Personally, I'd like to see the address bar at the bottom, which fits with the GUI paradigm of a shell, where your input is always at the bottom, or instant messaging programs, where the input is at the bottom, or line editors, where -- you catch my drift.
I remember Opera in the versions 3.5x (at least) had exactly such layout by default. Since then, they changed to the current-classic one (address bar at the top).
Guess that if you place the address bar at the bottom, you also need to place the toolbar buttons and main menu there (to avoid long mouse travels from top to bottom of the screen and back), and having toolbars and menu at bottom would be way too unusual and uncomfortable for most users.
Like HTC's earlier similar product, the Universal, for which there are now several unofficial GNU/Linux distributions, including even a way to run a Debian port almost unmodified. However, there is no cooperation from the vendor at all, so if you want to support a company which invests in Free Software, better check out Nokia n800/n810 or that OpenMoko phone.
I've had a very similar situation, like what poster of the story describes.
The computer with which I tested the "video-swap", is a Celeron 433, with Intel 815 chipset. It had 128 MB of main RAM. The videocard is ATI Radeon 9000 with 64 MB of RAM. Of these 64, I configured 56 megabytes to be used as swap. It worked absolutely fine, even with X (which was hardlocked in config file to the bottom 8 MB).
However, the speed of read/write access to the video RAM was not great at all. Reads were about 4.5 megabytes/sec, and writes about 11.2 megabytes/sec. In addition, during reads or writes even at these low speeds, the process named "mtdblockd" was chewing up 99% of CPU.
I tried both slram and phram modules, they both worked, performance of both was the same.
I believe something somewhere code along the code path (phram|slram -> mtdblock -> mtd ) is poorly optimized for this type of task, because 11.2 or 4.5 megabytes is too large of a difference from 1066 megabytes/sec AGP 4x (at which rate my videocard worked), theoretically allows. Also, 99% CPU load while accessing video-RAM through mtdblock device is a serious issue which may limit its usefulness for swapping.
So it is the Explorer, but with a fucking kitchen-sink built in. But still the Explorer. What's your point?
My point is, that it'd be perfectly great if Konqueror would be just an Explorer clone. Some things Microsoft did right, nothing wrong in copying them. An explorer clone - a good thing to have, and I'd use it. But Konqueror is almost completely ruined by all those "nice features" that you describe, which, for me, just an awful bloat.
BTW, I still hope that someone makes an usable web-browser on top of Konqueror's rendering engine, because it's golden (as in - fast, snappy, bugless, standard-compliant and on top of all, native to KDE).
I really appreciate when server administrators or webmasters turn on GZIP compression for all pages. Sometimes, it can reduce the amount of transferred data tenfold, or more!
This is really nice, especially when your charges $0.2 per megabyte - but even on usual, pay-per-minute dialup helps save a lot of time and money.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wait? :)
I remember Opera in the versions 3.5x (at least) had exactly such layout by default. Since then, they changed to the current-classic one (address bar at the top).
Guess that if you place the address bar at the bottom, you also need to place the toolbar buttons and main menu there (to avoid long mouse travels from top to bottom of the screen and back), and having toolbars and menu at bottom would be way too unusual and uncomfortable for most users.
Unreal had better-made portals in 1998. Too bad we don't see more of those in today's games.
2007 called, it wants you to return its ATI drivers back.
Yes it's really like that, they improved tremendously literally in the last 6 months or so.
I believe NetSurf has more modern rendering engine than dillo, while being as light (or lighter).
Like HTC's earlier similar product, the Universal, for which there are now several unofficial GNU/Linux distributions, including even a way to run a Debian port almost unmodified. However, there is no cooperation from the vendor at all, so if you want to support a company which invests in Free Software, better check out Nokia n800/n810 or that OpenMoko phone.
Might be not quite suitable for Doom II, but HTC Universal runs the "armel" port of Debian recently, although getting it installed still requires some familiarity with Debian and GNU/Linux in general. "Titchy Mobile will be a complete, fully-native Debian GNU/Linux distribution for the HTC Universal mobile phone, including support for GPRS/UMTS internet access, SMS, and voice calls."
I've had a very similar situation, like what poster of the story describes.
The computer with which I tested the "video-swap", is a Celeron 433, with Intel 815 chipset. It had 128 MB of main RAM.
The videocard is ATI Radeon 9000 with 64 MB of RAM. Of these 64, I configured 56 megabytes to be used as swap.
It worked absolutely fine, even with X (which was hardlocked in config file to the bottom 8 MB).
However, the speed of read/write access to the video RAM was not great at all.
Reads were about 4.5 megabytes/sec, and writes about 11.2 megabytes/sec.
In addition, during reads or writes even at these low speeds, the process named "mtdblockd" was chewing up 99% of CPU.
I tried both slram and phram modules, they both worked, performance of both was the same.
I believe something somewhere code along the code path (phram|slram -> mtdblock -> mtd ) is poorly optimized for this type of task, because 11.2 or 4.5 megabytes is too large of a difference from 1066 megabytes/sec AGP 4x (at which rate my videocard worked), theoretically allows.
Also, 99% CPU load while accessing video-RAM through mtdblock device is a serious issue which may limit its usefulness for swapping.
So it is the Explorer, but with a fucking kitchen-sink built in. But still the Explorer. What's your point?
My point is, that it'd be perfectly great if Konqueror would be just an Explorer clone. Some things Microsoft did right, nothing wrong in copying them. An explorer clone - a good thing to have, and I'd use it. But Konqueror is almost completely ruined by all those "nice features" that you describe, which, for me, just an awful bloat.
BTW, I still hope that someone makes an usable web-browser on top of Konqueror's rendering engine, because it's golden (as in - fast, snappy, bugless, standard-compliant and on top of all, native to KDE).
I really appreciate when server administrators or webmasters turn on GZIP compression for all pages. Sometimes, it can reduce the amount of transferred data tenfold, or more! This is really nice, especially when your charges $0.2 per megabyte - but even on usual, pay-per-minute dialup helps save a lot of time and money.