But when the subsidies are coming from the big tech companies, who can easily pay them, to buy competitive advantage over that nimble startup that is scaring them, well we know how that movie ends.
No we don't know because that movie isn't on Netflix yet, you insensitive clod!
People keep saying things like "Why do we need so much RAM to run a simple web browser?"
The problem is, even if the browser itself is simple, it's the modern web pages that are the problem.
Let's take a concrete example, nytimes.com saved via Chrome: - The HTML itself requires 337KB - 13 fonts files (three fonts, two of them in multiple sizes and variations) for a total of ~347KB (data gathered from Safari) - 73 images (GIF,PNG,JPEG) for a total of 881KB - 43 scripts for a total of 3.4MB - 31 stylesheets for a total of ~455KB (number of stylesheets gathered from Safari, total size from Chrome)
The total is 5.5MB for the homepage of The New York Times.
Think about that for a moment. The actual content, what we are reading (but with all the formatting code and links to the fonts, scripts and images) takes 337KB. There's even hundreds of not thousands of additional lines of CSS in there... Then there's 43 scripts that compete for CPU time, which has to also decode all the images and render the HTML and CSS for the display.
The total size for the images is for the compressed files, you have to account for the decoded size in pixels and RGB data to be able to display those images. Let's take "00WP-Gibbs-2-largeHorizontal375.jpg" for example. In file form, it takes 23395 bytes. It's a JPEG 375x250 pixels in size, so decoded that means 375*250*3 bytes, 281250 bytes.
Second example: let's take the so-called "Hero" header images. Those are the huge, site-wide images in the headers of a lot of websites. Let's say the person who coded the website didn't bother to write adaptive code and works on a 5K display iMac or at least uses the display specifications of that system as the target. The display on that thing is a huge 5120x2880 pixels. Let's say he's using wide enough margins and "only" uses 4000 pixels wide images. Let's assume a ratio of around 3:1, so ~4000x1325 pixels. That's 5300000 bytes (5.3MB) of RAM for a single decoded image, before loading any HTML, CSS or Javascript.
Sure, those examples work fine on 3GHz quad-core i7 with 16GB RAM systems, but when you try to cram all that data on something like a Raspberry Pi 3 it's normal to have problems. Your 1GiB RAM could only store 202 of those hero images if you didn't have an OS or any program in memory.
TL;DR: that reporter bought something like a tiny two-place car in kit form and then complained that it couldn't pull the same trailer as his V8 truck.
I predict comments about how someone is never buying anything from Sony ever again because "other OS" for the PS3, CD rootkit fiasco, memory stick instead of SD, beta instead of VHS, etc. Pointless rant that dozens of people will reply to, one of which will include movies released by Sony.
Would a Chrome monoculture really be worst than IE6? Microsoft tried to stop the Web so people would keep using Windows applications. Google on the other hand use the Web for nearly everything so they need to keep their browser up-to-date.
I don't use Google because I don't want to use a browser made by a company with nearly unlimited funds that thinks they can dictate whatever interface they want on their users.
Now, how about a Tesla electric bicycle? At the very least, they have a chance to push a new standard for battery packs and chargers with their new 2170 batteries. Electric tools, bicycles, motorcycles... If everything used a single standard pack (with all dimensions and specifications made public domain) it would make it very easy for DIY users.
Oups, I meant 2070. Or is it 2170? There seems to already be two standards competing. At least they're extremely close and the one variation should be easy to handle in battery sockets.
Slashdot Mirror
No we don't know because that movie isn't on Netflix yet, you insensitive clod!
Parles-tu vraiment Python? Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
People keep saying things like "Why do we need so much RAM to run a simple web browser?"
The problem is, even if the browser itself is simple, it's the modern web pages that are the problem.
Let's take a concrete example, nytimes.com saved via Chrome:
- The HTML itself requires 337KB
- 13 fonts files (three fonts, two of them in multiple sizes and variations) for a total of ~347KB (data gathered from Safari)
- 73 images (GIF,PNG,JPEG) for a total of 881KB
- 43 scripts for a total of 3.4MB
- 31 stylesheets for a total of ~455KB (number of stylesheets gathered from Safari, total size from Chrome)
The total is 5.5MB for the homepage of The New York Times.
Think about that for a moment. The actual content, what we are reading (but with all the formatting code and links to the fonts, scripts and images) takes 337KB. There's even hundreds of not thousands of additional lines of CSS in there... Then there's 43 scripts that compete for CPU time, which has to also decode all the images and render the HTML and CSS for the display.
The total size for the images is for the compressed files, you have to account for the decoded size in pixels and RGB data to be able to display those images. Let's take "00WP-Gibbs-2-largeHorizontal375.jpg" for example. In file form, it takes 23395 bytes. It's a JPEG 375x250 pixels in size, so decoded that means 375*250*3 bytes, 281250 bytes.
Second example: let's take the so-called "Hero" header images. Those are the huge, site-wide images in the headers of a lot of websites. Let's say the person who coded the website didn't bother to write adaptive code and works on a 5K display iMac or at least uses the display specifications of that system as the target. The display on that thing is a huge 5120x2880 pixels. Let's say he's using wide enough margins and "only" uses 4000 pixels wide images. Let's assume a ratio of around 3:1, so ~4000x1325 pixels. That's 5300000 bytes (5.3MB) of RAM for a single decoded image, before loading any HTML, CSS or Javascript.
Sure, those examples work fine on 3GHz quad-core i7 with 16GB RAM systems, but when you try to cram all that data on something like a Raspberry Pi 3 it's normal to have problems. Your 1GiB RAM could only store 202 of those hero images if you didn't have an OS or any program in memory.
TL;DR: that reporter bought something like a tiny two-place car in kit form and then complained that it couldn't pull the same trailer as his V8 truck.
MEEP > Coyote
Macdonalds has a farm, McDonalds is a fast-food chain.
Bose QC25.
When I hear the name GoDaddy, all I can think about is Nikki Cappelli.
I predict comments about how someone is never buying anything from Sony ever again because "other OS" for the PS3, CD rootkit fiasco, memory stick instead of SD, beta instead of VHS, etc. Pointless rant that dozens of people will reply to, one of which will include movies released by Sony.
I argee, poeple nevre cehkc waht htey riwte esthe yads...
I thought the "mountain lion" part was a pet sort of thing.
Would a Chrome monoculture really be worst than IE6? Microsoft tried to stop the Web so people would keep using Windows applications. Google on the other hand use the Web for nearly everything so they need to keep their browser up-to-date.
Here's the real inconvenient truth: the people in power only have one thing in common and it's money.
And they're doing all they can so that you idiots fight amongst yourselves instead of seeing that the rich are the real problem.
I don't use Google because I don't want to use a browser made by a company with nearly unlimited funds that thinks they can dictate whatever interface they want on their users.
That's why I'm sticking with Safari.
Started as plausible, finished as crazy. Loved it.
Low-cost, wearable hardware to enable 3D-waifu/life assistant A.I.
Gatebox seems like a neat first step, but it's trapped inside a box and it's not even a real hologram, just a flat display.
When Apple dropped "computers" from their name, they started doing everything except computers.
Now, how about a Tesla electric bicycle? At the very least, they have a chance to push a new standard for battery packs and chargers with their new 2170 batteries. Electric tools, bicycles, motorcycles... If everything used a single standard pack (with all dimensions and specifications made public domain) it would make it very easy for DIY users.
And there's one person who's beyond the pale.
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/inst...
Is there enough African-Australians to sustain a cigarette market?
Oups, I meant 2070. Or is it 2170? There seems to already be two standards competing. At least they're extremely close and the one variation should be easy to handle in battery sockets.
As far as I know, all browsers on iOS must render using iOS' built-in Webkit.
I don't know what plants do, but I do know they crave electrolytes.
That's no moon...
Sure, but let's use an easy-to-remember combination for the locking shield.