[troyb]

To those having peformance problems when OmniWeb is loading a new page. Try going into your OmniWeb application support folder and remove the file called "HistoryIndex.ox"

It appears that this has a negative effect on performance if it gets too big and gets accessed each time you add a new page to your history.

Complete file path:

~/Library/Application Support/OmniWeb 5/HistoryIndex.ox

[daiyi666@yahoo.com]

OW has been the fastest of my browsers since 5.5 employed WebKit. I need to occasionally use FF for a few sites, and based on impressions it's not as fast as OW.

It might help having 2GB RAM; but that would, I assume, make all things equal among browsers.

[philonous]

Originally Posted by daiyi666@yahoo.com

It might help having 2GB RAM; but that would, I assume, make all things equal among browsers.

Well, my ancient PB 12" 867 MHz has a memory capactiy of 640 Mb, which I have filled since about a month after I purchased it. It was a killer deal at UCLA at the time. $1350 with Bluetooth built in.

Wow, how much do things change in 3.5 years. :)

Even though I had a hard drive failure (I had the internal hard drive replaced with my external 2.5" backup, and I was back in business, baby) I cannot justify buying a new computer. This baby is running far too well. I even compiled gnucash 2.0 over the weekend, and everything is humming along.

But, oh yeah, 2 Gig of RAM would be SOooo SWEET!!

Payam

[Handycam]

Since 5.5 has come out, no other Mac browser has rendered pages faster for me.

[philonous]

Originally Posted by troyb

~/Library/Application Support/OmniWeb 5/HistoryIndex.ox

I deleted this and HistoryIndex.lock and .log, but the problem persists for me. I think the way OW processes complex pages is too much for my puny CPU. After deleting the cited files and restarting OW, I still get the spinning rainbow ball when I try to view pages like this one:

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Gas_Sme...a_Of_Manhattan

Payam

[daiyi666@yahoo.com]

Originally Posted by philonous

Well, my ancient PB 12" 867 MHz has a memory capactiy of 640 Mb, which I have filled since about a month after I purchased it. It was a killer deal at UCLA at the time. $1350 with Bluetooth built in.

Wow, how much do things change in 3.5 years. :)

Even though I had a hard drive failure (I had the internal hard drive replaced with my external 2.5" backup, and I was back in business, baby) I cannot justify buying a new computer. This baby is running far too well. I even compiled gnucash 2.0 over the weekend, and everything is humming along.

But, oh yeah, 2 Gig of RAM would be SOooo SWEET!!

Payam

Not to gloat, but I figured maxing out the RAM would be worthwhile to get the most out of the new MacBook. That being said, your PB should still work well. I had to switch back to my even more ancient PB 400/512 while the MacBook was in the shop for Random Shutdown Syndrome repairs. I was impressed how well it ran for basic work considering age and RAM limitations (the upper slot is haywire, which keeps me from maxing out at 1 GB). Strange that your 12" limit is 640 when the first generation PB went up to 1 GB.

When you do buy again the prices are obviously great now. But Apple quality is suffering, too. My colleague had problems with her 2G MacBook (DVD burner DOA) and another friend had 3 out 4 of his institutes' new MacBooks suffer from some condition or another. Add to that the bad RAM slot on my PowerBook, broken keyboard on my wife's iBook, and my father's DOA eMac and it seems lower prices have also meant lower quality (control) for Apple.

[Forrest]

I've got 4.5GB of RAM in this machine, and that doesn't even come close to helping the known issues OW has which make it unbearably slow at times.

[philonous]

Originally Posted by daiyi666@yahoo.com

it seems lower prices have also meant lower quality (control) for Apple.

My laptop does run awfully well. Even better since the original drive died after 3 years of service. (It was replaced with another Toshiba from the same line, with double the capacity and larger buffer.) But, supposedly, Apple still has better overall quality control than Dell.

My girlfriend's Macbook is holding up ok so far, after 6 months.

But, I guess none of this will matter once Omnigroup releases OW5.6.

At least, I hope it won't. :)

[justG]

Originally Posted by daiyi666@yahoo.com

It might help having 2GB RAM; but that would, I assume, make all things equal among browsers.

Nah. That's how much I've got. It doesn't equalise the browsers. Firefox is still very slow, Opera is okay, Camino and Safari are fast, and OW is (sometimes) the fastest. OW is, however, still plagued by the frequently reported slowdowns and SBB occurrences.

Looking forward to forthcoming updates. =)

[daiyi666@yahoo.com]

Originally Posted by justG

Nah. That's how much I've got. It doesn't equalise the browsers. Firefox is still very slow, Opera is okay, Camino and Safari are fast, and OW is (sometimes) the fastest. OW is, however, still plagued by the frequently reported slowdowns and SBB occurrences.
=)

I meant for testing the speed for browsers on a single machine with x amount of RAM as a constant; not that it makes all browsers equally fast.

Might OW perform better on MacTel machines? Forrest has double the RAM yet experiences slowdowns, which I have yet to encounter on my MacBook (save for a busy server, such as Apple's today during Macworld). Forrest, which machine are you running?