Gervase Markham wrote:
>>Over all page rendering is good, but our UI still is sluggish on slow machines
>>or machines with many other apps running. I would encourage our focus of
>>Performance to be in areas that help the over all UI. naturally the why
>>mozilla works helping the UI may also help other areas also.
>>
>>Memory usage and memory leaks are also still a problem that needs to be
>>addressed. I know from reading .porkjockies that it is something that is
>>being worked on. Again that should be an area of focus for our Footprint
>>Performance and Stability people.
>>
>
> I don't deny that these things will continue to be worked on; but that's a
> very different thing to saying "We require measure X of performance and
> amount Y of stability by 1.0". We could say that MTBF has to be, say, 200
> hours - but we'd just be pulling numbers out of the air.
True. But we need to put a stake in the ground somewhere and draw the
line. I'd be reasonably happy with the same MTBF numbers that we have
with 0.9.2. If we can quanitify what we have right now we can do it for
a 1.0 release.
>
> We will continue to work in these areas; however, "Mozilla should not be
> sluggish on slow machines" is not a very good 1.0 criterion.
>
> Gerv
>
Actually, I think that's excellent criteria. You just need to clarify
what "sluggish" means in numbers.
--Chris
--
------------
Christopher Blizzard
http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/
Mozilla.org - we're on a mission from God. Still.
------------
