Valhalla Legends Archive

Don't mean to be offensive, but personally, I wouldn't think your test results could change my opinion at all, 1 second difference isn't much..  I judge a lot of things like a browser by their appearance, how much CPU Usage each takes, and whether or not it's got a lot of features/versitility and etc..

I think a list of comparisons would be better than the seconds each takes to load.

Still, I thought maybe each of the browsers took the exact same time and the time to load a page was judged on your connection, but I guess not. =/

Netscape follows the w3c standards more strictly (they do not create their own markup or CSS) but does not support as many new w3c standards as IE. I found that out recently.

Why don't YOU do a feature comparison? This test was about the relevant uses of the 2 browsers. Loading speed and website processing speed.

Quote from: ch33z3 on June 05, 2003, 07:14 PM
Still, I thought maybe each of the browsers took the exact same time and the time to load a page was judged on your connection, but I guess not. =/

Do you think that makes sense? You download the content at the same speed (my test was not about that) but the time it takes the browser to interpret the content is not the same.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I was just trying to say that a few seconds isn't much of a big deal.  I'm sure that the speed appeals more to you than me, but I don't care about that stuff, Hardware is always better than Software..

A thought about testing browsers --  whoever is considering it.

When testing, one might wish to load static pages that are on the local PC to get a consistent content at a consistent rate.

IE and NS each fully cache a certain number of previous pages viewed.  I remember IE 4.01 would cache 4 pages.  That is, you could click back on your browser 4 times and each page, (if static and nonexpiring), would display without visiting the web server.  Back a 5th time would visit the server and request that page.

If you use active content pages, such as ASP, CGI, the server might detect your browser and issue different html.  So you're not getting a good test in that situation.

Quote
If you use active content pages, such as ASP, CGI, the server might detect your browser and issue different html.  So you're not getting a good test in that situation.

Well in a sense couldn't that be a good test?  Wouldn't it show you which browser is better suited to handle those situations?

Quote

Quote from: Tuberload on June 06, 2003, 12:46 AM
Well in a sense couldn't that be a good test?  Wouldn't it show you which browser is better suited to handle those situations?

No.  If what you're testing is the ability of a particular web browser to generate the best html for a given client (IE, Opera, Netscape, Lynx) then you want to allow dynamic HTML creation.

If what you're testing is browsers A vs B, you want each to be given the same HTML.

By letting the servers detect the browser and vary the HTML based on the target, the response of A and B to that content cannot be compared.

No one uses netscape anyway...Opera is where it's at

Doesn't matter. They both equally suck in terms of DTD support. Who wants to use a browser that doesn't do what it's supposed to when it's supposed to? Aside from that, Netscape has drastically better FONT support than IE or Opera.

IE has better CSS support simply because IE decided what they wanted CSS to do and implimented it. They never changed their CSS support or any support for HTML elements, as oposed to say Netscape with its LAYER and ILAYER support only present in NS4.0.

I must say that comparing two browsers is pathetic when neither of them actaully allow full user control as by custom DTDs. Netscape does not conform to W3C standards better than IE. The W3C conforms to Netscape standards better than to IE standards simply because Netscape says explicitly how they support things - everything microsoft makes is closed and private. If you work for MS and disclose the source code for anything, you will find yourself dying of natural causes pretty quickly.

The W3C is basically a joke. If you have ever looked at the times where browsers supported elements and the W3C said they were alright, you would see that the W3C said that it was alright AFTER the browsers in question already supported them. That should tell you something.

In defense of Netscape, the only times it crashes are when the OS decides it should. Netscape does not use up 100% of your CPU time unless you are on a 200MHz system. It's not necessary and I have seen the Mozilla source code (which Netscape is very closely modeled after - the major differences are in appearance).IE on the other hand: windows close unexpectedly and randomly open. When I log in on WinXP, the first thing I do is end the task called "msmsgs.exe." If I don't, it starts using up 90% of my CPU time. I don't even use IE or MS Messenger. There is no possible reason that msmsgs.exe should need 90% of anyone's cpu time when it's not being used - unless of course it is being used and you don't know about it. I wouldn't be suprised if it were a MS backdoor. But I can't say that with any real amount of certainty without seeing IE source code... and let's see... that ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: St0rm.iD on June 09, 2003, 02:27 PM
No one uses netscape anyway...Opera is where it's at

That was the last post before yours, notice the date. Although your contribution was valuable, I had to read through an old thread for no reason, I do not care for old threads, you could have created a whole new thread for this, as I'm sure there have been many updates since that time.

Please leave dead threads just that, dead.

Locking.

If you want to resume this thread, create a new one.