General :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
Has anyone had experience running K-Meleon on, say, a 486? I'm looking for the best solution (usable speed), which at this point is still Opera, but if people have had success with K-Meleon I'd love to take a look. It certainly runs great on any modern machine.
Hi Hackel
I have a P100 (pretty slow in this day and age) on win98se and K-meleon has no problems. I use the loader on startup also I am aware of ram and system resources restrictions when I get / run software (eg: Kerio instead of ZA, Mail Warrior instead of OE...etc).
I had IE before KM and I have to say KM is easier, faster in my opinion.
encoderX
ICQ# : 82825922
ICQ# : 82825922
hey, is that you, ryan? it's joe from umah.
my parents' computer is several years old, runs 95, is very, very slow. i use kmeleon on it and its better than ie. you'll probably have to download a little extra though. the menus (file, edit, etc.) didn't appear when i first ran it.
i'd definetely try km. it's ultra light and ultra fast. it's probably better than opera because it uses about the same memory as opera when it first starts but rumor has it that km will use alot less memory after you've been surfing for a while while other browsers keep using more.
I would be much happier to have K-M on a 486 than Idiot Exploder. My first computer got all messed up from IE.
I will admit one way in which the Microsoft Beast may have something like betterness - if your display is limited to 256 colors, websites may be easier on the eyes. I am at this moment surfing with my sister's eTower, but using my spare junker monitor, and the colors are wicked awful in K-M, poor but more bearable in IE. All depends, I suppose. I'll get one of my oldies back online one of these days and check it out some more.
Wow, I used to try to do graphix with this monitor...
if speeds what you want, i suggest you disable images under preferences. i just did it on my parents' slow computer and i noticed a huge improvement.
What's wrong with Eudora Light on a P100/150? Is this a good choice?
I tried K-Meleon on a Pentium-60, which is close enough to a 486, and the usability was there.
Just be careful not to overdo it, and it should be ok. Disabling images is a great idea if all you want is the information!
Hi,
I Tried KM on my NEC Versa v/50 (a 486DX2/50 with 20 meg and Win95) and it really was too much for that platform. I've tried a bunch of different browsers on it and IE 5.0 and the OffByOne browser are the best, IMHO.
It works GREAT on this AMD PR166 w/98 megs and Win98. Loads faster than IE 5.5 and is my browser of choice on this machine. I think it's even better/faster than Opera.
Whoah, radar, your experience is so far off what I've discovered, I'm wondering what you're doing. I've found that KM will run faster in a smaller active RAM footprint than IE. This means that it doesn't have to head to the hard drive to retrieve things as often since the things it needs are already in memory. For me when I was running 32MB of ram, it meant that KM was usable with a few layers open, but IE wasn't usable at all by anyone but a patient person, and after a few open windows, it wasn't even usable by those with patience beyond stretch of the imagination.
Keeping mind that there are plugins, perhaps you should have tried disabling a couple? The layers function, while useful, can be removed for speed, as can two of the three bookmark plugins, the rebar plugin, and possible more(who NEEDS bitmapped menus when RAM is on the line?), and there's a RAM cache which could possibly be reduced somewhat. All it might take is a little tweaking to get this paticular state-of-the-art program running admirably on a not-so state of the art machine.
Latest report from the trenches - here I am with K-M0.7 running a little sluggishly (compared to what I'm used to) in a charming little 486 that I skimmed off a trashpile last April. Chugging along at ca. 90 mhz with 24M of RAM, and apparently feeling no pain. Takes a couple of blinks to switch layers, a couple of breaths to load a page...
I'm sure that at least it won't cause the snowballing instability that would be inevitable with Infernal Exterminator.
I do NOT have Java enabled!!!)
Arual,
What OS?
Sorry about that - Win95.
I hate typing long ones with my 2nd-best keyboard on my lap :-)
General discussion about K-Meleon
Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
Hackel
Date: December 24, 2002 11:01AM
Has anyone had experience running K-Meleon on, say, a 486? I'm looking for the best solution (usable speed), which at this point is still Opera, but if people have had success with K-Meleon I'd love to take a look. It certainly runs great on any modern machine.
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
encoderX
Date: December 24, 2002 03:46PM
Hi Hackel
I have a P100 (pretty slow in this day and age) on win98se and K-meleon has no problems. I use the loader on startup also I am aware of ram and system resources restrictions when I get / run software (eg: Kerio instead of ZA, Mail Warrior instead of OE...etc).
I had IE before KM and I have to say KM is easier, faster in my opinion.
encoderX
ICQ# : 82825922
ICQ# : 82825922
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
joe
Date: December 28, 2002 11:53PM
hey, is that you, ryan? it's joe from umah.
my parents' computer is several years old, runs 95, is very, very slow. i use kmeleon on it and its better than ie. you'll probably have to download a little extra though. the menus (file, edit, etc.) didn't appear when i first ran it.
i'd definetely try km. it's ultra light and ultra fast. it's probably better than opera because it uses about the same memory as opera when it first starts but rumor has it that km will use alot less memory after you've been surfing for a while while other browsers keep using more.
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
Arual the Wyrd
Date: December 29, 2002 12:33AM
I would be much happier to have K-M on a 486 than Idiot Exploder. My first computer got all messed up from IE.
I will admit one way in which the Microsoft Beast may have something like betterness - if your display is limited to 256 colors, websites may be easier on the eyes. I am at this moment surfing with my sister's eTower, but using my spare junker monitor, and the colors are wicked awful in K-M, poor but more bearable in IE. All depends, I suppose. I'll get one of my oldies back online one of these days and check it out some more.
Wow, I used to try to do graphix with this monitor...
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
joe
Date: December 29, 2002 09:07PM
if speeds what you want, i suggest you disable images under preferences. i just did it on my parents' slow computer and i noticed a huge improvement.
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
polo
Date: December 30, 2002 12:22AM
What's wrong with Eudora Light on a P100/150? Is this a good choice?
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
blitzkriegkat
Date: December 30, 2002 04:38AM
I tried K-Meleon on a Pentium-60, which is close enough to a 486, and the usability was there.
Just be careful not to overdo it, and it should be ok. Disabling images is a great idea if all you want is the information!
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
Radar
Date: January 06, 2003 02:54AM
Hi,
I Tried KM on my NEC Versa v/50 (a 486DX2/50 with 20 meg and Win95) and it really was too much for that platform. I've tried a bunch of different browsers on it and IE 5.0 and the OffByOne browser are the best, IMHO.
It works GREAT on this AMD PR166 w/98 megs and Win98. Loads faster than IE 5.5 and is my browser of choice on this machine. I think it's even better/faster than Opera.
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
SJ Zero
Date: January 10, 2003 07:37PM
Whoah, radar, your experience is so far off what I've discovered, I'm wondering what you're doing. I've found that KM will run faster in a smaller active RAM footprint than IE. This means that it doesn't have to head to the hard drive to retrieve things as often since the things it needs are already in memory. For me when I was running 32MB of ram, it meant that KM was usable with a few layers open, but IE wasn't usable at all by anyone but a patient person, and after a few open windows, it wasn't even usable by those with patience beyond stretch of the imagination.
Keeping mind that there are plugins, perhaps you should have tried disabling a couple? The layers function, while useful, can be removed for speed, as can two of the three bookmark plugins, the rebar plugin, and possible more(who NEEDS bitmapped menus when RAM is on the line?), and there's a RAM cache which could possibly be reduced somewhat. All it might take is a little tweaking to get this paticular state-of-the-art program running admirably on a not-so state of the art machine.
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
Arual the Wyrd
Date: January 20, 2003 01:06AM
Latest report from the trenches - here I am with K-M0.7 running a little sluggishly (compared to what I'm used to) in a charming little 486 that I skimmed off a trashpile last April. Chugging along at ca. 90 mhz with 24M of RAM, and apparently feeling no pain. Takes a couple of blinks to switch layers, a couple of breaths to load a page...
I'm sure that at least it won't cause the snowballing instability that would be inevitable with Infernal Exterminator.
I do NOT have Java enabled!!!
)Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
Andrew
Date: January 22, 2003 02:50AM
Arual,
What OS?
Re: Performance on Slow Machines?
Posted by:
Arual the Wyrd
Date: January 22, 2003 02:52AM
Sorry about that - Win95.
I hate typing long ones with my 2nd-best keyboard on my lap :-)
English