On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Stephan A wrote: > > Why anyone would still use NetPositive is beyond me, except if the > WebPositive was unreliable. Let me give some reasons... (:-/) I have an RSS feed from the BBC that I bring up at least once or twice a day. Both NP and WP are fast at starting up with the local page of links that gets created -- ~1/2 sec for NP, 3 for WP. But when I click on one of those links, there's an order of magnitude difference. I just timed one of them. Under NP it was readable in under 2 seconds; with WP I was still waiting 30 secs later! The point here of course is that with the BBC I'm mainly interested in the text, and maybe the photos. NP gives me both, even if the formatting is often rather strange. WP has to load all the other extraneous stuff that is irrelevant to me. Then there is a local radio station's site. Again, it comes up in a couple of seconds with NP. It's essentially impossible to view with WP because loading continues for minutes (literally). That page does have some important bits -- like a live playlist -- that are JS driven, so NP is no use there. BeZilla handles that when I actually want it. Things are not helped by the priority inversion problem (like #8007:) especially prominent in WP (but not in BeZilla). While pages are loading, the cursor often freezes for seconds or more at a time, making it impossible even to kill things! -- Pete --