Thomas wrote:
>
> > 2. Anyone who wants to quote Downloads.com to me will have to explain
> > why anyone would be downloading IE from them instead of directly from
> > Microsoft, and why I should care what their completely unscientific web
> > polls say.
>
> Perhaps you have to ask this the 145,559 people which have downloaded IE
> 6.0 so far from download.com
>
Perhaps.
> > 3. Anyone who wants to try to tell me that '*perception* (all that
> > matters) is that we're faster than IE' needs to explain to me then why
> > not a single, verifiable, repeatable number indicates that Mozilla is
> > faster than IE at anything. Otherwise, what you're telling me is that
> > this '*perception*' is a figment of the imagination of the Mozilla
> > Faithful. And unless you want Mozilla to stay at ~0.5% market
> > penetration, figments won't cut it friends.
>
> goto cnet.com
see #1, which you conveniently snipped.
> goto chip.de
Ich habe sie Deutsch nicht so gut.
> their numbers shows that netscape 6.1 is faster than IE in page loading.
> But I'm sure you don't believe this numbers.
Not if I can't repeat them, no. And frankly I dismiss anything CNET
outright at this point.
> And I haven't seen one
> site stating that Netscape 6.1 (or moz) is 4 times slower than IE.
Like they have to.
> Thats
> the biggest bullshit I've heard.
"Gimme that olde tyme religion!"
> Moz renders pages faster than IE, get
> over it!
Not according to tests run by Netscape employees.
