Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!

Sections

Who's Online
100 user(s) are online (65 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 1
Guests: 99

MamePPCA1, more...

Headlines

 
  Register To Post  

OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Just popping in
Just popping in


See User information
Hi,

This is for the user that think OWB need to much RAM and dont
know the World outside the Amiga Universe

The infos are from an aticle on the germen news-site www.Heise.de.
Message Nr. 105002

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Mozill ... irefox-3--/meldung/105002

The essence say:

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 !

R-TEAM

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


See User information
@R-TEAM

FF3 is improving well regarding its memory usage. Earlier FFs used to leak memory like hell.

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Amigans Defender
Amigans Defender


See User information
yes but owb takes also 800MB for some pages.. and it needs it ONLY for ONE page (tab).. so is not the same...

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Home away from home
Home away from home


See User information
@afxgroup

so you got tabs in oWB working?

how much ram will it consume with say three tabs open?




People are dying.
Entire ecosystems are collapsing.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.
How dare you!
– Greta Thunberg
Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Amigans Defender
Amigans Defender


See User information
@Raziel

no... no tabs..

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Just popping in
Just popping in


See User information
Hi,

@afxgroup

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 ...]

It was not comparing OWB with FF

R-TEAM

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Home away from home
Home away from home


See User information
@afxgroup

Just joking ... keep on the great work

the best i read so far from OWB's website is this piece i
found in ticket #201

Quote:

at the end of doduo (OWB milestone), amiga will be a refrence implementation with these patchs integrated


neat

People are dying.
Entire ecosystems are collapsing.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.
How dare you!
– Greta Thunberg
Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


See User information
Quote:
R-TEAM wrote:

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.
Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


See User information
@Atheist

Quote:

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

Resized Image
"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
Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


See User information
Hi Jack,

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.
Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


See User information
@Atheist

Quote:

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

Resized Image
"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
Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


See User information
@Atheist

Quote:
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, ...

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


See User information
@afxgroup

Quote:
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 ...

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Amigans Defender
Amigans Defender


See User information
@joerg

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..

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


See User information
@joerg

Quote:
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?

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Home away from home
Home away from home


See User information
@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:
Quote:
R-TEAM wrote:

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.

Hans

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


See User information
@jahc

Quote:
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?
No.

Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


See User information
@joerg

Quote:

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

Resized Image
"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
Go to top
Re: OWB need REALY not much RAM -> REALITY CHECK INSIDE
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


See User information
@Jack

Quote:
How do other (top-notch) browsers store the data?
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.

Go to top

  Register To Post

 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 ( 0 members and 1 Anonymous Users )




Powered by XOOPS 2.0 © 2001-2023 The XOOPS Project