On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
> Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ....
> > Mozilla 0.9.9 - 0:19.56 elapsed 39%CPU
Mozilla 1.0 - 0:15.44elapsed 44%CPU
> > How about page load/render time?
> >
> > $ mozilla http://twoloonscoffee.com/order.html
> > Document Done: (4.79 secs) | After cached 3.305 secs
> ....
$ mozilla http://twoloonscoffee.com/order.html
Document Done: (2.76 secs) | After cached 1.229
> Mozilla 1.0 is a bit faster than the release candidates; debug stuff was removed I
>guess.
After trying to build it two different ways, I finally
gave up and just installed the binary.
Yup, load/run time is 79% of what it was, and render times
are 58% and 37% respectively. Page rendering is *almost* as
fast as arachne! All in all, a very noticeable improvement.
Overall, still not nearly as fast as ns3.04 or arachne, but
I'll be less reluctant to use it now. ;-)
> Have you tried the new graphical links 2.0 yet?
No, the last one I tried was links-0.96-3.
--
Steve Ackman
http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?)
http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
