On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:41:49 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:23:01 -0700, Gregory J. Feig wrote:
>> So, in the midst of our picky picking apart of each new Arachne
>> release, let's try to maintain our joy by remembering WHY we use
>> Arachne, and not some other clunk....<g>
> Right on, gregy! You have made a very positive statement indeed.
> I wish everybody else on this list would adopt similar attitudes.
Ummmm, yes, I agree we should be vocal in our praise of Arachne more
frequently.
It should be pretty obvious that I love it, in spite of my regular
critical assessments - which I really HAVE been _trying_ to limit
lately to true BUG reports - but unfortunately I haven't gotten
around to doing a new performance comparison.
As I recall, the last comparison I did showed Arachne to be pretty
much even with NS2.02 (faster on some stuff, slower on other) and
this is pretty much a miracle since even Netscape can't come close
to NS2.02 speedwise. NS3.04 is about 1/2 as fast and it only gets
worse. :(
I _DON'T_ recall which version that was, but I would guess somewhere
around 1.60 to 1.62.
I do intend to get around to this soon, for anyone that is interested.
My understanding is that there have been several improvements that
would effect speed in the many versions since that last test.
I think Arachne 1.62 and 1.66 are pretty great as they are without
any js support, but when it DOES come, the standard with which Arachne
will be compared is NS 3.04. And right now, Arachne wins that speed
test hands down !!
Finally, as LD says, we wouldn't be here if we didn't love it. <G>
- Clarence Verge
- Still using Arachne V1.62 ....
