I have Infinity and I use FireFox, Opera, Chrome, IE9 & Safari browser's and don't have any problem with using them.

iechyd da

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

It is plausible that your problem is memory

That could well be it. I'm using IE8 and found it eating up memory and getting more and more sluggish "You must remember this ... as Time Goes By".

I recently upgraded my XP from 1 GB to 3 GB and, tho' it's early days yet, I'm sure iE8's more responsive.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Hi All

I had BT Infinity installed a couple weeks ago and synched at 30 meg. The problem is, whenever I am browsing my internet explorer cannot keep up!

When i download a file everything is great. However browsing the internet is a problem, going between tabs takes a few seconds all the time, as if its waiting for one of the pages to load.

Anyone had a problem with this? (First person who blames it on IE will be ignored)

funny enough yes.

no browsers yet can spread cpu load in a single tab across multiple cpu's, eg. on my 4 core machine I regurly see browsers hit 25% cpu usage when loading pages which is basically maxing out. Basically meaning my web sites are now been saturated by cpu power rather than bandwidth now. Of course not every site does it, but many do.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

?
Surely unless his browsing habits have changed dramatically in the last two weeks that would have always been the case?

The assumption I am making is that he is expecting sites to load faster than previously, given the large increase in available bandwidth. Hence my point that it may not be browser or bandwidth related, but a factor of latency to OPs favourite sites.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Hi All

I had BT Infinity installed a couple weeks ago and synched at 30 meg. The problem is, whenever I am browsing my internet explorer cannot keep up!

When i download a file everything is great. However browsing the internet is a problem, going between tabs takes a few seconds all the time, as if its waiting for one of the pages to load.

Anyone had a problem with this? (First person who blames it on IE will be ignored)

funny enough yes.

no browsers yet can spread cpu load in a single tab across multiple cpu's, eg. on my 4 core machine I regurly see browsers hit 25% cpu usage when loading pages which is basically maxing out. Basically meaning my web sites are now been saturated by cpu power rather than bandwidth now. Of course not every site does it, but many do.

You have threads and processes confused. All modern browsers use many threads per tab (drawing the UI, making multiple simultaneous HTTP requests while still allowing you to use the UI, ...). Threads will not show up in your process list as separate entities.

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

All modern browsers use many threads per tab (drawing the UI, making multiple simultaneous HTTP requests while still allowing you to use the UI, ...). Threads will not show up in your process list as separate entities.

The fact many threads are being used to get and present the info for the tab doesn't mean that those threads are necessarily going to be split between the multiple cores. I don't know whether Chrysalis's statement is true or false, but if the multiple threads for a tab can only be allocated to the same core then it would be true.

A different tab may very well be allocated to a different core. Or not, if the number of tabs exceeds the core count.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

All modern browsers use many threads per tab (drawing the UI, making multiple simultaneous HTTP requests while still allowing you to use the UI, ...). Threads will not show up in your process list as separate entities.

The fact many threads are being used to get and present the info for the tab doesn't mean that those threads are necessarily going to be split between the multiple cores. I don't know whether Chrysalis's statement is true or false, but if the multiple threads for a tab can only be allocated to the same core then it would be true.

A different tab may very well be allocated to a different core. Or not, if the number of tabs exceeds the core count.

You don't seem to know how threading works in a modern OS. I shall attempt to make a basic, simplified explanation;

Assuming we're using some modern software like FF, Opera, or whatever.

It is generally up to the operating system how the threads are distributed between the cores. When there are a greater number of threads than cores (as is always the case on a modern system), the OS time-slices to provide the illusion of concurrent execution.

The OSes scheduler will decide where and when to run the thread, and the algorithms are usually intelligent enough to move/distribute the threads (and their associated state) in a manner that is as optimal as possible.

However, just because the number of threads is high doesn't mean they will necessarily load your cores at 100%. For instance, you will usually find that certain threads do massively more work than others, transiently or otherwise, and hence you could have many threads performing tasks that provide little or no load whilst one thread hits a single core for 100%.

So there possibly needs to be work on distributing some of the heavier work-load segments into more threads (if possible, there are certain tasks that cannot be parallelised and must be performed sequentially).

Edited by deleted (Fri 24-Jun-11 01:28:22)

Grandmother (father); eggs; suck; how to; please do not attempt to teach.

First you still haven't understood the point being made/question being asked.

Second, if a modern OS uses time-slicing to apportion time between threads then an awful lot of CPU time is going begging and there is a lot of inefficiency while threads wait for their next slice.

Third, I'd be very surprised if the OS is telling the processor which core to use for any given thread.

Re the first of those points, Chrysalis's statement about the tab/core relationship did surprise me, but it is perfectly simple to write an application that doesn't use multi-threading for certain activities.

Whilst the browser as a whole will use multi-threading, the tabbed view implementation may for some reason not do so. At this stage of the analysis I prefer his empirical observation over your treatise.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Grandmother (father); eggs; suck; how to; please do not attempt to teach.

First you still haven't understood the point being made/question being asked.

Second, if a modern OS uses time-slicing to apportion time between threads then an awful lot of CPU time is going begging and there is a lot of inefficiency while threads wait for their next slice.

Third, I'd be very surprised if the OS is telling the processor which core to use for any given thread.

Re the first of those points, Chrysalis's statement about the tab/core relationship did surprise me, but it is perfectly simple to write an application that doesn't use multi-threading for certain activities.

Whilst the browser as a whole will use multi-threading, the tabbed view implementation may for some reason not do so. At this stage of the analysis I prefer his empirical observation over your treatise.

I was perfectly polite, and trying to correct you when you were completely incorrect. Rather than simply saying 'you are obviously wrong with your points' I gave a clear and simple explanation.

Frankly your response is boorish and disrespectful when someone attempts to help and inform you.

I too thought I was being polite, apart from my initial objection to being treated as though I have no knowledge of how computers work at this level.

I see you don't refute any of my post, much of which pulls holes in your explanation.