🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Holland <myk@psinet.net.au> writes:
>Dave Fitch wrote:
>> Has anyone else noticed netscape 3.0 runs significantly slower than
>> 2.0??  I don't think it's my imagination! 
>....
>> Maybe 3.0 is a lot more demanding on memory?
>> I've got 8Mb + 16 Mb swap, 1.2.13 kernel, Xfree86 3.1.2 (i think?).
>
>Ouch! 8MB is the bare minimum for running X-windows.
>Memory is definitely your problem. Get another 16MB (~$150)
>I thought Netscape 2 needed at least 12MB.
>But RAM has got so cheap, dont even think of less than 16MB.
>Forget the CPU - memory is what counts.

(I knew someone would reply and say: get more memory)
Yeah it's in the pipeline.  I have an old motherboard with 8 x
1MB 30 pin SIMMs so want to upgrade the motherboard and shift
to 72 pin etc (ie. rather more than $150).  But for now, I'm more
interested in ways to best use the memory I do have.

>Also, turn off java & javascript to save memory.

I'll give it a try.  So have you found 3.0 slower than 2.0??

Dave.
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
|      .                                                                  |
|  _--_|\                    Rev. David Fitch                             |
| /      \  darius@matra.com.au           http://www.matra.com.au/~darius |
| \_.--._/ "I am minuspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused |
|       v   you such perricabobulations".  E Blackadder to Samuel Johnson |
|_________________________________________________________________________|