Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2021 07:25, Paul wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb
HDD. It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running
Win10 64bit.

Uh,oh!

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Puma/...20A6-6310.html

Memory channels: 1 ===
Channel width (bits): 64
Supported memory: DDR3L-1866
DIMMs per channel: 2 ===

It's not dual channel, according to that.
This means there is no bandwidth increase
from stuffing the second slot.

All that stuffing the second slot does,
is increase the overall amount of RAM.
For which you have to decide, whether you
were "short" of RAM previously.

The above issue is also a danger with dual channel CPUs.
The designer of the motherboard reserves the right to
only wire up one of the two channels, and put two DIMMs
on that single channel. Doing so, reduces power consumption
on the memory controller, by two or three watts, improving
battery life. Part of that, is things like terminator power
for the bus (the bus design varies from one generation to
the next, so I will refrain from predictions on this).

But the above information suggests that, unless you
really really need to double the RAM, it's just not
worth it. For example, some people like to keep 200 tabs
open on their browser (for work say), and those are the
people who will tell you how wonderful all the extra RAM was.
Well, their processor is now slow as molasses, lugging
all that junk around. As long as the web pages are
not allowed to update themselves, the CPU loading
will be less.


It seems that a range of CPUs were fitted to the E21-521 and that some
had fitted the A8-6410. This is an interesting article where it seem bus
speeds went down after fitting a second module.

https://community.amd.com/t5/process...eed/m-p/404364

Another article said that they really ought to be matching pairs,
including manufacturer, in order to use any dual channel feature,
assuming that is an option for Harry's laptop.

And thus it was always so.

Previous sockets going back, had this problem too (reduced
settings to ensure stability with all slots filled).

This is AMD.

Intel used two cycle Command, to hide this on some of their
stuff. Virtually all of the hardware now runs two cycle Command,
just because of the speeds involved. Two cycle command, leaves
extra Tsu to clock edge.

If the motherboard had been wired with two independent channels,
that's when adding the second RAM stick, makes no difference
to settings. As the two sticks are completely independent of
one another. In this case, the bus is shared. One bus, two sticks.
And it stays this way, since the wiring plan is "sealed in copper".
It's not magically dynamic.

CPU -------+----+ Not a dual channel motherboard.
| | The OPs config. Load power only
SODIMM1 SODIMM2 increases by autorefresh power level
of second DIMM (~1W). Settings drop.

+------- CPU -------+ A dual channel product, the DIMMs
| | have no effect on one another.
SODIMM1 SODIMM2 Commissioning the second bus, increases
power consumption by a watt or two just
for bus termination power and pad power.

Paul

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 15/01/2021 22:48, Rambo wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 21:55:18 GMT, Harry Bloomfield, Esq.
wrote:

Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

Yes...installing another similar spec SODIMM will enable dual channel
mode. You can never have enough RAM.


Putting more than 4GB in a 32 bit Win 7 machine was pointless.

Not sure if the same applies to Win 10/32 bit.

But his is 64 bit, stupid.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:32:41 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID:

On 16/01/2021 15:48, TimW wrote:
On 15/01/2021 22:08, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/01/2021 21:55, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
...
check by opening task manager when you have open a "typical" set of
applications, and clicking on the Performance tab, and then the
"Memory" entry on the left. Look at the "Committed" amount at the
bottom of the window. If that is less than the physical ram, then
there will be no particular gain in having more.


I am no expert but I don't think that's how Windows manages memory. If
you put more RAM in then the same system will use more RAM, and work
better. At least that's how Windows used to be before I lost interest in
it.

The commit charge is the total amount of virtual memory currently in
use. In win 10 it tends to show as two numbers separated by a slash. So
currently my system is showing 26.8G/36.7G. The second is basically the
sum of the physical ram and any space available in page files(s) (I have
32GB RAM, and a bit over 4GB available in page files).

The first number is the amount of VM actually committed. So generally if
that total currently committed is is less than the physical ram, then
there is no need for the OS to keep anything likely to be needed in a
hurry in page file space rather than actual ram. So low paging overhead.

Adding more ram may coax it to keep more of the allocated VM in ram, but
it will be stuff that is not likely to be needed in a hurry - so you may
not see much positive impact on performance.

Once you have reached the point where it can hold everything it needs in
RAM, having more does not help much further.

(that's why adding some ram can have a big overall effect on machines
that were a little bit short - since extra ram will prevent it needing
to page as much in the first place, and the SSD will ensure that if it
does, you don't get anything like the performance hit as previously)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Rambo wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 21:55:18 GMT, Harry Bloomfield, Esq.
wrote:

Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

Yes...installing another similar spec SODIMM will enable dual channel
mode. You can never have enough RAM.

That processor *does not* have dual channel.

It has one bus and two DIMM slots.

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Puma/...20A6-6310.html

Memory channels: 1

DIMMs per channel: 2

Paul

On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 21:55:22 UTC, undefined wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

On my current notebook, which has 8GB and is running 64-bit W10, 414 MB is reserved by hardware.

And Task Manager shows 7.8 GB is in use. Just doing browsing, and a couple of Office apps.

Whether you have a graphics card with its own memory - or not - is something that might well affect whether more memory makes much of a difference.

I upgraded my desktop from 8 GB to 16 GB - and, despite it having a graphics card with its own memory, performance improved significantly. More or less, the times when it seemed a bit slow have been resolved. Pretty obviously due to not needing swap and/or making use of cache.

Both machines have SSD.

Though always back them up as
they tend to fail catastrophically without notice.
+1 When they fail they just stop working, unlike normal HDD which often
start giving errors which allows you to panic do a repair and back up
before total failure.

On 17/01/2021 09:41, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 21:55:22 UTC, undefined wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

On my current notebook, which has 8GB and is running 64-bit W10, 414 MB is reserved by hardware.

And Task Manager shows 7.8 GB is in use. Just doing browsing, and a couple of Office apps.

Here on linux mint, I have browser, thunderbird, and an open Libre
Office writer session going, and its just 3,2GB - with another 3GB disk
cache.

Latest Firefox seems to have fixed the memory leak.


Whether you have a graphics card with its own memory - or not - is something that might well affect whether more memory makes much of a difference.

got a nviada fanless with a GB of RAM I think


I upgraded my desktop from 8 GB to 16 GB - and, despite it having a graphics card with its own memory, performance improved significantly. More or less, the times when it seemed a bit slow have been resolved. Pretty obviously due to not needing swap and/or making use of cache.


Well that's windows for you. Designed to sell hardware.

Both machines have SSD.



--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 17/01/2021 09:50, Robert wrote:
Â*Though always back them up as
they tend to fail catastrophically without notice.
+1 When they fail they just stop working, unlike normal HDD which often
start giving errors which allows you to panic do a repair and back up
before total failure.

-1000 - mine have never failed catastrophically. started giving errors.


--
€œThose who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.€�

€• Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles Ã* M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie Ã* Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 17 Jan 2021 at 09:57:53 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
wrote:

On 17/01/2021 09:41, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 21:55:22 UTC, undefined wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

On my current notebook, which has 8GB and is running 64-bit W10, 414 MB is
reserved by hardware.

And Task Manager shows 7.8 GB is in use. Just doing browsing, and a couple
of Office apps.

Here on linux mint, I have browser, thunderbird, and an open Libre
Office writer session going, and its just 3,2GB - with another 3GB disk
cache.

Latest Firefox seems to have fixed the memory leak.


Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome (my main
browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 01:41:15 -0800, polygonum_on_google wrote:

On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 21:55:22 UTC, undefined wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

On my current notebook, which has 8GB and is running 64-bit W10, 414 MB
is reserved by hardware.

And Task Manager shows 7.8 GB is in use. Just doing browsing, and a
couple of Office apps.

Whether you have a graphics card with its own memory - or not - is
something that might well affect whether more memory makes much of a
difference.

I upgraded my desktop from 8 GB to 16 GB - and, despite it having a
graphics card with its own memory, performance improved significantly.
More or less, the times when it seemed a bit slow have been resolved.
Pretty obviously due to not needing swap and/or making use of cache.

Both machines have SSD.

My computer very rarely exceeds 2GB ram usage.....https://ibb.co/r4Xvr2k

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:02:55 +0000 (UTC), RJH wrote:

Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome
(my main browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.

Marketers don't see saving a few hundred MB of system memory as an
important objective. Most laptops are sold with at least 4GB and
typically 8. If the memory is there, why wouldn't the apps use it?

On 16/01/2021 23:12, Paul wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2021 07:25, Paul wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb
HDD. It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running
Win10 64bit.

Uh,oh!

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Puma/...20A6-6310.html

*** Memory channels: 1************* ===
*** Channel width (bits): 64
*** Supported memory: DDR3L-1866
*** DIMMs per channel: 2*********** ===

It's not dual channel, according to that.
This means there is no bandwidth increase
from stuffing the second slot.

All that stuffing the second slot does,
is increase the overall amount of RAM.
For which you have to decide, whether you
were "short" of RAM previously.

The above issue is also a danger with dual channel CPUs.
The designer of the motherboard reserves the right to
only wire up one of the two channels, and put two DIMMs
on that single channel. Doing so, reduces power consumption
on the memory controller, by two or three watts, improving
battery life. Part of that, is things like terminator power
for the bus (the bus design varies from one generation to
the next, so I will refrain from predictions on this).

But the above information suggests that, unless you
really really need to double the RAM, it's just not
worth it. For example, some people like to keep 200 tabs
open on their browser (for work say), and those are the
people who will tell you how wonderful all the extra RAM was.
Well, their processor is now slow as molasses, lugging
all that junk around. As long as the web pages are
not allowed to update themselves, the CPU loading
will be less.


It seems that a range of CPUs were fitted to the E21-521 and that some
had fitted the A8-6410. This is an interesting article where it seem
bus speeds went down after fitting a second module.

https://community.amd.com/t5/process...eed/m-p/404364

Another article said that they really ought to be matching pairs,
including manufacturer, in order to use any dual channel feature,
assuming that is an option for Harry's laptop.

And thus it was always so.

Previous sockets going back, had this problem too (reduced
settings to ensure stability with all slots filled).

This is AMD.

Intel used two cycle Command, to hide this on some of their
stuff. Virtually all of the hardware now runs two cycle Command,
just because of the speeds involved. Two cycle command, leaves
extra Tsu to clock edge.

If the motherboard had been wired with two independent channels,
that's when adding the second RAM stick, makes no difference
to settings. As the two sticks are completely independent of
one another. In this case, the bus is shared. One bus, two sticks.
And it stays this way, since the wiring plan is "sealed in copper".
It's not magically dynamic.

******* CPU -------+----+******* Not a dual channel motherboard.
****************** |*** |******* The OPs config. Load power only
************** SODIMM1 SODIMM2** increases by autorefresh power level
******************************** of second DIMM (~1W). Settings drop.

*** +------- CPU -------+******* A dual channel product, the DIMMs
*** |****************** |******* have no effect on one another.
* SODIMM1*********** SODIMM2**** Commissioning the second bus, increases
******************************** power consumption by a watt or two just
******************************** for bus termination power and pad power.

*** Paul

Useful - thanks

On 17 Jan 2021 at 12:38:07 GMT, "mechanic" wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:02:55 +0000 (UTC), RJH wrote:

Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome
(my main browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.

Marketers don't see saving a few hundred MB of system memory as an
important objective. Most laptops are sold with at least 4GB and
typically 8. If the memory is there, why wouldn't the apps use it?

Well, yes of course, agreed. But why does Firefox use so much more for doing
(AFAICT) the same thing?

--
Cheers, Rob

On 17/01/2021 13:04, RJH wrote:
On 17 Jan 2021 at 12:38:07 GMT, "mechanic" wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:02:55 +0000 (UTC), RJH wrote:

Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome
(my main browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.

Marketers don't see saving a few hundred MB of system memory as an
important objective. Most laptops are sold with at least 4GB and
typically 8. If the memory is there, why wouldn't the apps use it?

Well, yes of course, agreed. But why does Firefox use so much more for doing
(AFAICT) the same thing?


Could be cached information which may/will depend on sites visited and
if configured to clear cache data when shut down?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/01/2021 13:07, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 13:04, RJH wrote:
On 17 Jan 2021 at 12:38:07 GMT, "mechanic" wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:02:55 +0000 (UTC), RJH wrote:

Â* Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome
Â* (my main browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.

Marketers don't see saving a few hundred MB of system memory as an
important objective. Most laptops are sold with at least 4GB and
typically 8. If the memory is there, why wouldn't the apps use it?

Well, yes of course, agreed. But why does Firefox use so much more for
doing
(AFAICT) the same thing?


Could be cached information which may/will depend on sites visited and
if configured to clear cache data when shut down?

Firefox uses about 500MB plus about 200Mbyte per page opened

Its javaScript is also abominably slow

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 17/01/2021 09:50, Robert wrote:
Â*Though always back them up as
they tend to fail catastrophically without notice.

+1 When they fail they just stop working, unlike normal HDD which often
start giving errors which allows you to panic do a repair and back up
before total failure.

That's not been my typical experience. Most of them I have been able to
recover at least most of the data.

I have had some where access to particular files becomes very slow, and
some where you lose access to some files, but most of the disk seems to
work normally.

I have had one that would randomly lock up its SATA bus (and the machine
it was connected to) every few minutes. (I was able to recover the stuff
from that in several attempts with it mounted in a USB enclosure).

I have had a couple that simply "vanished" and stopped being
identifiable as a drive. One I was able to fix by applying some flux to
the main controller chip, and reflowing it with hot air. Got it working
long enough to recover the data.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/01/2021 10:02, RJH wrote:
On 17 Jan 2021 at 09:57:53 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
wrote:

On 17/01/2021 09:41, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 21:55:22 UTC, undefined wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

On my current notebook, which has 8GB and is running 64-bit W10, 414 MB is
reserved by hardware.

And Task Manager shows 7.8 GB is in use. Just doing browsing, and a couple
of Office apps.

Here on linux mint, I have browser, thunderbird, and an open Libre
Office writer session going, and its just 3,2GB - with another 3GB disk
cache.

Latest Firefox seems to have fixed the memory leak.


Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome (my main
browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.

Perhaps the question could be reframed as why do modern web pages need
so much memory to render? Part of the answer is that web designers don't
often seem to put much effort into reducing memory use any more, but
mostly the amount of background "crap"[1] that is loaded by the average
web page is now *vast*


[1] tracking, analytics, profiling, marketing - not uncommon for an
almost empty looking page to come with 100's of megs of stuff you can't
see.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/01/2021 13:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2021 13:07, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 13:04, RJH wrote:
On 17 Jan 2021 at 12:38:07 GMT, "mechanic" wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:02:55 +0000 (UTC), RJH wrote:

Â* Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome
Â* (my main browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.

Marketers don't see saving a few hundred MB of system memory as an
important objective. Most laptops are sold with at least 4GB and
typically 8. If the memory is there, why wouldn't the apps use it?

Well, yes of course, agreed. But why does Firefox use so much more
for doing
(AFAICT) the same thing?


Could be cached information which may/will depend on sites visited and
if configured to clear cache data when shut down?

Firefox uses about 500MB plus about 200Mbyte per page opened

Its javaScript is also abominably slow

Compared to what?

The current crop of browsers are all pretty much in same ballpark on js
speed. If you run a bunch of benchmarks on them all, then they will each
"win" some tests.

(in fact the latest incarnation of Edge (based on Chromium) frequently
beats Chrome).



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/01/2021 01:35, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/01/2021 15:48, TimW wrote:
On 15/01/2021 22:08, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/01/2021 21:55, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
...
check by opening task manager when you have open a "typical" set of
applications, and clicking on the Performance tab, and then the
"Memory" entry on the left. Look at the "Committed" amount at the
bottom of the window. If that is less than the physical ram, then
there will be no particular gain in having more.


I am no expert but I don't think that's how Windows manages memory. If
you put more RAM in then the same system will use more RAM, and work
better. At least that's how Windows used to be before I lost interest
in it.

The commit charge is the total amount of virtual memory currently in
use. In win 10 it tends to show as two numbers separated by a slash. So
currently my system is showing 26.8G/36.7G. The second is basically the
sum of the physical ram and any space available in page files(s) (I have
32GB RAM, and a bit over 4GB available in page files).

The first number is the amount of VM actually committed. So generally if
that total currently committed is is less than the physical ram, then
there is no need for the OS to keep anything likely to be needed in a
hurry in page file space rather than actual ram. So low paging overhead.

Adding more ram may coax it to keep more of the allocated VM in ram, but
it will be stuff that is not likely to be needed in a hurry - so you may
not see much positive impact on performance.

Once you have reached the point where it can hold everything it needs in
RAM, having more does not help much further.

(that's why adding some ram can have a big overall effect on machines
that were a little bit short - since extra ram will prevent it needing
to page as much in the first place, and the SSD will ensure that if it
does, you don't get anything like the performance hit as previously)



I think in my case the figure before the slash + the cached + physical =
figure after cached.

But I have now found that the Crucial DDR4-3600 16-18-18 16GB modules
are out of stock everwhere in UK. I wonder why. I will learn more
tomorrow by using the Crucial chat.


--
Michael Chare

On Sunday, 17 January 2021 at 14:36:31 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/01/2021 10:02, RJH wrote:
On 17 Jan 2021 at 09:57:53 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
wrote:

On 17/01/2021 09:41, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 21:55:22 UTC, undefined wrote:
Acer ES1-521 with 8Gb RAM, AMD A6-6310 CPU, Radeon R4 Graphics1Tb HDD.
It seems to have one memory slot occupied, one empty. Running Win10
64bit.

On my current notebook, which has 8GB and is running 64-bit W10, 414 MB is
reserved by hardware.

And Task Manager shows 7.8 GB is in use. Just doing browsing, and a couple
of Office apps.

Here on linux mint, I have browser, thunderbird, and an open Libre
Office writer session going, and its just 3,2GB - with another 3GB disk
cache.

Latest Firefox seems to have fixed the memory leak.


Why does Firefox use so much memory - over 1GB on a Mac? Chrome (my main
browser) and Safari use 100-200MB.
Perhaps the question could be reframed as why do modern web pages need
so much memory to render? Part of the answer is that web designers don't
often seem to put much effort into reducing memory use any more, but
mostly the amount of background "crap"[1] that is loaded by the average
web page is now *vast*


[1] tracking, analytics, profiling, marketing - not uncommon for an
almost empty looking page to come with 100's of megs of stuff you can't
see.

Couldn't agree more.

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

Version 1: A bit creaky but fast and simple - well over ten years old. In all its life, hardly a single technical issue ever reported.

Version 2: Rewritten using WordPress in some guise. Much slower. Lots of silly issues. Massive images - unnecessary as they were just used to add flavour not information. Imagine this NG having random pictures of workshops, paint, gardens, etc. uBlock Origin continually showing things blocked - despite there not being a single intentional advert on the site.

Version 3: Person who offered to sort out Version 2 more or less gave up as it was a terminal case. Completely re-written in something like the plain style of gov.uk. Superfast. uBlock Origin blocks nothing - as there is nothing which should be blocked. Haven't checked memory usage but its bandwidth must be modest. Things like a link to their facebook page is just that - a simple link. Not some huge script.

It is immensely frustrating that the web seems to get slower simply because of the huge burden being placed on it - unnecessarily.

On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m wrote:

https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox

Fine with current firefox here

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the links)?

Works fine in Chrome.

I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.

On 17/01/2021 19:09, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.

No problem with Pale Moon 28.17.0 (x64)

--

Jeff

On 17/01/2021 19:50, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 17/01/2021 19:09, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.

No problem with Pale Moon 28.17.0 (x64)



Hmm, I can get the site to give scroll bars on every page if I select
BUT ONLY if I select a different country to the UK.

None of the UK pages give me scroll bar in either Firefox or Edge.
I've even tried Firefox in safe mode (hold down shift whist
selecting/starting firefox) with no luck.



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

(that's why adding some ram can have a big overall effect on machines
that were a little bit short - since extra ram will prevent it needing
to page as much in the first place, and the SSD will ensure that if it
does, you don't get anything like the performance hit as previously)



And if your mobo can support it, swapping the SATA3 SSD to a NVME M2
drive can help with the speed of teh virtual ram....

An SSD on SATA3 will top out at 560 MB/s ish whereas a Samsung 970 will
top out at around 32 GB/s....

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 06:48:38 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On 17/01/2021 19:09, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.


They appear to have disabled the scroll bars. So you can scroll with the
mouse wheel or with cursor keys, page up and down etc, and no doubt it
works on a touch screen, but that's a bit of an accessibility cock up
for desktop / laptop users.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

alan_m wrote:

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

They appear to have disabled the scroll bars.

yes scrolly wheel, space bar, or cursor keys that's not so unusual
nowadays, is it?

On 17/01/2021 20:12, No Name wrote:
(that's why adding some ram can have a big overall effect on machines
that were a little bit short - since extra ram will prevent it needing
to page as much in the first place, and the SSD will ensure that if it
does, you don't get anything like the performance hit as previously)



And if your mobo can support it, swapping the SATA3 SSD to a NVME M2
drive can help with the speed of teh virtual ram....

An SSD on SATA3 will top out at 560 MB/s ish whereas a Samsung 970 will
top out at around 32 GB/s....

Indeed 6Gb/s SATA is a bit of a bottleneck for decent SSDs...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 17/01/2021 19:09, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.


They appear to have disabled the scroll bars. So you can scroll with the
mouse wheel or with cursor keys, page up and down etc, and no doubt it
works on a touch screen, but that's a bit of an accessibility cock up
for desktop / laptop users.

Why? I used to use scroll bars but not now, I just use the mouse wheel
or two fingers on the mousepad if it's the laptop. As you say the
cursor keys work fine too. I don't really see there's much of an issue.

--
Chris Green
·

On Sunday, 17 January 2021 at 19:55:08 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 19:50, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 17/01/2021 19:09, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.

No problem with Pale Moon 28.17.0 (x64)

Hmm, I can get the site to give scroll bars on every page if I select
BUT ONLY if I select a different country to the UK.

None of the UK pages give me scroll bar in either Firefox or Edge.
I've even tried Firefox in safe mode (hold down shift whist
selecting/starting firefox) with no luck.

I get no scrollbars. Can scroll - using mouse wheel (actually, Microsoft wedge mouse so not even a real wheel). Or using Pg Dn key.

Using latest Firefox on fully updated Windows 10.

Michael Chare wrote:
On 17/01/2021 01:35, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/01/2021 15:48, TimW wrote:
On 15/01/2021 22:08, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/01/2021 21:55, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
...
check by opening task manager when you have open a "typical" set of
applications, and clicking on the Performance tab, and then the
"Memory" entry on the left. Look at the "Committed" amount at the
bottom of the window. If that is less than the physical ram, then
there will be no particular gain in having more.


I am no expert but I don't think that's how Windows manages memory.
If you put more RAM in then the same system will use more RAM, and
work better. At least that's how Windows used to be before I lost
interest in it.

The commit charge is the total amount of virtual memory currently in
use. In win 10 it tends to show as two numbers separated by a slash.
So currently my system is showing 26.8G/36.7G. The second is basically
the sum of the physical ram and any space available in page files(s)
(I have 32GB RAM, and a bit over 4GB available in page files).

The first number is the amount of VM actually committed. So generally
if that total currently committed is is less than the physical ram,
then there is no need for the OS to keep anything likely to be needed
in a hurry in page file space rather than actual ram. So low paging
overhead.

Adding more ram may coax it to keep more of the allocated VM in ram,
but it will be stuff that is not likely to be needed in a hurry - so
you may not see much positive impact on performance.

Once you have reached the point where it can hold everything it needs
in RAM, having more does not help much further.

(that's why adding some ram can have a big overall effect on machines
that were a little bit short - since extra ram will prevent it needing
to page as much in the first place, and the SSD will ensure that if it
does, you don't get anything like the performance hit as previously)



I think in my case the figure before the slash + the cached + physical =
figure after cached.

But I have now found that the Crucial DDR4-3600 16-18-18 16GB modules
are out of stock everwhere in UK. I wonder why. I will learn more
tomorrow by using the Crucial chat.

Micron is the parent company of the retail Crucial DIMM outlet.
The theory was, that Crucial DIMMs would use Micron chips, but
strangely, that hasn't always been the case. And that might be
the case now (if a Crucial ships, it might have Samsung chips on it).
Micron also sells Micron branded DIMMs. The Crucial side of the
business handles "overclocker RAM".

"By Anton Shilov December 04, 2020

Micron's Fab 11, located near Taoyuan City, was taken offline by an
unexpected power outage that lasted for a little over an hour. According
to United News, the factory immediately activated its safety mechanisms
and procedures to avoid casualties and minimize losses. After the power supply
resumed, the factory restarted, and the company is now assessing the
consequences of the outage."

Typically when this happens, 12 weeks of production in the
pipe are wiped out, and all the wafers are discarded.
That's a "whole quarter of production". That's gotta hurt.
If Micron has multiple fab buildings, in different countries,
then not all their production is affected.

Most of the wafers are inside machines, in the middle of reactive
ion etch or doping or whatever. Very few wafers should be in
robot boats, flying around the plant to the next station.
The wafers in the robots could be saved. The wafers in the
machines, not at all. We're talking tolerances of nanometers
and during a power failure, a little excess material might
get sputtered on the wafer, a valve might open and the wrong
gas might issue forth. So stuff inside machines are
just turfed, and the machines cleaned out.

Paul

On 17/01/2021 20:48, Chris Green wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 17/01/2021 19:09, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.


They appear to have disabled the scroll bars. So you can scroll with the
mouse wheel or with cursor keys, page up and down etc, and no doubt it
works on a touch screen, but that's a bit of an accessibility cock up
for desktop / laptop users.

Why? I used to use scroll bars but not now, I just use the mouse wheel
or two fingers on the mousepad if it's the laptop. As you say the
cursor keys work fine too. I don't really see there's much of an issue.

Not everyone has a mouse with a wheel or even a multi touch trackpad,
and many don't really have any awareness of keyboard shortcuts - so
disabling a standard bit of UI that works on almost every other page
they encounter is a bit of an issue IMHO.

(to the point I emailed them to highlight the problem!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/01/2021 19:09, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:32, polygonum_on_google wrote:

A site I use often has just had its website re-re-written.

TOT but Salus seem to have updated their web pages
https://salus-controls.com/uk/

Can anyone scroll down this page (and scroll down others from the
links)? I don't seem to be able to do it with Firefox of Edge.

Salus make CH controls room thermostats etc.

yes, but only using a scroll wheel. They have disabled scroll bars


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On Monday, 18 January 2021 at 02:29:44 UTC, John Rumm wrote:

Not everyone has a mouse with a wheel or even a multi touch trackpad,
and many don't really have any awareness of keyboard shortcuts - so
disabling a standard bit of UI that works on almost every other page
they encounter is a bit of an issue IMHO.

(to the point I emailed them to highlight the problem!)

Agreed. It seems bizarre to positively remove something like scroll bars which probably existed and worked without any specific action at all.

I wonder if they are mis-detecting the device being used? Maybe the site "thinks" it is a phone rather than a laptop/desktop.

polygonum_on_google wrote:

It seems bizarre to positively remove something like scroll bars which probably existed and worked without any specific action at all.

I wonder if they are mis-detecting the device being used? Maybe the site "thinks" it is a phone rather than a laptop/desktop.

Looks deliberate

html {
scroll-behavior: smooth;
scrollbar-width: none;
overflow-x: hidden;
overflow-y: scroll;
max-width: 100%;
}

and they have plenty of browser/phone specific stuff in the html, so I
doubt they're serving up different content based on what browser they're
detecting, so have sent the wrong version.

As I said, I didn't even notice the lack of scroll bars, I always use
mouse wheel or space bar to whizz down a page (in TB as well as FF) a
page has to be *very* long for me to start reaching for the scroll thumb
to get to a specific part of it.

On 18/01/2021 02:29, John Rumm wrote:



Not everyone has a mouse with a wheel or even a multi touch trackpad,
and many don't really have any awareness of keyboard shortcuts - so
disabling a standard bit of UI that works on almost every other page
they encounter is a bit of an issue IMHO.

(to the point I emailed them to highlight the problem!)



Its only on their UK pages. Select any other country and scroll bars
appear.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/01/2021 14:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/01/2021 09:50, Robert wrote:
Â*Â*Though always back them up as
they tend to fail catastrophically without notice.

+1 When they fail they just stop working, unlike normal HDD which
often start giving errors which allows you to panic do a repair and
back up before total failure.

That's not been my typical experience. Most of them I have been able to
recover at least most of the data.

It is definitely the luck of the draw. The only one I have ever had fail
so completely bricked itself that nothing could see it or any data at
all. It wasn't so much a failing drive as no longer really there.

I have had some where access to particular files becomes very slow, and
some where you lose access to some files, but most of the disk seems to
work normally.

I have had one that would randomly lock up its SATA bus (and the machine
it was connected to) every few minutes. (I was able to recover the stuff
from that in several attempts with it mounted in a USB enclosure).

I have had a couple that simply "vanished" and stopped being
identifiable as a drive. One I was able to fix by applying some flux to
the main controller chip, and reflowing it with hot air. Got it working
long enough to recover the data.

That is more like the fault I have seen. One morning it basically isn't
there any more and nothing by way of software can alter that.

Unfortunately I don't have any reflow solder kit.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown