Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:07:32 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Taming Netscape Navigator? Message-ID: <200203051407.g25E7WF10805@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <20020301201318.C3880@over-yonder.net> from "Matthew D. Fuller" at "Sat, 02 Mar 2002 02:13:18 %2B0000" References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0203011634360.2796-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <3C7FB956.18428.510B414@localhost> <20020301201318.C3880@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, 2nd March 2002, "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote: >Opera is nifty. Pretty clean, reasonably efficient. The stupid >all-windows-in-one UI must die a fiery death though. It works great if >you've got 2 or 3 open. It's useless when you get more than 5 or 6, both >because it becomes impossible to find the one you want quickly, and >because Opera gets draggingly slow as you open more. Opera 6.x is even >SLOWER, and non-trivially buggier, so I'm stuck on 5. How interesting! As soon as I saw Opera's tabbed interface, I was sold. The few times since then that I've had to use Netscape with its one-page- per-window scheme have been tediously painful. I can't imagine going back. With Netscape I could usefully open maybe 30 windows, and I would lose them in the clutter. With Opera, I can open about 100 or so. After that, it gets a bit slow, but with a fast Athlon and half a gig of ram, it's fine. Oh, and I use 5.0, not the buggy 6.0 alpha test demos they've released. If you are careful not to do a few particular things, the uptime of opera is a month, perhaps 2 months. Enough to suffice. The thing I really need now is a good HTML filter to remove some of the more repulsive web garbage (popup windows, flashing fonts, scrolling messages in the status bar, target="new" on links, etc). Just never quite get around to writing one. Now, about your assertion that dual CPUs are more wonderful than wonderful, consider the effect of adding a cpu usage limiting scheduler that caused processes that were using 50% or more of the cpu to sleep 1 clock tick out of 2. Wouldn't that be just like two cpus at half the speed? Doesn't that mean I could fake up a dual 700 from my Athlon 1400 for little more than a bit of kernel hackery? Maybe your dual PPRO really is obsolete. :-) Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203051407.g25E7WF10805>