Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Lee wrote:
On 7/10/17, Paul B. Gallagher <[email protected]>
wrote:
Lee wrote:
I was really hoping to skip the discussion of exactly what
"little benefit" means & go straight to how to decide _for
yourself_ if disabling cache is a Good Idea or no.
Fine. Try it, and if you like it better, stick with it. If not,
revert. That's how I'd decide.
Really?! You wouldn't even try to look at any performance data?
Whatever works for you, but I've seen too many instances where
people see what they want/expect to see instead of what's really
there, so I like looking at the numbers instead of going by feel.
I would happily look at performance data for comparable systems under
comparable conditions. Got any of that? My point was that systems are so
varied and conditions are so varied that it's impossible to make a fair
comparison. All we have is empirical results for our own systems. And
ultimately that's the bottom line -- is this user happier or not?
Paul-1, Lee-0. I'll have to agree with Paul on this one. For example,
Lee, if you took two identically built computers (same models, specs,
etc) - like Paul was describing - even taking it to the point where both
systems were connected to the same router, in the same house, one could
have loads of software on it, rarely maintained, while the other could
have limited use and constantly maintained, and then did performance
tests on those two computers, well, most likely, your results could vary
so greatly that you'd start to question whether those two computers were
identical models or not. Like Paul suggests, you truly need
apples-to-apples type testing here, not just looking at one computer's
performance test and then draw a conclusion by saying, 'All systems
should make this change to it.' I sorta wish it was that simple. It's
not. But, as for myself, I kinda enjoy the challenge. :)
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
