Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
Hall Stevenson wrote: > > My computer isn't even as fast as the "low-end" PC they used, > the PIII 600mhz. I've only got a lowly AMD K6-2 450mhz and > 128mb RAM. In their tests with that PC, mozilla/netscape was > pretty twice as slow as IE 5.5. Note that the "low-end" PC was running 98SE, which Mozilla runs slowly on compared to win2k even on the same specced machine I believe. Phil
Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
RV wrote: 010801c120e1$d22bc9a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> When reading benchmark tests like the onesdone by CNet, we have to be careful at lookingat the number since they don't provide raw data. Wait a minute though, you "accepted" the numbers they got withWin2K and the high-end machine. ;-) Yes, nothjing wrong with accepting that using normalized data, the two browsers operate at the same level for the functions described. I also implied that without raw data to examine, normalized data that shows one of the browser to be 1/2 of the other perfomancewise is misleading. I read somewhere before that IE6beta was significantly slower than 5.5 in many areas. I would like to see data on that regard but I can't find the original URL. Anyone?
Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
> When reading benchmark tests like the ones > done by CNet, we have to be careful at looking > at the number since they don't provide raw data. Wait a minute though, you "accepted" the numbers they got with Win2K and the high-end machine. ;-) > I'll bet they weren't pre-loading Mozilla with the > -turbo option. You've got to remember that all the > essential components of IE 5.5 are loaded along > with the operating system. If you preload Mozilla > the same way, it's faster than IE. I don't disagree that IE has a very distinct advantage in regards to startup times, but *none* of the results they're showing are in reference to startup. Their graphs show the times for loading cached pages, nested tables, mixed test and graphics, and a java-related test. Regards Hall
Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
I'll bet they weren't pre-loading Mozilla with the -turbo option. You've got to remember that all the essential components of IE 5.5 are loaded along with the operating system. If you preload Mozilla the same way, it's faster than IE. In article <00a601c120d0$9fdb2470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... > My computer isn't even as fast as the "low-end" PC they used, > the PIII 600mhz. I've only got a lowly AMD K6-2 450mhz and > 128mb RAM. In their tests with that PC, mozilla/netscape was > pretty twice as slow as IE 5.5.
Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
Hall Stevenson wrote: 00a601c120d0$9fdb2470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> And to add icing to the cake, CNet put anarticle where Netscape 6.1 was as fast orfaster than IE5.5 under Win2K. The PC they used was also a Pentium 4, 1.5ghz. Is that thekind of PC I/we need to have in order to get comparableperformance out of mozilla/netscape6 ?? If so, that definitelyleaves me out... ;-(My computer isn't even as fast as the "low-end" PC they used,the PIII 600mhz. I've only got a lowly AMD K6-2 450mhz and128mb RAM. In their tests with that PC, mozilla/netscape waspretty twice as slow as IE 5.5.You know, I *want* to use mozilla on a daily basis and I*want* it to be a better browser than IE, but so far, itain't... And before I get bashed for not helping, sorry, butI'm not a programmer. I'm just a user. The developers are working on improving overall performance and stability. Progress in that regard has been significant in the last couple of months but there is much to continue doing. Besides an Athlon 1.3 gHz, (both Netscape and Mozilla fly in that system) I also have an ancient Cyrix M-II 333 mHz/128 meg RAM and both Mozilla/Netscape work perfectly well. When reading benchmark tests like the ones done by CNet, we have to be careful at looking at the number since they don't provide raw data. They just normalized the data (score of 100) for one and compared it to the other. The numbers can be very misleading in the real world, e.g. lets say a function takes 1 second in one system and 2 seconds in the other, therefore one system gets 100 and the other gets 50. Is that significant? Well it depends on the function since for certain things most people won't even notice the difference unless they have one system next to the other. That kind of information might be useful though. The developers can use it to identify bottlenecks and points for further optimization. 00a601c120d0$9fdb2470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
> And to add icing to the cake, CNet put an > article where Netscape 6.1 was as fast or > faster than IE5.5 under Win2K. The PC they used was also a Pentium 4, 1.5ghz. Is that the kind of PC I/we need to have in order to get comparable performance out of mozilla/netscape6 ?? If so, that definitely leaves me out... ;-( My computer isn't even as fast as the "low-end" PC they used, the PIII 600mhz. I've only got a lowly AMD K6-2 450mhz and 128mb RAM. In their tests with that PC, mozilla/netscape was pretty twice as slow as IE 5.5. You know, I *want* to use mozilla on a daily basis and I *want* it to be a better browser than IE, but so far, it ain't... And before I get bashed for not helping, sorry, but I'm not a programmer. I'm just a user. Regards Hall
Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
Paul Bergsagel wrote: > My take on this is: most of the people surfing the web who are > concerned about standard complience have already dumped IE for another > browser with better standards and know how to find these browsers. The > average "non techinical geek" cares little about standards when > choosing a browser, and might even be turned off if this is mentioned. > This group chooses their browser becuase they find it easier to work > with bookmarks, they like the toy story theme, ect. More people will > use the browser because it has the toy story theme than because it has > W3C standards complience. By the start of the school year, one kid > will ask his friend, did you see that browser with the toy story > colourful skin, and by the second week of the start of school hundreds > of thousands of copies of Netscape 6.1p will have been downloaded. > This is a good way to get the browser out there. Something standards > complience could never do (in terms of getting the browser onto the > computer. Hopefully the parents will see this browser that the kid > downloaded, like it and begin to use it as well. > > Way to go Netscape. Using a theme as bait to get the browser onto the > computer desktop! Genius! > > BTW standards are more important than themes but don't tell the kids > this. I couldn't agree with you more. I have been saying that the theme feature in Mozilla/Netscape could be a big way to attract people to use the browser.. I noticed that already. I installed the browser in my computer at work and downloaded the Toy Factory theme. Everyone who passed by asked me what program i was using. They couldn't believe it was Netscape 6.1. Two hours later 4 people out of ten in my team had downloaded and were using it with the Toy Factory. Netscape should include Toy Factory as part of their standard installation and dumped the ugly and antiquated Classic theme if for some reason they want to include just two themes (Modern as default, Toy Factory as alternate) And to add icing to the cake, CNet put an article where Netscape 6.1 was as fast or faster than IE5.5 under Win2K. Netscape was slower than IE under Windows Me but I think it was because they use a slower computer under that operating system. I wonder how well Netscape runs under Windows XP. I am sure it will be as fast as under W2K. http://home.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-6804817-4.html?tag=st.sw.3227883-8-6804817-2.txt.3227883-8-6804817-4 Now is the time for AOL to use their marketing and money to get PC OEMs to include Netscape, or better, to dump IE as their html engine for AOL7
Re: [OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
My take on this is: most of the people surfing the web who are concerned about standard complience have already dumped IE for another browser with better standards and know how to find these browsers. The average "non techinical geek" cares little about standards when choosing a browser, and might even be turned off if this is mentioned. This group chooses their browser becuase they find it easier to work with bookmarks, they like the toy story theme, ect. More people will use the browser because it has the toy story theme than because it has W3C standards complience. By the start of the school year, one kid will ask his friend, did you see that browser with the toy story colourful skin, and by the second week of the start of school hundreds of thousands of copies of Netscape 6.1p will have been downloaded. This is a good way to get the browser out there. Something standards complience could never do (in terms of getting the browser onto the computer. Hopefully the parents will see this browser that the kid downloaded, like it and begin to use it as well. Way to go Netscape. Using a theme as bait to get the browser onto the computer desktop! Genius! BTW standards are more important than themes but don't tell the kids this. Henri Sivonen wrote: >Interestingly, they don't mention standards compliance as a reason for >switching from 4.x to 6.1. They do mention various messaging features >and themes--but new browser features don't get bullet points. > >They could have put something like "Netscape 6.1 complies to >state-of-the-art Web standards providing you a richer browsing >experience." on the "Why upgrade?" list. >
[OT] Re: Netscape 6.1 is out
Interestingly, they don't mention standards compliance as a reason for switching from 4.x to 6.1. They do mention various messaging features and themes--but new browser features don't get bullet points. They could have put something like "Netscape 6.1 complies to state-of-the-art Web standards providing you a richer browsing experience." on the "Why upgrade?" list. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
