Blake Ross wrote: >> Are you an idiot, or just acting like one? Frankly, I find the "stand >> by Mozilla, right OR WRONG" sentiment to be the *real* bullshit around >> here. People care about performance. From a browser perspective, >> performance is largely judged by the "snap" in the user >> interface/experience. Other than entering a URL or clicking a link, >> the *MOST* commonly utilised functions are "back" and "forward." Face >> it, Mozilla just can't cut it for people that actually value their time. > > > > Nice. Flames really make you sound intelligent. > > You're thinking too much like a highly technical user and not enough > like a mom and pop end user. The idea that most users would stop using > a Mozilla-based distribution because its back/forward performance is > slightly worse than that of IE is ridiculous. Most users likely would > not even identify the distribution as the source of the problem, > assuming instead that it's some problem with their "system". > > Blake
Rule #1: Never underestimate your enemy (that's 'customers' in AOL-think). As jaded as I am, and as well as I know the Mozilla "to hell with end users" mentality, it absolutely blows me away that you would: A. Fully admit that Mozilla's performance is severely substandard as you just did. B. Be completely comfortable with 'hiding' that fact behind the ignorance of the suckers AOL could somehow get to actually use this godforsaken heap. "Most users likely would not even identify the distribution as the source of the problem, [but think they need a faster computer]". And you're fine if that's what they erroneously believe, aren't you? Just as long as you don't have to admit to them (not to us, since you just did that) that Mozilla's the culprit.
