On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:19:50 GMT, in
<>
Ephraim Gadsby scrawled:
>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:50:02 +0000, °Mike°
><> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:33:46 GMT, in
>> <>
>> Ephraim Gadsby scrawled:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:19:58 +0000, °Mike°
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:08:48 GMT, in
>>>> <>
>>>> puffy scrawled:
>>>
>>>>>do I always have to empty my temp internet file folders/?
>>>>
>>>>It's pointless keeping temporary internet files across sessions,
>>>>unless you visit the same sites, *and* the contents of those
>>>>site do *not* change.
>>>
>>>Not really. Even if the content of a page changes there are usually
>>>components of the page that are cachable over months. Caching things
>>>like button-images, logos, backgrounds etc can make a significant
>>>difference.
>>
>>That is irrelevant, since if the contents change, the whole page
>>has to be refreshed, defeating the object of keeping the
>>cache.
>
>
>Refreshing a page does not alway involve downloading all of it. A
>browser can simply check with the server that it's cached copy of each
>object is up-to-date.
>
>If you don't believe me, try creating a simple page with some text,
>and an image that takes a significant amount of time to load, and
>upload it to a web server. You will find that the image is cached
>between sessions even if you change the other content of the html. The
>same is true for many of the graphical elements that make-up the look
>and feel of websites.
>
>Fast broad band connections are limited more by round-trip times, but
>on a dial-up connect it can make a significant difference.
Untrue (sort of). It entirely depends on what you have set
Internet Explorer to do in the TIF settings. I am on dial-up,
and I do *not* experience any significant gain by keeping
the cached files. Also, incomplete, or damaged files can
totally ruing a browsing session on dial-up - another reason
not to keep them across sessions.
--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html