Subject:
|
Re: hey ms windows folks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:17:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
145 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > I was a bit disappointed about the load-time. The whole push for this
> > thing (reading the website lit) is the lightweightedness of it.
>
> Like how long of a load time?
>
> Mozilla seems to take long (15 seconds?) to load the first time I run it
> (per user) after building, but then takes 4-6 seconds. Perhaps K-Meleon has
> this property too.
It's about 10 seconds to launch K-Meleon. That's after I've launched and
relaunched a few times, so most of the files should be in the disk-cache.
I've got a tempermental Gateway e-4200. That's a PII 400MHz, with 128MB
RAM. Typical hard-drive.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
| (...) Huh. How long does NS4 take, for comparison? (IE of course cheats, by loading a bunch of itself at system startup time. One of the advantages (all other concerns aside) of tight OS integration.) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
| (...) Like how long of a load time? Mozilla seems to take long (15 seconds?) to load the first time I run it (per user) after building, but then takes 4-6 seconds. Perhaps K-Meleon has this property too. (24 years ago, 24-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
