[H-CHAT] Re: [H-GEN] Stalling Netscape

[Frank Brand]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and  ]
[ Unix-related topics.  Please observe the list's charter.           ]
[ Worthwhile understanding: http://www.humbug.org.au/netiquette.html ]

Jason Henry Parker wrote:

> 
> > Im connecting to the net via ppp through UQ on a 56k external Auslink
> > Brick modem. Celeron 433 with 160mb ram.


I have been seeing the same type of behaviour in Netscape for some time.
Slowness, stalling, occasional total death of Netscape,
hanging...killing, removing the lock file and restarting.

Netscape is a dog now IMHO (although I have not tried Netscape 6). I
also connect through UQ, have the DNS settings right for UQ. Mine stalls
regularly and is so so slow...my problem is not a DNS problem as usually
the site is partially loaded when it stalls, so it is not having
problems finding the site. About 7 reloads later it gets there. I find
if I shut down Netscape and restart, things might improve for a while
but maybe thats just my impression.

I find that if I log into UQ on Linux and get poor performance under
Netscape, if I log out and log in under Windows and use IE the
performance is better. Exactly the same setup, modem, phone lines etc.

I recall going to a SCO presentation shortly before the Caldera hive-off
and the SCO people agreeing that IE is streets ahead of Netscape.

I am about to re-install Windows 2000 on another machine specifically
for internet use as my productivity under Netscape is just too
miserable.

Unfortunately, Netscape is beginning to impact on Linux acceptance. I
have clients who think that the poor browser performance is due to Linux
being a dog. Maybe Konqueror or Opera will evolve to something nearer
IE.

The significance of the mid 90's browser war between Netscape and IE is
now becoming very obvious.

The internet is now a GUI experience, for the vast majority of people
using something like Lynx is just not a viable alternative.

Anyway, about 70% of internet sites are devoted to naked ladies ... how
would we see our porn if we used text browsers! *WINK*


> 
> (It's extremely unlikely you have anything but a 16550A.)


Impossible on a Celeron 433. The last motherboards to use less than
16550's were the 486's ...even the later 486 boards had 16550 UARTS.
Without checking my facts, I would go so far as to say that if your
controllers are on board and you are not using a separate controller
card then you have 16550 UARTS. Even EIDE controller cards (ie those
capable of supporting hard drives bigger than 540 Mb) used 16550 UARTS.

 


-- 
Frank Brand
E-mail:- fbrand at uq.net.au
Home Page:-http://www.uq.net.au/~zzfbrand

--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.