Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Why porting Mozilla to Amiga??  (Read 13909 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Why porting Mozilla to Amiga??
« on: June 05, 2003, 12:33:41 AM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Quote
On my 850MHz Duron notebook, it takes just 10 seconds to start up Phoenix (now Firebird) and display my homepage (fetched from remote server via DSL). That's not too shabby, I'd say. Even with IE's being partly loaded already, it takes 9 seconds just to open and display an empty window on the same machine.


Ten seconds is an age, especially when you're just clicking on something on IRC for general interest. My system boots faster than that. IMO a browser taken 10 seconds to load on a UDMA drive with a 850MHz CPU powering it is unforgivable for "just" a browser.

I guess my definition of slow is just different from all the Linux and Windows users in here. How you have the patience for it all I can't guess. Even my 040/25 felt a sharper machine to use.

In my test X86 PC**, Mozila V1.3 takes about 1.5 seconds to load.

Such as system is powered by a Seagate 80Gb 7200 RPM (yields about ~55Mb/s from aHead’s NeoBurn5’s hard drive test) and Microsoft’s UDMA IDE drivers. The motherboard is ASUS nForce II 400 Ultra based (it’s faster on nVidia specific UDMA IDE drivers, but that’s another issue).

I.E 6.0.2600 loads about similar time as with Mozila V1.3. This is on Windows XP Pro-SP1 with all display frills turned on. Hard drive’s throughput speed, IDE drivers and available physical RAM does play critical role.

Mozilla 1.3 is only ~25Mb. Ideally, with a 55Mb/s hard drive the system should be able to load Mozilla about ~0.5 of a second. My test machine load it at ~1.5 seconds due to overheads (e.g. Windows, seek times, network connection checking and 'etc'). A 10-seconds load time is ‘slow’ for an UDMA Hard disk.

At the moment, I don’t have access to KT133A/VIA 686B (MSI built) equipped PCs.  Maybe later.... It can reach ~40Mb/s in a similar NeoBurn test hard disk speed conditions (using an older Seagate 7200 RPM 40Gb drive)).

I’ll probably test Mozilla’s load speed on a Pentium II 400Mhz with 3.2Gb hard disk and 192Mb RAM(loaded with WinXP) (Later, IF I have the time).
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show all replies
Re: Why porting Mozilla to Amiga??
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2003, 04:10:31 AM »
Quote

Very flawed assumption.

I have already out-lined some reasons why the load time was not .5 seconds. Refer to

"Mozilla 1.3 is only ~25Mb. Ideally, with a 55Mb/s hard drive the system should be able to load Mozilla about ~0.5 of a second. My test machine load it at ~1.5 seconds due to overheads (e.g. Windows, seek times, network connection checking and 'etc').

Quote

IDE disks may be able to get a maximum throughput of say 55MB/sec, but for loading lots of little files you'll find the throughput drops to maybe a meg a second.

That's too low for PAL TV resolution A/V work. All I can say it’s capable of doing full TV resolution (PAL) capturing without dropping a frame (e.g. AVI/DiVX/DVD/Mpeg2 via software encoding).

Have you installed a real time hard disk monitor? There are at least 41 objects within the Mozilla1.3 directory.

Quote

The entirety of Mozilla's app install doesn't need to be loaded into memory however.

What proportion in regards to "The entirety of Mozilla's app install doesn't need to be loaded into memory"?  

From a free memory of 261Mb down to 244Mb (after loading Mozilla 1.3). I’ll say it’s close to the 25Mb file load. Defragging them into local placement will help with the load times (I haven't applied this yet).
 
Quote

The only time you'll ever see your hard disk perform at anywhere near its maximum throughput is when copying internally between platters, and a disk benchmarking at 55MB/sec will probably manage a maximum of 40MB/sec when everything is taken into consideration,

Who said that was HD's maximum throughput? Note that I haven't used the specific nForce IDE drivers yet.  
 
Quote

The most important statistic for a hard disk to have quoted would be latency on requests, which doesn't get officially stated, only in independent benchmarking. That's the statistic you want to pay attention to, if you want app and data files to be loaded in quickly.

A practical 1MB/s second throughput would be a crawl e.g. 512MB 'hiberfil.sys' will take awhile to load (i.e. 512 seconds). My old system loads 512MB 'hiberfil.sys' around ~20~25 seconds .
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.