[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On the *75* MHz SPARC that I use Mozilla on:
> > Mozilla and what else? And what OS? And what Army? ;-)
>
> Mozilla and 6-10 rxvts, Oracle, Tomcat+Apache, and whatever the other users
> are running.
>
Ok, so it's not NT. So what version of IE?
> > So you're running NT then? How much less RAM? On my Why2K box here,
> > right now, let's check the numbers with the very latest nightly:
>
> On average, Mozilla consumes 5-10M-less resident than IE on startup. And
> how often does it need to be said that IE on Windows hides a lot of its bloat
> in the OS itself?
Until Mozilla can render a blank page using significantly less than
20MB, I suppose. You do agree that's a few miles north of "outrageous",
don't you?
> This is why I compare Mozilla on Solaris against IE on
> *Solaris*, where neither has a blatant advantage.
>
Well, you mean where both have a blatant disadvantage, i.e., running on
an OS which was never designed to support GUI apps. And again, which
version of IE are you using? I don't think they've released a
non-Windows version in rather a long while....
> NT on a SPARCstation? You do know what a SPARC is, yes?
>
Sure do. I thought MS for a while had a version of NT that ran on some
of these 'also ran' Unix boxes....
> > Friend, that must be one &%$@ed-up SPARC.
>
> No, I just know how to set it up right, and how to compile Mozilla properly.
>
Huh. I wonder how many other browser users know how to do these
things. Must number in the dozens. And must not include whoever's
building the Windows and Mac binaries, nor whoever's doing performance
testing.
> >> and Mozilla actually renders webpages in an
> >> attractive manner with a readable font.
> > And neither IE or Nav 4.7x do?
>
> IE does an "OK" job.
Which version? I'm using the 6.0 preview, and have never had cause to
think about the "attractiveness" or "readability" of its web page
rendering abilities.
Come to think of it, I've never had to think about it with IE period.
And I've been using it since about the second major release (whatever
that was versioned).
> Nav4 tends to choose poor fonts, and doesn't deal with
> large tables and styles well at all.
>
Well I guess I wouldn't expect it to on a Unix box. Frankly I'd be
amazed it found any fonts to use!
> > What axe do you think I'm grinding? I'll admit that the failure of the
> > Mozilla project has been a crushing disappointment to me, but does that
>
> I can't think of any computer-related project that ever warranted the phrase
> "crushing disappointment" upon failure, even for those that truely warranted
> the word "failure".
Yeah, it's a first for me too.
> There are a number of other browsers available for use,
> and some of them are even Gecko-based, if that's so important, perhaps you
> should use one of them. Instead, you choose to whine-post here until everyone
> dismisses you as a troll and a cretin. THAT qualifies as having an axe to
> grind.
>
Meh, whatever.
> Suggestion: Get on your with your life.
>
Suggestion: Don't cry to me when your strident cries of "your website
doesn't render properly on Mozilla!" are met with a blank stare and the
response: "Whatzilla?"
