On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:07:08 GMT,
Jim Power <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:I would contend that this is more than perception. I would rather
:have a page immediately show and then redraw a couple of times, even
:if it is overall slower. I can get an idea of what I'm looking at,
:visually scan for
My $0.02:
I would contend that this is more than perception. I would rather
have a page immediately show and then redraw a couple of times, even
if it is overall slower. I can get an idea of what I'm looking at,
visually scan for what interests me, and then start reading. If I
wait ten seconds
tradervik wrote:
[snip]
> However, when you press forward/back in IE, the page immediately
> changes whereas, in Moz, the page does not change immediately.
> In IE, some time is then spent redrawing. In Moz, when the page does
> change, it appears all at once.
IIRC, this time is hardcoded into
David Gerard wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:20:58 -0800,
> tradervik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :I checked this out on my high powered PC at work (1Ghz, 512 Mb, NT) and
> :noticed
> :something interesting:
> :Total page re-display time for IE and Moz seems about the same (about a
> :secon
On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:20:58 -0800,
tradervik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:I checked this out on my high powered PC at work (1Ghz, 512 Mb, NT) and
:noticed
:something interesting:
:Total page re-display time for IE and Moz seems about the same (about a
:second).
:Moz may even be a little bit fas
I checked this out on my high powered PC at work (1Ghz, 512 Mb, NT) and
noticed
something interesting:
Total page re-display time for IE and Moz seems about the same (about a
second).
Moz may even be a little bit faster. However, when you press
forward/back in IE, the
page immediately changes
CeeJay wrote:
> Nobody Special wrote:
>
>> "Back" and "Forward"
>> "Back" and "Forward"
>> "Back" and "Forward"
>>
>> Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit
>> the "back" or "forward" buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla
>> takes forever!
>
>
>
> I don't ex
Nobody Special wrote:
> "Back" and "Forward"
> "Back" and "Forward"
> "Back" and "Forward"
>
> Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit the
> "back" or "forward" buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla takes
> forever!
I don't experience that on my computer.
Moz
>The average "mom and pop" end user wouldn't bother trying Mozilla
>or any of its derivatives, but stay with the browser that came with
>the OS.
Compaq, etc. probably take performance into consideration when deciding what
browser(s) to include with a new computer. Also, don't forget that "mom an
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:22:36 -0800, Daniel Veditz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553
>
>So you must admit Mozilla has at least some deficiencies?
No? Why would you say that?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:28:24 +1100, Borax Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>I've put a few people onto mozilla myself, some have said its faster
>>than IE, most said it was annoyingly slow and promptly went back to IE.
>
> they must be doing crack. Did they use Mo
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>
>>Apparently, you're missing that Mozilla is not an end-user browser. So
>>logically, market share of Mozilla itself is nice, but doesn't matter.
>>What does matter is market share of mozilla-based products like
>>K-Meleon, Galeon and Netsca
DeMoN LaG wrote:
>
> La pooh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 25 Jan 2002:
>
> > Ok, if it performs well in cnet test labs, but for the ordinary
> > users, that
> >
>
> Most "ordinary" users don't have their own opinions. CNet tells them
> "Product A
La pooh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 25 Jan 2002:
> Ok, if it performs well in cnet test labs, but for the ordinary
> users, that
>
Most "ordinary" users don't have their own opinions. CNet tells them
"Product A is faster!" and they go "Ooo, I g
Henning Schnoor wrote:
> Using 0.9.7 here on Linux, and it definately *is* slow, compared to apps
> like Konqueror and KMail.
Huh? Can't confirm that here. Konqueror is _much_ slower than Mozilla,
especially on startup. Maybe because I'm not using KDE, but still...
--
"They that can give up e
David Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:13:17 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Do you work for Micro$oft by any chance?
>
>
Nah, Microsoft only hires smarter people than JTK.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> they must be doing crack. Did they use Moz recently? I can't see
> anyone saying it slow now!
Using 0.9.7 here on Linux, and it definately *is* slow, compared to apps
like Konqueror and KMail.
I know Mozilla is more complex than KMail, but it's still way too slow
Nobody Special wrote:
> David Simpson wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:13:17 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Do you work for Micro$oft by any chance?
>
> Nope, and I would like to ask why you even ask the question? Instead of
> addressing the issue I've raised, you'd
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:28:24 +1100, Borax Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I've put a few people onto mozilla myself, some have said its faster
>than IE, most said it was annoyingly slow and promptly went back to IE.
they must be doing crack. Did they use Moz recently? I can't see
anyone say
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Borax Man at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 02-01-25 09.28:
Remember that most mum
> and pop users will not be able to discern why such and such is slow,
> most likely, theyll just say 'IE was faster' and go back.
>
Read above, make all mozilla programmers read that s
Nobody Special wrote:
> Negative. If we all want Mozilla to be a successful endeavor, and we
> judge success by marketshare (as we should), then the Mozilla team must
> address those issues immediately relevant to the common consumer. Most
> browser users hit "back" and "forward" more than an
David Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:13:17 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Do you work for Micro$oft by any chance?
>
>
I've put a few people onto mozilla myself, some have said its faster
than IE, most said it was annoyingly slow and promptly went back to IE.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this is not a temporary solution. it is a fact. i rarely use back and
> forward. And as might you noticed, i am not telling it is not a problem,
> i claim this cant be considered as #1 problem of mozilla.
>
>
>> So if my car cannot accereate 0-100 in 10 seconds, i sh
David Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:13:17 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Do you work for Micro$oft by any chance?
>
>
Nope, and I would like to ask why you even ask the question? Instead of
addressing the issue I've raised, you'd rather insinuate that I'm a
this is not a temporary solution. it is a fact. i rarely use back and
forward. And as might you noticed, i am not telling it is not a problem,
i claim this cant be considered as #1 problem of mozilla.
> So if my car cannot accereate 0-100 in 10 seconds, i should get bicycle
> pedals and attach
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:13:17 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Do you work for Micro$oft by any chance?
Sören Kuklau wrote:
-snip-
> Apparently, you're missing that Mozilla is not an end-user browser. So
> logically, market share of Mozilla itself is nice, but doesn't matter.
> What does matter is market share of mozilla-based products like
> K-Meleon, Galeon and Netscape.
>
>
> Hehe, what a bunch of losers! Don't they know that Mozilla
> *already* has almost 0.75% market share?! And growing![1]
>
> [1]Growth not guaranteed. Not insured by FDIC or FSLIC.
>
[snip]
>
> Logical basis: 0.75%.
>
[snip]
I request again:
Please keep current on your statistics if yo
gavin long wrote:
Mozilla will never seriously take off with
respect to market share.
>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds like a bullshit argument. Logically, it's utter crap.
>>> Come up with something better.
>>
>>
>> Are you an idiot, or just acting like one?
>
>
> No, he's not. I lose count
>>> Mozilla will never seriously take off with
>>> respect to market share.
>>
>> That sounds like a bullshit argument. Logically, it's utter crap. Come
>> up with something better.
>
> Are you an idiot, or just acting like one?
No, he's not. I lose count of the number of posts in newsgroups/
"{-- Rot13 - Hateme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit the
>> "back" or "forward" buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla takes
>> forever! IE (and especially Opera) simply kill Mozilla when it comes to
>
>It seems that Mozilla
La pooh 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.
>>
>
>
> Totaly true.
But not true enough to cause Opera's marketshare to take off. Opera is
Blake Ross wrote:
> [...]
> 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
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02-01-24 11.07:
> Back and forward functions, is not a big issue if you use tabbed
> browsing. open all the pages in desired page as new tab (middle click or
> ctrl+left click), then rarely you will need to go back and
Back and forward functions, is not a big issue if you use tabbed
browsing. open all the pages in desired page as new tab (middle click or
ctrl+left click), then rarely you will need to go back and forward. As
a result, your "#1 problem" comment is not logical since there is an
esay solution.
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nobody Special at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02-01-23 22.20:
> Chris Nelson wrote:
>> Mozilla will never seriously take off with
>>
>>> respect to market share.
>>
>>
>> That sounds like a bullshit argument. Logically, it's utter crap. Come
>> up with something be
Nobody Special <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> "Back" and "Forward"
> "Back" and "Forward"
>
> Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit the
> "back" or "forward" buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla takes
> forever! IE (and especially Ope
Sören Kuklau wrote:
>
> Apparently, you're missing that Mozilla is not an end-user browser. So
> logically, market share of Mozilla itself is nice, but doesn't matter.
> What does matter is market share of mozilla-based products like
> K-Meleon, Galeon and Netscape.
Not to jump into the fir
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
Nobody Special wrote:
You might want to change your name to a real one or you won't be taken
seriously in here.
> Chris Nelson wrote:
>> That sounds like a bullshit argument. Logically, it's utter crap. Come
>> up with something better.
> Are you an idiot, or just acting like one? Frankly, I
> 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/experienc
Chris Nelson wrote:
> Mozilla will never seriously take off with
>
>> respect to market share.
>
>
> That sounds like a bullshit argument. Logically, it's utter crap. Come
> up with something better.
>
> --chris
>
Are you an idiot, or just acting like one? Frankly, I find the "stand
by Mo
42 matches
Mail list logo
