Re: HTML 3.2: PRE should not exclude IMG
Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:36:31 +0100 (BST)

Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2: PRE should not exclude IMG
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:36:31 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Matthew James Marnell" at Jun 4, 96 02:34:44 am

Matthew James Marnell wrote:
> :>WIK> But they require separate, huge programs (seen Ghostscript or
> :>WIK> Acrobat?)  for rendering.
> :>
> :> Probably part of Abigail's point.  To do real page layout is
> :>difficult and (often) requires huge programs.
> I don't know what everyone is griping about with the large programs.
> Evidently nobody here has downloaded Netscape 3.0b4 with Live3d for
> the Mac.  I don't own another single program that takes up that much
> space in memory while running.  18 Meg folks.  Ghostscript doesn't
> take up that much space on any one of my Unix systems loading a 200
> page document.  Heck, INND only takes up a little more than that
> during nightly expires.

How much of the size is the OS's fault and how much is the browsers?
Isn't it the case that X11 Netscape's have statically linked widget
libraries and the like?

Maybe it just a further fostering of the idea that the larger the program,
the better it is?

It is getting rather a joke now though IMHO.  The code for my web
browser (graphical, does most things except SSL, CSS, tables & frames
and one or two other things) is .... 285K - when it is run through a
squeezer (compresses the image and tacks on the decomp code) this goes
down to less than 150K.  Memory requirements are generally another 300K
of RAM to hold configuration data, window definitions, etc. plus any
extra needed to hold displayed pages.  Rarely does the total RAM
requirement exceed 2MB - and this is without virtual memory (Acorn's RISC
OS doesn't provide this - a third party extension can do this for people
that need it though)

Stewart Brodie, Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University.