JTK wrote:
> 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.
>
Fine and dandy .. Sooo, whose test(s) are accurate under what
conditions, etc. Online/Offline ?? Sterile, loaded or what ... Your
"test" may say the other browser is xxx fast and my test may say just
the opposite. We're speaking of insignificance here when it comes to
real-world ONline surfing.
--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
