Gervase Markham wrote: [snip]
> > The goals of our performance criteria are for a user who switches from > > the at-that-point current version of IE to the Mozilla 1.0 build to > > not experience a regression in performance that is greater than a > > factor of two. (Ideally, of course, there would be no regression at > > all. This is simply a goal for a 1.0 release.) > > Because we have decided to have a stable branch in Q1 next year, and > call it Mozilla 1.0, things have become unavoidably more date-driven > than they used to be (that's not to say we won't slip if we're not > happy.) The Performance team, and anyone who wants to help them, will be > fixing dependencies of the performance tracking 1.0 metabug as fast as > they can up to the wire. That's all we can ask. > In other words, performance of half-as-good as min(IE,NS4.x) is not achievable, and will not be part of the release criteria for Mozilla 1.0. All that matters is a circled box on a calendar... strangely similar to the Fiascape 6.0 release criteria, no? My, you could knock me over with a feather. Guys, just do me one favor: don't be surprised in the least when Mozilla 1.0 is released and it's ignored as much as Netscape 6.0 was reviled. IE is getting so hella-fast I can't hardly believe it. Have any of you tried IE6 on XP? Honestly, it screams through a lousy 56K *modem* - I'm afraid to find out what it will do through a DSL or cable setup! BTW: What in God's name is with all the fricken spam in this newsgroup (which oddly enough still has that "netscape." on it even though we were told there were plans in place to change that months ago)? Sheesh, I leave for a few days and the whole place goes to hell. -- Gary "JTK" Van Sickle (Yep, I'm still standin' ;-))
