Summary: | Please make "back" button quicker | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Applications] konqueror | Reporter: | Erik Schnetter <schnetter> |
Component: | khtml | Assignee: | Konqueror Developers <konq-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | wishlist | ||
Priority: | NOR | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
Sentry Crash Report: |
Description
Erik Schnetter
2003-07-15 20:22:41 UTC
KDE 3.2.2 still reloads the page. Opera e.g. just shows the cached page when you hit "Back" and doesn't reload it. Well this is nice for speed, but OTOH if the page has meta-tags that force a reload on each view, it's just a wrong behaviour. IMHO the best would be that pages that don't wanna be cached, would be reloaded on "Back", and all the other pages should be rendered from the http-cache and not reloaded from the net. There is another reason why the back button is slow: When you click the backbutton repeatedly, KDE thinks you are double-clicking and ignores the double-click. So, you cannot click faster than the configured double-click delay. See Bug 62955, and vote. *** Bug has been marked as fixed ***. Stupid me. Sorry. ... I think you're right, this has been fixed in KDE 3.3. Right? I don't know. I accidentally closed this bug. I think it is faster than 3.2 but I might be wrong. But it is not as fast as switching tabs and I don't know if that is possible (me!=konq-dev), so I won't close this one. Well, it's definitely not reloading the page, but it does do much more than just redrawing it. It can still take a few seconds to go back to a large page, while switching to it from another tab is instant. Question is: What *is* KHTML doing when you press back? I think it is rerendering (not reloading) the page. I would think (not sure!!) if one wanted to fix this wish one would have save the rendered version of the page, which would make konqueror quite memory hogging. I read it's now quicker because some timers were changed to a shorter delay? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 78575 *** |