On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, voguemaster wrote: > > > > >there you go. the fact that IE runs slow on some hardware, does not mean > >that every other browser has to run as slow. if we looked up to misrosoft > >for comparing stuff, linux would have crashed every few days and we'd be > >filling fine. is that the kind of standard you're looking for? > > > > Of course not. However I've been hearing arguments against Linux products > such as OpenOffice.org and KOffice being much less robust or having poor > performance in comparison with the MS Office products. Comparing browsers > is inevitable. Some people also claimed that one of the best advantages with > IE is the fact that it takes next to no time for it to load up (since most of it's > components are present in memory already, in part).
Other programs have learnt this trick. At least Mozilla, OpenOffice and kmeleon use the same trick on windows: pre-loading of some of the libraries. They make it optional, at least, to give you the benefit of the memory-time tradeoff. Mozilla's code is currently buggy, though (IRC from hte release notes. Has this been fixed?). kmeleon tries to give you several levels of preloading, so you'll have several levels to choose from in this tradeoff. What about linux? -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
