Valhalla Legends Archive

I have the latest versions of Netscape 7.x and IE 6.x set up on my PII 233mhz 64mb old school machine.

I wanted to test which browser was faster on a low end machine so I set both browsers to open to a blank page and conducted my 1st experiment of which browser loads faster. The results were: It takes IE 5.7 seconds to load to a blank page and Netscape a slow 9.0 seconds.

My 2nd test was to time the loading of www.valhallalegends.com with both browsers.  The results were: It took IE 3.2 seconds and Netscape 4.5 seconds. The tests were performed on the same ADSL connection.

My 3ed test was to determine if they both display XHTML 1.0 correctly. The results were: IE and Netscape both displayed identical results.

My opinion is that they are both good browsers but I will keep using IE because I found it to be a little bit faster and Netscape has nothing special to entice me to use their browser.

Why did you limit yourself to just those two browsers?

They are the most widely used.

Quote from: Invert on May 27, 2003, 08:56 PM
My 3ed test was to determine if they both display XHTML 1.0 correctly. The results were: IE and Netscape both displayed identical results.

This has more to do with the version of the software than the quality of the hardware...

Netscape 7.0.2 doesn't display XML formatted with XSL correctly, just so you know.

There might be an issue with the shell integration of IE 6.x - a larger part of the dlls used by it may be in the cache. It would be interesting to see if you get any different startup times if you set the computer to use cmd.exe as the shell instead of explorer...

When you tested Netscape, did you already have the application running (ie. another window open)? If you did not, then the tests were not accurate. Netscape usually takes a while to start, but opens windows very fast. Internet Explorer is built into the operating system so when you start up the computer, you are inadvertantly starting IE.

You should have also tried Opera 7. Opera is the self-proclaimed "Fastest browser on Earth."

In defense of Invert's tests, why not test it yourself and post your results?  It's so easy for critics and doubters to tear down the work someone else has done, but are they willing to set up what they consider a proper test and run it themselves?  Are they willing to post their findings and let others second-guess?  We'll see.

Quote from: Grok on June 02, 2003, 02:52 PM
In defense of Invert's tests, why not test it yourself and post your results?  It's so easy for critics and doubters to tear down the work someone else has done, but are they willing to set up what they consider a proper test and run it themselves?  Are they willing to post their findings and let others second-guess?  We'll see.

I already know that IE starts much faster in the real application I have: My nice 200 MHz comp! But I still think it's more because of the integration than because of IE being better. So, IE is better. Not because it's better, but because it's integrated.

IE for Mac was always fast for me, on my school's iMacs *shudders*. About as fast as it loads on my 1ghz pc here.

IE 5 runs somewhat slowly on my friend's 486 with 16mb RAM...

Quote from: Adron on June 02, 2003, 04:31 PM

Quote from: Grok on June 02, 2003, 02:52 PM
In defense of Invert's tests, why not test it yourself and post your results?  It's so easy for critics and doubters to tear down the work someone else has done, but are they willing to set up what they consider a proper test and run it themselves?  Are they willing to post their findings and let others second-guess?  We'll see.

I already know that IE starts much faster in the real application I have: My nice 200 MHz comp! But I still think it's more because of the integration than because of IE being better. So, IE is better. Not because it's better, but because it's integrated.

OK, it might be true.  Is it true?  Is shdocvw.dll already loaded in the process of iexplore.exe?  No, the process does not exist until created.  It could be interesting to prove what integrated means relative to loading speed.  Does the kernel detect NS and slow it down?  Does NS simply want to do too much at startup?

After the browsers are loaded, are rendering speeds different when going to a new uncached page?  What about rendering speeds going to a cached page?  And if the page (cached or not) is DOCTYPE compliant, which browser is faster then?

There are all sorts of "faster".

If the content of this article is true, you won't ever have to worry about Netscape being slow or fast again.  

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/leon/2003/06/02/unholy_alliance/index_np.html

That sucks. What can I say; Microsoft is just too smart, and the other corporations are just too stupid.

Not so natural selection, survival of the fittest.

Netscape sucks. Everyone knows it's just mozilla with more bloat. Not to say Mozilla is good either, I think it's one slow mother which hogs too much RAM, not to mention it spews DLLs all over the place.

I'm an Opera7 addict. So sue me