I've complained and complained about how poor the performance of Firefox and Chrome and IE Javascript and CSS rendering engines to every board that they have!! I just can't get them to fix the speed with my desire to have 15 javascript frameworks and 38 custom stylesheets and have those automatically generate all the text in my site in a specific location so that I can resize the screen and have things bounce around and look just a little bit different in case someone with a mobile phone happens to come across my page and managed to get it loaded into the mobile browser before the render engine the browser to run out of memory and be killed by the operating system!!!!!
When you write up a nice block of text, browsers are super duper fast. Add in some images: still super fast. Add some basic javascript: cool beans, they can handle that. Some CSS to make things pretty? SURE! Oh, you want to lump in a generic framework of 800 functions, of which you really only need to use 10 of them, and an associated set of stylesheets that are then rewritten by parts of said JS Framework to draw out 13 little buttons? Well, that's going to work but your going to pay a price.
Web developers, do the internet a favor and test your pages on a browser running in a virtualmachine with 25% of 1 CPU and 512MB of memory, and force the network speed down to 2-4Mbps. And on that same VM, profile the page to see how it's render performance is handled. Then fix the page until it works there. Please, use all the JS files you want, but if your page takes more then 3 seconds to fully render, you're doing a disservice to the whole web.
And go away with any "upgrade your computer" BS. No one's using a C64 here. If you're page can render in 3 seconds on that VM, imagine what it will do on a modern PC.
Are there plans to increase the effectiveness of the blue opacifier layer so as to not require the extra "modifications" (i.e. using the frog tongue, shooting with a box around the front, etc)?
I'm sure many people have inquired, but to put it here:
Is there a timeframe being investigated in stabilizing the development chemicals in temperatures >75F? Living in Florida, the heat kills some of the film types rather quickly, resulting in some unrecognizable, though interesting looking, pictures.
Right. However, creating 360k disks in a 1.2MB drive may not be easily readable by an actual 360k drive due to the different read/write head sizes between the two. The smaller head on the 1.2 doesn't have a problem with the wider tracks of the 360k, but the other way around is know to cause issues.
Thought they make them, they are probably all 1.2MB ones, which use a much smaller write head and might not be easily readable on the old 360KB drives. YMMV and it can't hurt to test. Good luck!
Slashdot Mirror
Could a root-kit using VT bypass this for the guest if it was specifically built to not include any of these "fixes"?
There's supposed to be a "< sarcasm >" at the end of the first paragraph. :P
I've complained and complained about how poor the performance of Firefox and Chrome and IE Javascript and CSS rendering engines to every board that they have!! I just can't get them to fix the speed with my desire to have 15 javascript frameworks and 38 custom stylesheets and have those automatically generate all the text in my site in a specific location so that I can resize the screen and have things bounce around and look just a little bit different in case someone with a mobile phone happens to come across my page and managed to get it loaded into the mobile browser before the render engine the browser to run out of memory and be killed by the operating system!!!!!
When you write up a nice block of text, browsers are super duper fast. Add in some images: still super fast. Add some basic javascript: cool beans, they can handle that. Some CSS to make things pretty? SURE! Oh, you want to lump in a generic framework of 800 functions, of which you really only need to use 10 of them, and an associated set of stylesheets that are then rewritten by parts of said JS Framework to draw out 13 little buttons? Well, that's going to work but your going to pay a price.
Web developers, do the internet a favor and test your pages on a browser running in a virtualmachine with 25% of 1 CPU and 512MB of memory, and force the network speed down to 2-4Mbps. And on that same VM, profile the page to see how it's render performance is handled. Then fix the page until it works there. Please, use all the JS files you want, but if your page takes more then 3 seconds to fully render, you're doing a disservice to the whole web.
And go away with any "upgrade your computer" BS. No one's using a C64 here. If you're page can render in 3 seconds on that VM, imagine what it will do on a modern PC.
Where's my TRS-80 IV.
There was an episode of Sea Quest DSV that had a concept similar to this.
Are there plans to increase the effectiveness of the blue opacifier layer so as to not require the extra "modifications" (i.e. using the frog tongue, shooting with a box around the front, etc)?
I'm sure many people have inquired, but to put it here: Is there a timeframe being investigated in stabilizing the development chemicals in temperatures >75F? Living in Florida, the heat kills some of the film types rather quickly, resulting in some unrecognizable, though interesting looking, pictures.
Right. However, creating 360k disks in a 1.2MB drive may not be easily readable by an actual 360k drive due to the different read/write head sizes between the two. The smaller head on the 1.2 doesn't have a problem with the wider tracks of the 360k, but the other way around is know to cause issues.
Thought they make them, they are probably all 1.2MB ones, which use a much smaller write head and might not be easily readable on the old 360KB drives. YMMV and it can't hurt to test. Good luck!
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/04/12/22/2045240/Homebrewed-Robot-Exoskeleton-In-Alaska?art_pos=11