Jay Garcia wrote:
>
> {-- Rot13 - Hateme wrote:
>
> > DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> >
> >>Actually numerous tests have proven that Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 is faster
> >>than IE6 on Windows 2000. Go look them up on Cnet
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The fact that IE6 is slow on Windows 2000 does not mean that mozilla
> > can be legally slow on windows 98. Compare an apple
> > to a bad apple is not better than compare it to an orange.
> >
> > If IE6 can be fast on Windows 98, then mozilla should be
> > able to be fast on windows 98 too.
> >
>
> We're talking about a matter of milliseconds difference in speed.
Oh, were that only true.
> Now,
> if we're talking SECONDS that may be a different matter. Who gives a
> ratsazz if one is 2 ms faster than the other ??? And besides, in order
> to post a true value you have to run these so-called speed tests in a
> sterile medium without the benefit of congestion/connection anomalies.
> What's 'faster' in one venue can be slower in another but we're still
> talking milliseconds. BAH !! Nothing but marketing hype.
>
Hmm. I must be getting old. Back in my day, if we wanted to compete
with a competitor, instead of a litiniy of excuses, we simply produced a
better product. Or at least one with equal performance.
