Randall Parker wrote:
> I don't understand the reluctance to do performance comparisons. Certainly
> Moz 1.0 can be compared to IE and Opera and NS4.x on all the platforms where
> at least one of the others runs. That will provide a great deal of useful
> info. Certainly as well Moz 1.0 on Win32 can be compared to Moz 1.0 on OS/2,
> Linux, and the BSDs on the same x86 hardware. So lots of useful comparisons
> can be done to get a good sense of where Moz 1.0 will stand performance-wise.
But what parts do you compare? In which operations should performance
hold up the 1.0 release?
How do you set a requirement? If you set it relative to another browser,
you get lots of cases where release would be held up because of
differences that aren't even user-visible. Do you set some arbitrary
line on jrgm's graph and say "it has to cross this"?
> However, without all those comparisons I can tell you already what the answer
> will be: Moz will be perceived as being the slowest browser out there. Its
> slower to start. It takes more CPU to load and display the same page. Its
> slower to open new windows. And so on.
It doesn't appear slower in page loading to me, and I'm on a pretty slow
machine. It's certainly slower that Opera in many areas, but it's still
quite fast. Of course, all the major browsers are pretty fast applications.
> Frankly, I come away from reading this thread wondering why Moz 1.0 is going
> to be released in a few months. The reasons must be political and business in
> nature. From a technical standpoint its hardly ready to go up against the
> competition and be favorably compared.
Why? I'd call it easily the best browser out there. It's quick (even if
it's not as quick in many areas as some of the others) and the page
display is a pleasure to work with (far better than the alternatives).
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
I've often thought intelligence agencies should recruit idiots, as
idiots seem able to infiltrate any group in large numbers.
