On Mar 8, 3:30*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
ters.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little module
there, there's little or no overall optimization like you'd have
if it were a regular commercial product. That's because you have
module A which calls module B which calls module C ... which
calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In a
commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be
linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my
breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an
older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've
thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what?
It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run
programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an assembly-language
programmer on the PC, where I could write really small programs
(often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM program--remember those?)
that executed really fast. Today's software, both OS and
applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous, so we have to
resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half
a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a
64- bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. * *32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the kernel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that's likely it. While you can address 4GB with 32 bits,
they have some address space reserved for other than system RAM