Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Speed internet browsing via a local domain name server' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Speed internet browsing via a local domain name server
Authored by: monickels on May 04, '05 11:38:50AM
Anyone who has 'switched' to the Mac, or has experience on a PC, knows that the PC makes the Mac look like a dog when it comes to web browsing. This is true for all browsers on the Mac.

This is a subjective statement unsupported by my own anecdotal evidence. I have Mac and Windows computers both at home and at work and I find the browsing "speed" (the rate at which data appears, the length of time it takes for a page to finish) to be indistinguishable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speed internet browsing via a local domain name server
Authored by: ms_t_rie on May 04, '05 12:39:16PM

I agree, my browsing speed on my Mac tends to be considerably FASTER than the browsing speed on my husband's PC. Both of us are using Firefox, so it's not a difference in browsers. (IMO, Safari is much slower than Firefox) With both of us going through the same router to the internet, the connection speed isn't the factor either, although having a fast connection could make the DNS lookup from being noticeable.

Browsing in a Virtual PC on the Mac is VERY slow, but that's probably due to the slowness of Virtual PC more than anything else. But my husband's PC is a high-end game system, it has PLENTY of power, more than 3x what my Mac has. It annoys him sometimes when I can browse faster than he can to the same sites :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Speed internet browsing via a local domain name server
Authored by: Anonymous on May 04, '05 04:34:28PM

Indeed.

It's often good advice to run a local caching resolver, but folks with simple networks (i.e., one or two boxes connected to a router, or one machine connected directly to the modem [of whatever kind]) will not necessarily see any drastic change in web browsing even with a local nameserver running on their clients.

For example, most Mozilla based browsers _already_ cache lookups, as does every Java app (that uses the network.) I don't know if Safari does or not, but it seems likely.

This is as true for Macs as it is other types of workstations. Wintel boxes are not naturally better at this.

If you have a real internal network (i.e., a bunch of boxes NATted behind a firewall, with some given static IPs and others dynamic, all on an actual domain) you are certainly advised to have a primary nameserver that caches lookups it gets from the outside world.

However, people who just "plug 'n play" to their provider with only a few little grey or blue boxes between them and the internet will not necessarily find this hint all that helpful.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Speed internet browsing via a local domain name server
Authored by: califone on May 04, '05 05:08:04PM

For us guys who use old skool G3's, Pentium II's blow us out of the water when it comes to browsing.

D/L files is a snap on broadband, but pages load hella slow (even with half a gig of ram).



[ Reply to This | # ]
Speed internet browsing via a local domain name server
Authored by: ClarkGoble on May 04, '05 07:43:36PM

I think browsing with Firefox on both my Mac and my PC the Mac is faster. With Safari it was definitely slower until the 10.3.9 or 10.4 upgrades. Now Safari is only slightly slower than Firefox.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Agreed
Authored by: lullabud on May 05, '05 12:33:37PM

At work I have two Mac's and Two windows systems on my desktop, at my fingertips, which I use for network testing all day long every day. I don't find that browsing the internet on a Mac is any slower than in Windows, and actually, the ease at which you can provide additional DNS servers in Mac makes it even quicker when there are DNS slow-downs caused by the DHCP issued servers.

Making a blanket statement like that in the first line of a hint is a little out of line.



[ Reply to This | # ]