The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
should be on Linux soon...
*realises hes been saying this for a while now*
> Fog wrote:
> Dreamweaver's a git though, takes about 15-20 seconds most time and
> it
> annoys me because it's the main program for my CSS/PHP pages so if I
> accidentally click on it I loose my Ram for a while, same goes for
> 1st
> Page 2000 though but I like that program.
>
> yeah, i have that too. it overided my old settings and now takes ages
> to load. ive set PHP to load up with PHPEd though - much faster.
>
> talking about which, anyone here who writes a lot of PHP script (or
> any type of script), you should download PHPEd - great program
Quanta+ for Qt 0wns you all - available on a Unix platform near you, NOW!
> Photoshop takes about 5 seconds to load on my 1.3Ghz and i've got a
> load of extra plugins, how nice.
It takes just under 2 seconds when it's already in the RAM ;-)
> Dreamweaver's a git though, takes about 15-20 seconds most time and it
> annoys me because it's the main program for my CSS/PHP pages so if I
> accidentally click on it I loose my Ram for a while, same goes for 1st
> Page 2000 though but I like that program.
yeah, i have that too. it overided my old settings and now takes ages to load. ive set PHP to load up with PHPEd though - much faster.
talking about which, anyone here who writes a lot of PHP script (or any type of script), you should download PHPEd - great program
Dreamweaver's a git though, takes about 15-20 seconds most time and it annoys me because it's the main program for my CSS/PHP pages so if I accidentally click on it I loose my Ram for a while, same goes for 1st Page 2000 though but I like that program.
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I have to wait 6 seconds for Photoshop 7 to load. That isn't good
> enough.
>
> very true. however I was under the impression that was down to lack of
> RAM and HDD access speeds more than the processor. im probably wrong
> seeing as i know jack s**t about hardware
True, although I have very fast RAM and HDDs, I do think it would load
quicker with a faster processor, as my CPU graph shows.
> xy2k wrote:
> Processor power doubles every 12/18 months (apparently). So by
> around
> 2005 we'll see 5GHz PCs. We're already half way there.
>
> no. surely if they double every 12/18 months and we're at 2.5Ghz now,
> we should see 5Ghz PCs in 12/18 months - i.e. mid-2003 to
> early-2004.
>
> you said it yourself, "We're already half way there"
>
> :P
Ok then. Not quite half way. Happy?
:p