27 Aug
2004
27 Aug
'04
6:31 a.m.
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Patrick Kaell wrote:
Yup. Actually, the moment when I was very glad about w3m was
when I came back home from university. My 17" screen had broken
2 weeks before, and the only system I had capable of accessing
the 'net was my P133/48MB/2GB laptop w/ 800x600 LCD - system
on which I really didn't like to run X because of low res and
relatively little resources. Surfing the computing businesses'
sites with w3m, looking for a decent new monitor, was an
eye-opener as to really bad web design ;-)
Greets Eric
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
[Mozilla startup times]
I installed Mozilla
1.7.2 without the
mail client, chat client and so on. The 8sec figure is an approximation
I have in my head. I will time it tomorrow.
Ok the lack of mail/chat/kitchensink client might help, as there'd
be less to read from disk at startup. It would indeed almost sound
like Firefox ;-) which is said to have very nice startup times.
I don't have any system handy to test this atm.
It has
limitations, no doubt. Might I interest you in w3m instead?
Even if it's for textmode, depending on the version, you can have
proper display of tables, graphics etc.
Anyway, I've found this kind of tools extremely helpful when only
"lesser" machines were available for internet access.
Sometimes, a more primitive browser can have a real advantage. Less
features, less code often also means less bugs and more security. And
dillo is good enough to view most news sites.