JTK wrote: > Jay Garcia wrote: > >>JTK wrote:
> How do you use EIGHT computers simultaneously? Are you specifically > using these for test? First of all I didn't say that I use them "simultaneously". I can only use ONE at a time. But yes, I use them for testing purposes under different conditions so that I can say "I tried it under different conditions" on the same OS and version(s) of whatever I'm testing. And I also have 4 file servers here in addition to the 8 workstations - IBM RS/6000 (AIX), 2 Novell Servers and one Sun server that I am just learning. Also going to dedicate another box/server for Linux as soon as my Son has the time to do so and provide me with instruction. > >>and NONE experience the cache problem whatsoever at CNN or anywhere >>else for that matter as far as I can tell. I do a lot of online trading >>and I think if there was a cache problem I would be one of the first to >>notice. >> > > You use ALL EIGHT computers for online trading and looking at CNN every > morning when you get to work? I'm AT work when I get up in the morning !! :-D No, only one is used for online trading but I can use any of the eight if so desired but I don't. I access many sites on ALL boxes from time to time. >>> >>True, which leads to the likely conclusion that there is a problem with >>W2K or other NT flavor >> > >> > > ??? You mean Win98/WhyME? Win98SE mainly, no ME or XP here .... yet. I really have no desire to run ME and only some interest in XP Professional which I will be loading on one of the boxes sometime in the near future. > >>AIX and UNIX >>spoken here. >> >> > > Well, perhaps that's the problem: nobody's using Mozilla on Windows, and > only a handful of us masochists hear the tree falling. And the rest of > the Mozilla user base (which is on Unix where there's not much option) > denies that the tree ever existed. I use Mozilla (latest nightly 12/31) on windows 98SE as I type this. > >>>>Do you have another computer 'at hand' to attempt to dupe the problem ?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I do, but I have neither the time nor the patience. >>> >>Well, that just MAY provide clues that you are unwilling to investigate >>for whatever reason. >> > > Excuse me? On this issue alone, to date I've: > But you said "I do, but I have neither the time ............" which led to my conclusion. >>Duplicate the problem on as many boxes as you have >>and THEN blame Mozilla. >> > > Or, duplicate the problem repeatedly on Mozilla but not on any other > browser, point out that others also have the same problem, and then get > insulted, fed all manner of excuses, told "it's something you're doing > wrong", and all but ignored. Same diff. > > >>Ok, others are experiencing the same problem. >>Then put together a compilation of operating paramaters, that's what >>good investigative technique is all about. >> >> > > Yep, and like I said, there's plenty of people at AOL paid to do exactly > that sort of thing. Isn't there? You see, I don't get paid by AOL, or > Time Warner, or Netscape (WOS of AOL). So from where I sit, it looks to > me that I've more than done my duty for king and country already. Your > welcome. The BEST investigative scenario is for the every day user to find and report problems, not in an AOL "sterile" environment. > >>>For some strange reason, I suspect that AOL has plenty of computers to >>>devote to Mozilla testing, even after buying Time Warner. And plenty of >>>people paid to track down the source of such aggregious defects. They >>>can do what they will, or won't, with the fact that Mozilla's cache is >>>broken, as proven for them by myself and others. Gratis. >>> >>>And BTW, the very notion that "you're the only one seeing this" is an >>>outrageous lie >>> >>Only if you're accused of being the only one, which you weren't, at >>least not by me !!! >> >> > > That's how I read "No, YOUR cache is busted, not ours for whatever > reason", Well, you read wrong !!! > I'll buy that for a dollar. Thanks, can use a buck. > >>> >>Ahh, you're a pessimistic optimist !! Your half-filled glass is neither >>being emptied OR filled . :-D >> > > No, it's just twice as big as it needs to be ;-). > May be but still only half full/empty. Size doesn't matter !! :-D In conclusion: Yes, you're having a cache problem as well as others but you et al are in the minority which of course doesn't mean or imply that the problem shouldn't be addressed. The problem needs to be scientifically duplicated by a third party under the same conditions. A random error amongst a minority of users is not cause to re-invent the wheel although the squeaking wheel DOES and SHOULD get the grease. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
