Hall Stevenson wrote:
00a601c120d0$9fdb2470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">The developers are working on improving overall performance and stability. Progress in that regard has been significant in the last couple of months but there is much to continue doing. Besides an Athlon 1.3 gHz, (both Netscape and Mozilla fly in that system) I also have an ancient Cyrix M-II 333 mHz/128 meg RAM and both Mozilla/Netscape work perfectly well. When reading benchmark tests like the ones done by CNet, we have to be careful at looking at the number since they don't provide raw data. They just normalized the data (score of 100) for one and compared it to the other. The numbers can be very misleading in the real world, e.g. lets say a function takes 1 second in one system and 2 seconds in the other, therefore one system gets 100 and the other gets 50. Is that significant? Well it depends on the function since for certain things most people won't even notice the difference unless they have one system next to the other. That kind of information might be useful though. The developers can use it to identify bottlenecks and points for further optimization.And to add icing to the cake, CNet put an
article where Netscape 6.1 was as fast or
faster than IE5.5 under Win2K.
The PC they used was also a Pentium 4, 1.5ghz. Is that the
kind of PC I/we need to have in order to get comparable
performance out of mozilla/netscape6 ?? If so, that definitely
leaves me out... ;-(
My computer isn't even as fast as the "low-end" PC they used,
the PIII 600mhz. I've only got a lowly AMD K6-2 450mhz and
128mb RAM. In their tests with that PC, mozilla/netscape was
pretty twice as slow as IE 5.5.
You know, I *want* to use mozilla on a daily basis and I
*want* it to be a better browser than IE, but so far, it
ain't... And before I get bashed for not helping, sorry, but
I'm not a programmer. I'm just a user.
00a601c120d0$9fdb2470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
