home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: nntp.net-link.net!news
- From: mikew@net-link.net (Mike Williams)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
- Subject: Re: Web browsers ?
- Date: 20 Mar 1996 05:23:09 GMT
- Organization: DC Productions
- Message-ID: <4io4nt$q27@leol.net-link.net>
- References: <1459.6639T705T2870@xmission.com> <1155.6641T1176T2770@ts.umu.se> <4imj7f$kjh@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: p1-27.net-link.net
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
- X-NewsSoftware: GRn 2.1 Feb 19, 1994
-
-
- In article <4imj7f$kjh@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> kcci1@central.susx.ac.uk (Alan L.M. Buxey) writes:
- > Mattias Sandgren posted the following:
- >
- > : People dislike MUI because it's one of a kind on the Amiga and uses
- >
- > but it is a good idea.... :)
- >
- > : up "too much" system resources. Buy a 540+ MB harddrive and at
- > : least an 8 MB SIMM and you won't have any problems with it.
- >
- > ....but this is a PC mentality which i dislike 100% - "oh, just throw
- > more resources at it.." (that arent REALLY needed if the thing was done
- > right anyway!)
-
- The docs of version 3.something say that a lot of things were changed to make
- it use less resources. The main thing I remember had something to do with
- moving things to external libraries so they didn't have to be loaded unless
- actually needed.
-
- To those of you who complain about MUI being inefficient: Is version 3.3 any
- better than before or do you still consider it a resource hog?
-
- --
- .signature under construction
-