yeah, it's quite fascinating that these benchmarking
tools seem to place Netscape 6.1 so far behind, a fact
that is out of step with general day-to-day browsing
experience. It leads me to believe that IE's networking
and management of connections must be very unoptimized,
if IE can best Netscape 6.1 in closed-environment tests
but be slightly slower in regular daily use.
And these #'s from CNET are even more interesting if you
compare them to this paragraph from their Netscape 6.1
review:
"We recorded similar results in CNET Labs performance
tests , as well. In our Windows 2000 tests, in which we
load very complicated Web pages to push the browser to
its limits, Netscape 6.1 essentially kept pace with IE
5.5. In fact, in certain scenarios, *including loading a
large page comprising mixed text and graphics*, Netscape
6.1 completed the job up to one-third faster than IE.
Netscape didn't fare as well in our Windows 98 SE tests,
however: IE still beat it soundly every time."
So, they knew that Netscape 6.1 performed remarkably
better using Windows 2000, but for the IE6 review, 20
days after their Netscape 6.1 review, they tested using
Windows98.
--chris
Steve Morrison wrote:
> "We were also a little underwhelmed by IE 6's performance in our speed tests. In one
>of our tests, IE 6 outperformed IE 5.5 and Netscape 6.1. And IE 6 consistently
>outperformed Netscape 6.1. However, IE 6 lagged behind its predecessor in almost
>every other test--not by much, but we'd expect better performance from a major
>upgrade. "
> http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-6982030-3.html
>
> These graphs show mozilla is only 2x-3x slower than IE5.5
> http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-6982030-6.html
>
> -Steve
>
>
> JTK wrote:
>
>>Oddly enough, the world doesn't seem to be waiting for Mozilla.
>>Download the competition here:
>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.htm
>>
>>Since Mozilla was at last count about 4x slower than IE5.5, and has
>>gotten slightly slower since then, can somebody please rerun those
>>numbers against IE6.0 and see how much worse off we are now? If those
>>numbers have already been run, as I suspect they have been, could they
>>please be published here?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Gary R. Van Sickle
>>
