JTK wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, JTK wrote:
>>
>>>Except 20MB and 8 times slower rendering.
>>>
>>Well, 10MB and 4 times, but who can blame you for exaggerating.
>>
>>
>
> Touche, mon ami. The difference between IE's memory usage and
> Mathuzilla's is in fact not ~20MB (that's Maozilla's total usage), I
> apologize for the mistake and any confusion it may have caused.
> Maozilla in fact uses about twice as much memory as IE, so I should have
> in fact said something more along the lines of ~10MB (actually the last
> time I looked it was more like ~12MB, but what's two megabytes compared
> to the factor of two difference?).
>
> As for the "4 times", it was stated by somebody in .performance only a
> week or so ago to be ~8 times slower. I have no way to directly compare
> myself, so I can only repeat what I've heard from others.
>
>
>>I refer people who want to know the accurate numbers to the
>>n.p.mozilla.performance newsgroup.
>>
>>
>
> Well that's the rub, ain't it Hixie? There really are no official,
> reproducable numbers in .performance or anywhere else as to Maozilla's
> performance in relation to either its predecessor or IE, is there?
> Where's the charts and graphs showing Mathuzilla's progress on rendering
> time, memory hoggage, etc, compared to these other browsers?
Actually, these are posted daily. Page load times, startup times,
memory leak charts. If you knew how to work your newsreader I imagine
you could find them
