Hi
"L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LB> First, why should netscape lie? The software gurus don't call it
LB> lying, they call it "transparent" when they mean "invisible."
lying means NOT telling the truth ...
being 'transparent' means not telling :)
LB> IOW, they don't think that the 'average user' needs to know a whole
LB> bunch of stuff that is going on, so they don't have software telling
LB> user everything that is going on --
IMHO this is good as it is ... the average user does not want that
information ...
LB> unlike Arachne which can tell you whether it is accessing DNS,
LB> attempting to get a response from the foreign server, connected to
LB> the foriegn server, downloading, paused between packets, etc.
To be honest ... I would love to not have these additional information, and
therefore a 7x speed increase :)))
(I like the info ... but there is much to improve in Arachne ...)
LB> Second, I'll mention MSIE & NS in the same sentence any time I want
LB> to
Sure you can do what you want.
LB> -- they're both predicated upon using the Luze[non]OS
NO !!!!!!!
Internet Exploder is available for Windows (and IMHO there is an old
version for MAC)
Netscape is available for BE, Linux, Mac, Windows, HP-UX ... and many other
unices !!!
LB> and both designed for 'the average user.' }:>
This is IMHO not bad ... don't forget, that the average user is very
similar to THE average user.
If they want that their browser is widely used, than they MUST go in that
direction.
>> LB> But back to why I wanted to know the 'size' of the page. 97,887
>> LB> bytes mulitplied by 9 is 880,983 bits. Divide by 19 and that
>> LB> gives a speed of 46,368 bps with no 'processing time' required
>> LB> at all.
>> LB> And that does *not* take into account the bytes tossed upstream
>> LB> via cookies that the site demands for every file!
>> LB> I don't think that is very likely.
>> ???
>> You say, that the page total bytes is 97.887 let's say 100.000
>> this is less than 100 KB
>> On my connection (let's say on half speed -> 16 KB/s) this would
>> take ca. 7 sec. raw download time. (let's say 10 seconds ..) Add
>> another 7 seconds for the connection making (there are many
>> small images), and 2 seconds for page rendering ....
LB> I think someone's math is a bit off.
LB> Wasn't it you that said you were limited by the network to 32,000 bps?
I said 32 KB/s
(big B means BYTE not bit)
So there is the difference .... (a cable connection limited to 4 KB/s would
be lousy ... even these 32KB are not very fast :)
LB> If so, how did NS manage to bypass network limitations and download
LB> at faster than 46,000 bps?
See above
LB> If your speed is 32,000 bps that is NOT bytes!
It _IS_ bytes !!!!
LB> l.d.
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> while(Computer_Science() == talk) fall_asleep(); <=-
