
> > > Maybe font canning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts
> have
> > > been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space
> somewhere
> > > y retaining font data for fonts t
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:31 +0100
Steve Fryatt wrote:
> > Maybe font canning could be filtered? And also, once the fonts have
> > been canned where is the data cached? Is it wasting space somewhere
> > y retaining font data for fonts that will probably never be used?
>
> It's stored in !Scra
On 28 May, Mike Hobbs wrote in message
<0f3d6fb4640334e3166743f34ffcad444aa63...@localhost>:
> In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> Roger wrote:
>
> > Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
> > seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,
>Tony Moore wrote:
> > On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> > > In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
> > >Roger Darlington wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > > This also promp
In article <715a976250.old_coas...@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,
Tony Moore wrote:
> On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> > In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
> >Roger Darlington wrote:
> [snip]
> > > This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
>
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington wrote:
>
>> OK, have sent that privately Michael.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
>> contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files..
>
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington wrote:
[snip]
> > This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
> > contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.
>
> The reason for the slow load and big cache is
In article <55618f6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
Roger Darlington wrote:
> OK, have sent that privately Michael.
Thanks.
> This also prompted me to look in ScrapDirs.WWW.NetSurf.Cache. This
> contains a whopping 202MB in 5866 files.
The reason for the slow load and big cache is you ha
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington wrote:
>
>> Second response:
>> Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at
>> 6.4MB?
>
> That shouldn't matter.
>
> Please could you zip up and e-mail me the
In article <0a92786250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
Roger Darlington wrote:
> Second response:
> Could it be the size of my NetSurf Memory cache, which is set at
> 6.4MB?
That shouldn't matter.
Please could you zip up and e-mail me the contents of your Choices
directory for NetSurf. You c
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington wrote:
>
>> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
>> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.
>
> This can happen if you have a vast gl
On 28 May 2009, Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>Roger Darlington wrote:
>
>> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
>> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.
>
> This can happen if you have a vast gl
In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> Roger wrote:
> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
> including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
> the fonts].
[snip]
In article <52ef6d6250.wra...@wra1th.plus.com>, Gavin
Wraith wrote:
> In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> you
> wrote:
> > Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems
> > to take 30 seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less
> > that 3 seconds. [I am not including the
In article <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
Roger Darlington wrote:
> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds.
This can happen if you have a vast global history or collection of
cookies. If you go
In message <28366c6250.roger...@rogerarm.freeuk.com> you wrote:
> Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
> seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
> including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
> the fonts].
That is o
Loading/Running NetSurf (on an Iyonix at least) seems to take 30
seconds whereas running Oregano2 takes less that 3 seconds. [I am not
including the time that NetSurf, when first run, uses looking at all
the fonts].
Whilst I appreciate that the 10 times greater length of time spent
running Ne
22 matches
Mail list logo
