Hall Stevenson wrote:
When you say 'people' I assume you mean geeks or nerds, right ?? They're
the only ones who care about being compliant with standards. Ask your
co-workers if they know what W3C standards or if they care what they
are. They want a browser that *works*. They won't
Joni K. wrote:
Chris Hoess wrote:
but...URL:http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html
Wow, that's a really cool demonstration of what can be done with CSS.
I especially appreciate how in Moz you can change the stylesheet with
View - Use stylesheet menu...
N. Marshall wrote:
Joni K. wrote:
Chris Hoess wrote:
but...URL:http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html
Wow, that's a really cool demonstration of what can be done with CSS.
I especially appreciate how in Moz you can change the stylesheet with
View - Use stylesheet
The problem is, because IE is the most popular browser and it doesn't
display CSS properly, companies cannot use it. Mozilla needs to get
installed on the general publics computers (in one way or another) for
CSS to become useful. Until then, it's pointless making pages like
this.
I think
* dman84 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010922 09:23]:
N. Marshall wrote:
Joni K. wrote:
Chris Hoess wrote:
but...URL:http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html
Wow, that's a really cool demonstration of what can be done with CSS.
I especially appreciate how in Moz
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], dman84 wrote:
Mozilla doesn't show it is transfering any data after switching to
another one. should it?
Either the data transfer is very fast (stylesheets are small), or the
stylesheet loader downloads all the stylesheets (both
preferred and alternate) for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hall Stevenson) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 22 Sep 2001:
When you say 'people' I assume you mean geeks or nerds, right ??
They're the only ones who care about being compliant with
standards. Ask your co-workers if they know what W3C standards or
His co-workers don't design web pages. If cnn.com, abc.com, nbc.com,
nhl.com, espn.com and cnet.com all started designing pages that required
a higher standards compliance than MS is willing to produce, people
*would* go find a browser that let them do all the fun stuff. People
This
* DeMoN LaG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010922 17:36]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hall Stevenson) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 22 Sep 2001:
When you say 'people' I assume you mean geeks or nerds, right ??
They're the only ones who care about being compliant with standards.
And it came to pass that Hall Stevenson wrote:
* DeMoN LaG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010922 17:36]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hall Stevenson) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 22 Sep 2001:
When you say 'people' I assume you mean geeks or nerds,
right ?? They're the only ones
Chris Hoess wrote:
but...URL:http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html
Wow, that's a really cool demonstration of what can be done with CSS.
I especially appreciate how in Moz you can change the stylesheet with
View - Use stylesheet menu...
--
Joni
Joni K. wrote:
Chris Hoess wrote:
but...URL:http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html
Wow, that's a really cool demonstration of what can be done with CSS.
I especially appreciate how in Moz you can change the stylesheet with
View - Use stylesheet menu...
The
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Pierre Chanial wrote:
They claim IE6 has a full CSS Level1 and DOM1 support.
Is it that right?
Define full.
Support almost, but not entirely, unlike standards compliance? ;-)
It's better, certainly,
Well, that's sooo yesterday. Today, you just bundle it with the OS...
ROFL!
Ben Ruppel wrote:
Granted I'm running a Celeron 550 with 256 megs of ram in win2k, but
when I look at task manager, total cpu usage never goes over 70% during
the freeze. I've tried erasing my profile info, thinking that there was
a deviant setting somewhere. What is your procedue when
Sam Emrick wrote:
I think it would Be A Good Thing to simply PROHIBIT Mozilla vs Internet
Explorer performance comparison or discussion here.
The only way to do that is to turn this into a moderated conference. And
that brings its own problems. Personally the noise ratio here hasn't
Yeah, it's just mozilla that locks. Actually, I have to say that it did
lock up, until I went through my profile and found that deleting
panacea.dat eliminated the freeze problem. In fact, mozilla is running
about twice as fast as it was before, all because of a very large
panacea.dat with
Ben Ruppel wrote:
Yeah, it's just mozilla that locks. Actually, I have to say that it did
lock up, until I went through my profile and found that deleting
panacea.dat eliminated the freeze problem. In fact, mozilla is running
about twice as fast as it was before, all because of a very
Well, I renamed my panacea.dat file, and that really sped things up.
Everything in mozilla is about twice as fast as it had been. From page
loads to mailnews performance to context menu opening. I opened my old
panacea.dat file and found it was huge, and contained a lot of
references to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Ruppel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am perplexed as to why I (and a couple of others) have the freeze
problem. Note that this problem begins before the page even starts
painting, it happens somewhere while the data is loading or around that
time.
Maybe it's
May I suggest to create a new newsgroup n.p.m.performance-discuss or something
similar?
As bug 76363 shows, this can be done within a week if the right people really
want it done ASAP.
Andreas
Andreas Franke wrote:
May I suggest to create a new newsgroup n.p.m.performance-discuss or something
similar?
This sort of argument belongs in n.p.m.general.
Gerv
Ben Ruppel wrote:
Hey, thanks for the detailed info. I agree about IE's right clicking
problem.
I am perplexed as to why I (and a couple of others) have the freeze
problem. Note that this problem begins before the page even starts
painting, it happens somewhere while the data is
JTK wrote:
Otherwise, what you're telling me is that
this '*perception*' is a figment of the imagination of the Mozilla
Faithful.
I wonder if Moz looks snappier at rendering because the UI around it is
sluggish (ie. its a relative perception).
That would explain the difference between
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that JTK wrote:
[...]
3. Long startup times almost always translate
directly into system resource hoggage, and certainly do in
this case.
Your opinion, and not very solid - I use a couple of resource
hogs that load up very quickly. So
Sauron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:9mnkhc$qkk2
@secnews.netscape.com, on 31 Aug 2001:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that JTK wrote:
[...]
3. Long startup times almost always translate
directly into system resource hoggage, and certainly do in this
case.
Your
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Peter Trudelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It isn't just forced restarts. You might be surprised at how many end
users close the window when they are done looking at a page, and
relaunch every time they need to browse something else. I wince when I
see them doing this with
Now now, we all know AOL has been actively bloating ICQ into oblivion
since the takeover :)
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Sauron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:9mnkhc$qkk2
@secnews.netscape.com, on 31 Aug 2001:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that JTK wrote:
[...]
3. Long startup
I filed bug (91643) http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91643
It shouldn't be like this.
Hall Stevenson wrote:
* Ben Ruppel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010829 20:25]:
I really have to wonder how much cpu speed comes into play. I run
a celeron 550 with win2k, and loading a web page in
JTK wrote:
Jay Garcia wrote:
{-- Rot13 - Hateme wrote:
DeMoN LaG n@a wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually numerous tests have proven that Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 is faster
than IE6 on Windows 2000. Go look them up on Cnet
The fact that IE6 is slow on Windows
Ben Ruppel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on
31 Aug 2001:
Anyone who *perceives* that mozilla is faster than *any* version of
IE in respect to *anything* has to be on crack.
I dunno, the latest nightly kicks the pants off IE6 on my system, and
Ben Ruppel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on
31 Aug 2001:
Just curious, what are your system specs? What OS? To be
scientific, could you repeat the following with both IE6 and
Mozilla? It seems that some users just don't experience my
problems and
I think it would Be A Good Thing to simply PROHIBIT Mozilla vs Internet
Explorer performance comparison or discussion here.
That comparison simply brings too much unrelated baggage with it. A pointer
to a published report is good, but this banter is pointless and gets is the
way of useful
Sam Emrick wrote:
I think it would Be A Good Thing to simply PROHIBIT Mozilla vs Internet
Explorer performance comparison or discussion here.
Why? What are you afraid of? I say it would Be A Good Thing if there
were a lot MORE Mozilla vs. IE performance comparisons (i.e., hard
repeatable
JTK wrote:
Plus, who's going to do the prohibiting? I thought this project was
Open.
Then again, the sign still says netscape., doesn't it. I thought
there were plans to change that
In the US free speech is guarateed by the constitution, yet the same
constitution makes it a
My Ie locks up loading sertain pages and the UI is unresponsive if it
loads a large page, i never seem to have that problem with Mozilla, and
i use it mucho more
Thomas wrote:
2. Anyone who wants to quote Downloads.com to me will have to explain
why anyone would be downloading IE from
Ben Ruppel wrote:
Hey, thanks for the detailed info. I agree about IE's right clicking
problem.
I am perplexed as to why I (and a couple of others) have the freeze
problem. Note that this problem begins before the page even starts
painting, it happens somewhere while the data is
JTK wrote:
Sam Emrick wrote:
I think it would Be A Good Thing to simply PROHIBIT Mozilla vs Internet
Explorer performance comparison or discussion here.
Why? What are you afraid of? I say it would Be A Good Thing if there
were a lot MORE Mozilla vs. IE performance comparisons (i.e.,
Never really understood my starting time is soo important. I reather have 5
min startup time, if just the browser reacted quick to my use.
Chris Nelson wrote:
http://www.chip.de compared Opera 5.12, Netscape 6.1 and IE 6.0 just
yesterday. Opera wins, but Netscape comes in second, IE6, yes,
2. Anyone who wants to quote Downloads.com to me will have to explain
why anyone would be downloading IE from them instead of directly from
Microsoft, and why I should care what their completely unscientific web
polls say.
Perhaps you have to ask this the 145,559 people which have
Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 30
Aug 2001:
goto cnet.com
goto chip.de
their numbers shows that netscape 6.1 is faster than IE in page
loading.
But I'm sure you don't believe this numbers. And I haven't seen
one
site stating
In article 9mkqja$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
Never really understood my starting time is soo important. I reather have
5
min startup time, if just the browser reacted quick to my use.
It's not, as long as you only start the browser up a few times a day.
Before
Henrik Gemal wrote:
Never really understood my starting time is soo important. I reather have 5
min startup time, if just the browser reacted quick to my use.
Chris Nelson wrote:
http://www.chip.de compared Opera 5.12, Netscape 6.1 and IE 6.0 just
yesterday. Opera wins, but Netscape
Marc Attinasi wrote:
From what I have been reading,
nobody is really very thrilled by the IE6 release anyway - see, for
example, the recent CNET review, including this cool jab:
*The bottom line:* If you already run IE, this minor upgrade will keep
you up-to-date, but there's no need
otherwise, there's no reason to jump the IE ship just yet.
Yeah I think alot of people will think that.
But what will make them jump ship ?
Themes ?
We should concetrate on writing malicious Word Macros or
Active X scripts embeded into web pages and activated by IE.
That could make people
Here is the actual benchmar link:
http://www.chip.de/produkte_tests/unterseite_produkte_tests_209486.html
Yess, N6 is a bit faster on page loading (red bar).
Holger Metzger wrote:
JTK schrieb:
Oddly enough, the world doesn't seem to be waiting for Mozilla.
Download the competition
DeMoN LaG n@a wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually numerous tests have proven that Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 is faster
than IE6 on Windows 2000. Go look them up on Cnet
The fact that IE6 is slow on Windows 2000 does not mean that mozilla
can be legally slow on windows
{-- Rot13 - Hateme wrote:
DeMoN LaG n@a wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually numerous tests have proven that Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 is faster
than IE6 on Windows 2000. Go look them up on Cnet
The fact that IE6 is slow on Windows 2000 does not mean that mozilla
Jay Garcia wrote:
{-- Rot13 - Hateme wrote:
DeMoN LaG n@a wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually numerous tests have proven that Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 is faster
than IE6 on Windows 2000. Go look them up on Cnet
The fact that IE6 is slow on Windows 2000
Hi!
JTK wrote:
Now,
if we're talking SECONDS that may be a different matter. Who gives a
ratsazz if one is 2 ms faster than the other ??? And besides, in order
to post a true value you have to run these so-called speed tests in a
sterile medium without the benefit of
{-- Rot13 - Hateme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 30 Aug
2001:
DeMoN LaG n@a wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually numerous tests have proven that Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 is
faster than IE6 on Windows 2000. Go look them up
Christian Mattar wrote:
Hmm. I must be getting old. Back in my day, if we wanted to compete
with a competitor, instead of a litiniy of excuses, we simply produced a
better product. Or at least one with equal performance.
Well, that's sooo yesterday. Today, you just bundle it with the OS...
Christian Mattar wrote:
Hi!
JTK wrote:
Now,
if we're talking SECONDS that may be a different matter. Who gives a
ratsazz if one is 2 ms faster than the other ??? And besides, in order
to post a true value you have to run these so-called speed tests in a
sterile medium
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
Henrik Gemal wrote:
Never really understood my starting time is soo important.
For three reasons:
1. Everybody hates to wait. Everybody.
2. Mozilla, like all software, is imperfect, and therefore will need to
be restarted on occaison. Each time taking too long.
3. Long startup times
JTK wrote:
Henrik Gemal wrote:
Never really understood my starting time is soo important.
2. Mozilla, like all software, is imperfect, and therefore will need to
be restarted on occaison. Each time taking too long.
It isn't just forced restarts. You might be surprised at how many end
And it came to pass that JTK wrote:
Mustafa Hirji wrote:
In article 9mkqja$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
Never really understood my starting time is soo
important. I reather have 5 min startup time, if just
the browser reacted quick to my use.
It's not, as long
And it came to pass that JTK wrote:
Henrik Gemal wrote:
Never really understood my starting time is soo important.
For three reasons:
1. Everybody hates to wait. Everybody.
2. Mozilla, like all software, is imperfect, and therefore
will need to be restarted on occaison. Each time
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
JTK schrieb:
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
http://www.chip.de compared Opera 5.12, Netscape 6.1 and IE 6.0 just
yesterday. Opera wins, but Netscape comes in second, IE6, yes, IE6 is
slowest. Odd, yes...
Holger
Yeah, and with quicklaunch activated, it starts up
faster than IE 6, too.
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
JTK wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Oddly enough, the world doesn't seem to be waiting for Mozilla. Download the competition here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.htm
I guess you mean _Microsoft_ is not waiting for Mozilla. I would not really
expect other browser manufacturers to
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
They claim IE6 has a full CSS Level1 and DOM1 support.
Is it that right?
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
Steve Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
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
btw, I wouldn't expect the world to wait for Mozilla. I wouldn't expect
most of the world to even know about Mozilla. If you think that's
have they altered the test? They used the same hardware, the same Win98
SE for both tests.
they compared NS6.1 with IE5.5 (Performance set =100%)
NS6.1 test
IE 6 test
Loading Cached Pages
52%
34%
Loading Nested Tables
56%
54%
Loading Mixed Text and Graphics
41%
53%
Well, I take that back...the counter is still down, on and off.
Also, feel free to compare the ratings between Netscape 6.1 and
Internet Explorer 6.0 at download.com. Not that download number has
anything to do with the user rating (since 6.1 has more votes towards
its 79-80% -- 1000 -
1. Anyone who wants to quote CNET to me would do well to remember the
glowing review they gave to Netscape 6.0 (Tacoma Narrows Edition) which
they later were forced to retract, since whoever wrote the piece (and
the CNET editors who edited it) had clearly never so much as installed
the product,
I really have to wonder how much cpu speed comes into play. I run a
celeron 550 with win2k, and loading a web page in mozilla with more than
5 browser windows open is like pulling teeth. The worst part is that
all mozilla windows freeze up for a second or more if just one of them
is loading
* Ben Ruppel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010829 20:25]:
I really have to wonder how much cpu speed comes into play. I run
a celeron 550 with win2k, and loading a web page in mozilla with
more than 5 browser windows open is like pulling teeth. The worst
part is that all mozilla windows freeze up for
Are there any figures available for download numbers from netscape? I'd
like to know how 6.1 compares to 4.x.
Blake Ross wrote:
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
