Here is my feeling :
0.9.2 seems to work for me with SSL but i feel the image bug is still
there
on dislpaying sites with thrumnails the 0.6 Version displays them much
more faster as the 0.9.x version.
Also i found a problem in 0.9.2 by displaying such a page
the follwing is the log entry : (The page works on 0.6 fine)
07-01-2001 16:42:13 SYS3175 PID 00a2 TID 0001 Slot 0083
C:\MOZ92\BIN\MOZILLA.EXE
c0000005
1d4dd188
P1=00000002 P2=0000003b P3=XXXXXXXX P4=XXXXXXXX
EAX=018d7df0 EBX=018d7c84 ECX=018d7e20 EDX=00000013
ESI=00000001 EDI=018d7e48
DS=0053 DSACC=d0f3 DSLIM=3fffffff
ES=0053 ESACC=d0f3 ESLIM=3fffffff
FS=150b FSACC=00f3 FSLIM=00000030
GS=318b GSACC=10f3 GSLIM=00003fff
CS:EIP=005b:1d4dd188 CSACC=d0df CSLIM=3fffffff
SS:ESP=0053:0013167c SSACC=d0f3 SSLIM=3fffffff
EBP=00131698 FLG=00212207
GKHTML.DLL 0002:0000d188
System is Intel PII with 64 MEG RAM OS/2 WARP4 FP15 german
Display Driver Matrox
Except this image bug 0.9.2 seems to work good so far
still need a bit more of testing.
But this image problem is realy nasty- the engine is compared to the "old"
0.6 very crapy
why not use the "old" one this would be perfect.
Dont know if its a bug or not, but there are no history sites on the
"BACK" button
Reinhard
Piotr Oniszczuk schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> During last few hours I played little with both browsers - and I my
> opinion latest optimized IBM browser is much more slick, responsible
> during user interaction than last Mozilla v0.9.2.
> Mike told us that v09.2 is fully optimized - so I wonder where is this
> big difference in code of 0.9.2 and IBM code.
>
> My general observations:
> -0.9.2 reacts for almost every input event (point hyperlink on page,
> back to previous page, redraw, etc) with considerably delay (aprox 0.5
> - 1 sec). It looks like browser has to wait for some kind of time, and
> next is processing that event.
> -IBM opt.v0.6 however reacts immediately for any Input UI events.
> Overall, subjective feeling is that this version is much more
> responsive and slick.
>
> Difference is so big, that I decide to write my thoughts as input to
> Mike team (for Mike lunch time thoughts... ;-)).
> After all v0.9.2 is fully optimized and v0.6 is optimized as well -
> but in my taste difference is artificial big.
>
> Maybe somebody tells me about Your own feelings comparing these two
> browsers ?
>
> --
> cYa, 3.14iotr/2
> Dobry programista wiesza si� z programem....
> Hiroshima'45; Czernobyl'86; Windows'95
>
> Zwrotne bajty daj na "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
