| 1 |
Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 16 July 2007 05:54, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I think it is a bug myself. It seems to me that there should be a limit |
| 6 |
>> of some kind on this file. Maybe a time limit, size limit or |
| 7 |
>> something. Me, I just hate filing bug reports. I have filed a few but |
| 8 |
>> only after some serious guru |
| 9 |
>> said I should. I did go search to see if one had been filed but I |
| 10 |
>> didn't see one filed. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> [snip...] |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> Any thoughts from a serious guru about whether I should file this as a |
| 16 |
>> bug with Seamonkey or not? |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I am not a guru and some would argue I am not serious either, but is there |
| 20 |
> somewhere in the Mozilla settings how much cache and space for |
| 21 |
> entries/history it is allowed to use? I am thinking of Opera here which |
| 22 |
> offers you such fine tuning options. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Well, I do have cache set to 500Mbs but I did that so that it could |
| 26 |
cache images and such on web pages. I frequent some sites that have a |
| 27 |
lot of images and since I am on dial-up, very slow dial-up, I like it to |
| 28 |
store them locally as much as possible. Over clockers forums is one |
| 29 |
such site that takes forever to load when I have recently cleared the cache. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I think what is needed here is a limit to the downloads.rdf file's size |
| 32 |
or something to that effect. I can say this, I love that it is now |
| 33 |
faster. I just wonder how many other people are having this issue and |
| 34 |
have no clue what is wrong. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Dale |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
:-) :-) |
Archives