Hi! JTK wrote: > > 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. Well, that's sooo yesterday. Today, you just bundle it with the OS... Christian
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) DeMoN LaG
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Ben Ruppel
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) {-- Rot13 - Hateme
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) DeMoN LaG
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) David Bate
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Jay Garcia
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) JTK
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Jay Garcia
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Christian Mattar
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Marc Attinasi
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) JTK
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Topics Man
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Ben Ruppel
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) DeMoN LaG
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Ben Ruppel
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) DeMoN LaG
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Sam Emrick
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) David Bradley
- Re: P.S. (was: Re: IE6.0 Released) Ben Ruppel
