Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Reply In the meantime, please don't blank content on your whim.
Please cite a few reliable sources and maybe we can have a discussion. Pmffl ( talk) 22:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Reply thank you for your thoughts. Also, any browser that uses the engines of any of the major browsers, such as V8/Blink from Chrome or Gecko/SpiderMonkey from Firefox, definitely is not lightweight. Lightweight should only include Dillo and other tiny browsers that have either no support for JavaScript or a rather limited subset. The two most usable ones were Dillo and Netsurf. Firefox, however, absolutely crawled on the ARMv9 processor board that I ran it on. As a frame of reference - I just installed all of the browsers listed here, and more than half of them was significantly (50%+) bigger than the latest Firefox. 4) A score combining the previous, per supported feature. 1) Size - how big is the browser and supporting libraries 2) RAM Impact - how memory intensive is the browser 3) CPU Impact - how CPU intensive is the browser. I second applying more thought to the definition, and I propose some measures. I have tried to clarify this in the lead section - Ringbang ( talk) 00:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Reply An alpha version of a browser with many features remaining to be implemented isn't lightweight by design. It is not an absolute measure of resource consumption or a relative comparison of features. What makes a browser "lightweight" is a matter of design principles.
So what is the definition of lightweight? mabdul 09:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Reply Hi, good question.
SLIMBOAT WEB BROWSER WINDOWS
Well what is the definition of 'lightweight' web browsers? If I compare my old Opera 12 with 'new modern' web browsers (especially having 70+ tabs and windows open) then I would guess this browser could also be counted as lightweight.
0 kommentar(er)
