coffeedrinker
|
2008-01-13
, 22:48
|
Posts: 168 |
Thanked: 51 times |
Joined on Jun 2007
|
#11
|
The Following User Says Thank You to coffeedrinker For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2008-01-14
, 00:07
|
|
Posts: 693 |
Thanked: 502 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#12
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pipeline For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2008-01-14
, 00:34
|
Posts: 566 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#13
|
|
2008-01-14
, 02:18
|
|
Posts: 861 |
Thanked: 734 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Nomadic
|
#14
|
|
2008-01-14
, 02:30
|
|
Posts: 469 |
Thanked: 88 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Montana
|
#15
|
|
2008-01-14
, 02:50
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#16
|
I thought that I'd chime in here. One of the things that I liked best about the IT when I reviewed it this time last year was the Opera browser. It was not just fast, but rendering of sites was very well done (and led to a good deal of bug reports to developers to fix their sites with correct code).
That being said, I am liking MicroB just a touch more because of the expanded features support. I do wish that it were more like the FF3 beta and load HTML lighting fast, but it does ok in that dept.
One thing that I have not see much a definitve answer on has been the use of browser extensions. It would seem to me that on such a device that the use of extensions and widgets would be really good. But other than a few GreaseMonkey scripts, I do not see any. If that area of things could pic up (along with the rendering performance), I'd be happier with it.
|
2008-01-14
, 03:30
|
Posts: 85 |
Thanked: 10 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#17
|
|
2008-01-14
, 05:45
|
|
Posts: 107 |
Thanked: 14 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#18
|
Although i like current browser much better and have no stability issues, I did look into ways to increase performance.
Back in the opera days someone showed how you could increase simultaneous connections to server to increase performance.
Mozilla seems to have similar values so i am using them now and its hard to tell how much of a difference it makes but perhaps other itt users can post their results.
Mainly for mozilla the values seem to be kept in :
/usr/lib/microb-engine/greprefs/all.js
Its a large file but skip down near the middle (40%) of the file and find settings for :
pref("network.http.max-connections", 24) Increase this to maybe 32
pref("network.http.max-connections-per-server", 8) Increase this to maybe 16
pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server", 4) Scary maybe 6?
and further down
pref("network.http.pipelining.maxrequests", 8) Increase this to maybe 16
Although setting these values too high could saturate the server or your connection, i think the servers will limit you if you exceed their limits.
I would guess this would help me more when i'm on higher latency cell phone, where i request only 8 web page images/icons at a time at probably 250ms latency per batch... i'd rather go ahead and request a bunch more and pay for latency in larger batches. Even if you are on a wifi cable/dsl, your connection to server might be higher latency so this would also help.
Feel free to reply if this makes a noticable difference to you, i'm still trying out.
Oh and whatever you do, don't use maemo.org as a benchmark for browser performance, you'd think they were running that webserver out of someones garage
|
2008-01-14
, 05:54
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#19
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2008-01-14
, 06:32
|
Posts: 21 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Mar 2007
|
#20
|