Post by Dave YeoI wonder if the site is serving up the same page to 2.14 and 2.21?
http://www.tijd.be/beurzen/CAC_NEXT_20.365011860 uses a banner script,
which uses this threshold: <div data-browser-name="ff"
data-browser-version="24.0"></div>
I just used 2.14 -> 2.0.3 (to import old Netscape mail) -> 2.14 ->
2.21, and deleted files in the media directory. Now 2.21 is about as
fast as both the FF beta and SM2.21. Perhaps an ad was the problem,
this is the 5th time it tried it by visiting the same site. So I'll
upgrade to 2.21 too. It looked like problems with scripts. Today the
FF beta was fast too.
Post by Dave Yeoso basically we're optimizing for everything but P4's
which I assume are getting rare.
386: OS/2 museum, *_BUT_* it's my default because it matches the
requirements of the OS. So I don't have to mention any requirements,
and I don't have to explain to the last 386er that my HelloWorld.EXE
requires a 486, albeit that user won't notice any speed gain due to a
few optimized instructions.
486: OS/2 museum, DOS games (sound/CPU speed), old OS/2 software like
Cosmos/2 requiring older video drivers, testing purposes (e.g. Mozilla
fonts, in the past). A better default choice than a 386, *_BUT_*
you'll have to print on the box that a 486 is a silly requirement.
586/Pentium I: same as 486. Technically a better optimatization choice
than a 486, *_BUT_* you'll have the print the sily requirement on the
box again. You still don't expect that anything will work, but my
HelloWorld.EXE should work (why not?).
Pentium II: eCS' bottom line, enough memory to browse (if you really
have to, do forget e.g. animated GIFs and video), something you could
actually use to write a HelloWorld.EXE because typing and adding more
stupid bugs don't require a 6THz CPU. It's very likely that everybody
reading this isusing at least a PII and a modern (newer than Y2K)
version of OS/2. If so, then that user isn;'t using the main system.
Pentium III: best of both worlds, possibly support of DOS sound and
fast enough for basic daily use, including browsing and not watching
that many videos. Perhaps the bottom line of main systems.
Pentium IV: less DOS sound, more videos.
Newer than Pentium: IV: dunno, I cannot install my eCS 1.2.
So I think it's safe to say that anybody reading this (textmode or
GUI) is using at least a P6/Pentium II. If any, at least a Pentium III
is more likely. But if you're writing a newsgroup reader, then I'd
recommend to use the default optimization of the compiler.
For example, recently I distributed a clipboard utility without its
optimization for a 586, and I used my default choice of 386,
Requirements: same as OS, and I don't have to explain to some museum
that a simple utility requires a 586 because ... erm ....
Post by Dave YeoThe newer the CPU, the less of a problem though.
FF (PII+)/SM(PII+)/video(PIII+) are special cases anyway, and perhaps
the power tools of programmers. The older the CPU, the more important
a gain of 1% is. Add at least a generation for daily use (FF/SM:
PIII+, video PIV+). Even WinXP will struggle with a faster PIII and
modern HD videos.
Finally DOS sound typically is not a good reason to keep using a
P4/P5. You'd better spend $10 to buy such and old beast to play your
games, and buy newer hardware for daily use. I actually use P6s, but
it's far more likely (>99%) that I'm using at least a Pentium III to
produce this text. Built-in WLAN will also play a role nowadays. My
oldest machines with added built-in WLAN are PIIIs, e.g. a T23 or a
X20. I'm not going to grab a cable and connector to try to be
interesting by using a P4/P5 to type this. E.g. testing yes, serious
production no. It's quite safe to assume the use of a PIII, but a 386
(always, or the default of your compiler) or a P6 (if needed) are
probably the technical bottom lines.
--