Randall Parker wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:04:06 -0400 esteemed RV did hold forth thusly:
>
>>if te product is never
>>released in an official way, then lots and lots of people will never try
>>it, much less adopt it.
>>
>
> A 1.0 release will cause a bunch of people to try it. But if the 1.0 release
> has memory usage and performance characteristics similar to that of v0.9.2
> then the vast bulk of those people who try it will not keep using it. So the
I don't think that's at all true. 0.9.2 performs pretty well on anything
that's even in the same ballpark as a typical machine. Furthermore,
there are several improvements to the problem areas that will almost
certainly land before 1.0 regardless of what release criteria are
ultimately chosen.
> brings mem usage down to 42 meg. Since Moz started up using 17 meg it looks
> like it has some serious memory leakage problems.
Depends on what you've been doing. There are certain cases where it
doesn't actually leak memory, but never frees it until shutdown (DLLs
don't unload, mail and news folders are never closed, etc).
> I know Moz about as well as I know IE and Opera and I find myself using IE
> and Opera when I'm in a hurry because Moz is too slow and I get impatient. I
> think a large number of end users will have the same reaction. By running
> trials with end users we will be able to find out if this is the case.
Certainly not using the methodology you proposed. That would only tell
us whether they liked it or not, not which bugs need to be fixed for a
1.0. I suspect reviews and feedback on 6.1 will be a lot more informative.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
Taxation Is Theft
