On Tuesday 11 June 2002 10:12 pm, John Griffiths wrote:
> >My theory is that others experience the same (after all, it's just ones
> > and zeros, not weather forcasting), but everyone is afraid to speak up
> > for political reasons, since Mozilla is thought of as IE's competitor on
> > Windows.
> >
> >End of troll. Dictated, but not read. YMMV IFF you are a lying SOB :-)
> >
> >Oleg
>
> running on windows 98 with 512MB on a celleron 400 I can tell you it's
> faster stabler and better than anything else out there.
>
> call me a liar at your peril
Tell you what. When you are in Linux, do this:
mkdir ~/test && cd ~/test
for f in `seq 1 1000`; do touch ${f}.html; done
Notice that `ls` takes no time at all (At least under Linux w/ ext2)
Then start up your browser (Netscape 4.77 or Mozilla 0.9.9 in my case).
Type "file:///home/you/test" in location, time!
----------My results------------------
Mozilla - 9 seconds & 13 seconds
Netscape - 3 seconds & 3 seconds
----------------------------------------
(I repeated the whole experiment twice for each browser, starting them before
and shutting them down after the experiment)
HW: K6-2 550 w/ 256 MB (Java disabled in Netscape. Don't know about Mozilla -
whichever way it comes on Woody)
BTW, starting Mozilla also takes a while : 21 seconds
One could argue that the real test for browsers is rendering remote web sites
with some text and some graphics in them, but as I mentioned, it's also been
my (this time subjective) experience that Mozilla is several times slower.
Oleg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
