The Mozzila developer Happy to anounce the New Firefox3 beta4 that show, she need after an extensive testing only ~220MB RAM in usage and after quiting the browser he give all RAM free - except ~90MB ---*LOL* The Firefox2 need under usage ~280MB RAM and give all Free - except ~190MB ..........
The actual IE need at start ~300MB and going under usage to ~500MB and give not one free after quiting .....
This the "modern" Browser ... I think we can VERY happy with the RAM usage of OWB !
i know OWB is not high-optimized like FF3 [or even FF2] but many user complayn why it use much RAM and run with problems on classic systems with 128MB ram .......
[and the same user wish mozilla/FF then for his system and dont know that with 128MB today you are on the bad side ...]
The Mozzila developer Happy to anounce the New Firefox3 beta4 that show, she need after an extensive testing only ~220MB RAM in usage and after quiting the browser he give all RAM free - except ~90MB ---*LOL* The Firefox2 need under usage ~280MB RAM and give all Free - except ~190MB ..........
The actual IE need at start ~300MB and going under usage to ~500MB and give not one free after quiting .....
Hi R-TEAM,
What you fail to mention is, IF these were converted to PPC code, they'd be FOUR to NINE times BIGGER!!!!!
That's what makes AWeb/Voyager/IBrowse soooooo incomprehensibly amazing (Amiga) at what they can/do achieve!
Support Amiga Fantasy cases!!! How to program: 1. Start with lots and lots of 0's. 10. Add 1's, liberally. "Details for OS 5 will be made public in the fourth quarter of 2007, ..." - Bill McEwen Whoah!!! He spoke, a bit late.
What you fail to mention is, IF these were converted to PPC code, they'd be FOUR to NINE times BIGGER!!!!!
Should be so accroding to your logic, but firefox package (installed size) is only 4 megs larger on ppc than on on x86 (28.5 vs 24.4).
Jack
"the expression, 'atonal music,' is most unfortunate--it is on a par with calling flying 'the art of not falling,' or swimming 'the art of not drowning.'. A. Schoenberg
That's odd, considering how much bigger the common C: commands are in AOS4.0.
I couldn't find a list of the sizes of the C: commands of AOS1.3 and AOS 3.0 on the internet to compare, just can see that the files are bigger.
Support Amiga Fantasy cases!!! How to program: 1. Start with lots and lots of 0's. 10. Add 1's, liberally. "Details for OS 5 will be made public in the fourth quarter of 2007, ..." - Bill McEwen Whoah!!! He spoke, a bit late.
That's odd, considering how much bigger the common C: commands are in AOS4.0.
Odd indeed. Number of files (firefox on Debian comparison) is equal. Maybe due to usage of shared objects the difference doesn't behave according to your ratio (which is correct for the case of simpliest C program compiled and stripped on Linux/x86 vs AIX/PPC, 1:10) Lets wait for someone with more insight to explain this.
Jack
"the expression, 'atonal music,' is most unfortunate--it is on a par with calling flying 'the art of not falling,' or swimming 'the art of not drowning.'. A. Schoenberg
That's odd, considering how much bigger the common C: commands are in AOS4.0.
The OS4 versions are using clib2 (statically linked) and some other common, and partially even useless, code statically linked into each of them.
I've moved the common code into newlib.library and rebuild some of them, for example C:Info is 9144 bytes now, Type 4724 bytes, AddBuffers 2180, DiskChange 1672, ...
yes but owb takes also 800MB for some pages.. and it needs it ONLY for ONE page (tab).. so is not the same...
I got most of OWB working without allocating memoroy for the complete pages/frames, but not everything (for example the selection borders around text input and textareas are wrong), i.e. it has even more display errors than the normal version ...
eheh cool! i've hust bought a virtual server and i'm set up a space where we (and any other people wants..) can put svn and all other development stuffs. I'm plan to set up also a nightly build system. but now let's wait for Duoduo and see.. yes we could have firefox 3 in in a future.. but now is better than nothing..
I got most of OWB working without allocating memoroy for the complete pages/frames, but not everything (for example the selection borders around text input and textareas are wrong), i.e. it has even more display errors than the normal version ...
1. Is this a change that will benefit other platforms too? (besides Amiga?)
2. How much memory will be saved? (for example)
3. Will this change potentially make it easier to implement some form of tabs?
The Mozzila developer Happy to anounce the New Firefox3 beta4 that show, she need after an extensive testing only ~220MB RAM in usage and after quiting the browser he give all RAM free - except ~90MB ---*LOL* The Firefox2 need under usage ~280MB RAM and give all Free - except ~190MB ..........
The actual IE need at start ~300MB and going under usage to ~500MB and give not one free after quiting .....
Hi R-TEAM,
What you fail to mention is, IF these were converted to PPC code, they'd be FOUR to NINE times BIGGER!!!!!
That's what makes AWeb/Voyager/IBrowse soooooo incomprehensibly amazing (Amiga) at what they can/do achieve!
Not really, that 220MB RAM is mostly data, not code. Data size is (generally) not dependent on the CPU type.
1. Is this a change that will benefit other platforms too? (besides Amiga?)
Could be added to the SDL implementation as well, but it's very unlikely that these changes still work with Doduo.
Quote:
2. How much memory will be saved? (for example)
Page size - visible size, for example 35 MB for a 1000x10000 page in a 1024x768 window. Of course scrolling is much slower that way since it has to (re)render the new parts instead of just blitting the already rendered parts into the window.
Quote:
3. Will this change potentially make it easier to implement some form of tabs?
Page size - visible size, for example 35 MB for a 1000x10000 page in a 1024x768 window. Of course scrolling is much slower that way since it has to (re)render the new parts instead of just blitting the already rendered parts into the window.
How do other (top-notch) browsers store the data? From my experience (look-and-feel) opera is faster and much more memory-hungry than mozillas on linux althoug it uses Qt vs. faster gtk in mozillas.
Jack
"the expression, 'atonal music,' is most unfortunate--it is on a par with calling flying 'the art of not falling,' or swimming 'the art of not drowning.'. A. Schoenberg
No other browser renders the complete page, if they would you could kill them with something as simple as <table width=15000 height=71000><tr><td>test</table> since it would need more than 4 GB RAM (3.96 GB for the page and more than enough for the rest of the browser, with a page which needs more than 4 GB itself you'd get a 32 bit overflow calculating the size for the page gfx and it would crash because of that instead), which is impossible on 32 bit CPUs.
Quote:
From my experience (look-and-feel) opera is faster and much more memory-hungry than mozillas on linux althoug it uses Qt vs. faster gtk in mozillas.
The Opera engine is simply much faster, especially it's JavaScript, the GUI doesn't make any noticeable difference. WebKit is about as slow in the KDE4 Konqueror as in OWB. SDL adds some overhead in OWB, but it's not very much.
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
Donate
