http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r13384318 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:59:34 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:59:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13385196 Sat_Man : It was pointless for me also. Since I'm on Satellite, behind a nat and using proxy I didn't see any difference. In fact the time saver indicator never changed. It stayed on "0". I ran it for about four days and deleted it. Thanks Google for the try, but this one is a bomb!
--
Fred US Air Force Retired
G11, 990, DW4000, DAK 4.2.1.10_P-15, XPpro Host, XPpro client, XPhome Laptop client, W98 client, NetWork: DI-614+, DWL-650+, DWL-120+ (2), DWL-800AP+ Repeater.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13385196 Wed, 11 May 2005 18:19:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384434 Ark : You mean every browser there already is?
What you probably want is webmasters to properly use cache headers for dynamic content so the browser doesn't think the page has always changed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384434 Wed, 11 May 2005 16:37:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384345 raderator : Been using it on 2 'puters...no noticeable diff.

What the world really needs is a better browser which will NOT re-download content from a site you just visited 2 seconds ago.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384345 Wed, 11 May 2005 16:27:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384318 davidcb13 : This is only pointless for us.. Im sure google has a use for it otherwise they wouldnt of come out with it]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384318 Wed, 11 May 2005 16:22:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384213 alg : Sorry google, you failed with this one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13384213 Wed, 11 May 2005 16:10:46 EDT