[CLUE-Talk] Review of Netcape 6 for Linux
Jim Intriglia
jimintriglia at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 30 21:51:33 MST 2000
Hi John,
Thanks for testing/confirming this benchmark - I'll do the same using your
approach on my two systems and put the results in the aforemention review.
-Jim
----Original Message Follows----
From: John Kottal <jlkottal at americanisp.net>
Reply-To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
Subject: Re: [CLUE-Talk] Review of Netcape 6 for Linux
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:13:46 -0700
Hi Jim,
Just so I wouldn't put my foot in my mouth, I decided to quantify my
testing, and here's what I found, comparing 4.75 and 6.0.
I ran these tests on the same machine, a Pentium 233 MMX CPU (which the
MINIMUM requirement for Netscape 6) with 128 MB RAM (which is twice what
is required). I ran them as a user, under Gnome and Red Hat 7.0, stock
installation (i.e, no patches). I tried to configure both versions
identically (start with blank page, accept only cookies from originating
server, same font, and both with the same theme (classic) in event that
the 6.0 modern theme loaded differently. I also cleared the disk and
memory cache after each test (I am not actually sure that the caches on
6.0 cleared, as the buttons did not depress when I clicked them and I
never got a dialogue box confirming that I wanted to clear them as I did
in 4.75). I also told the program never to compare the current page with
the network; I didn't change anything else on the system while
running the tests. All of these should have leveled the ground for a
baseline for testing.
My spohisticated timing method consisted of a stop watch triggered with
my left hand when my right clicked the mouse on the icon in the panel. I
averaged the times for three trials, alternating loading the programs,
and unloading each completely before running the other.
First, I loaded the programs and timed them to see how long they would
take to open to a blank page. 4.75 used about 5.5 seconds, 6.0 about
22.0. So 4.75 seems to load almost 4 times as fast as 6.0.
Next I loaded the programs, then after they loaded, opened a web page. I
choose www.amazon.com since it has cookies and stills seems to load
fairly quickly, and also the CLUE web page. I considered the page loaded
when the little bar stopped filling, and the page said "done".
Times for 4.75 were about 7 seconds for 4.75 and 18 for 6.0 for amazon,
and for CLUE. It would appear that 4.75 is about twice as fast 6.0. It
should be noted that, during the test, on two occasions when I clicked
open page, 6.0 shut down completely, and once it
appeared to stall and took 34 seconds to load, so I threw that out.
Now mind you these are a system that is running the absolute lower limit
hardware for 6.0. You might want to try them for your system and see if
they are faster. You can use my methods for comparison if you want.
Jim Intriglia wrote:
> John,
>
> What you wrote is good information and feedback re: the Netscape 6
product.
> I would like to include it in the article I wrote with your permission.
(As
> per my usual practice, I credit anyone who helps me with these articles
(as
> an editor, reviewer or content contributor) on the page the article
appears
> as well as in the article itself. Do you have a web site that I can
> reference (link to) in the article, or is "John Kottal of CLUE"
sufficient
> when acknowledging the source of the info (your benchmark comparision of
NS
> V4.x vs Netscape 6).
>
> To continue:
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: John Kottal <jlkottal at americanisp.net>
> Reply-To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
> To: clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Talk] Review of Netcape 6 for Linux
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:56:16 -0700
>
> Jim Intriglia wrote:
>
> > I am putting the finishing touches on the first of a series of
articles
> I'm writing on
> > the new and recently released of Netscape 6 Communicator/Navigator
> product for Linux.
>
> >>
> The experiences related in your article paralleled mine.
>
> It took about six tries to download the entire program, even with a DSL
> connection. The download process kept stalling in the middle of the
spelling
> module, and each time I tried again, it restarted from scratch. I finally
> tried about 6:00 AM and was able to complete the process. The entire
> download and installation took about 30 - 45 minutes, most of which was
> spent downloading the Java 2 files. site)
> >>
>
> My guess is that Netscape (or whoever is hosting that portion of the web
has
> a problem along the lines of load balancing - the downloads were stalling
to
> to traffic demand. Be nice to know for sure what the deal was with
respect
> to this problem. Maybe I should send them a copy of the review.
>
> >>
> I did not like the installer program: not only must it be run from
XWindows
> (so much for security),
> >>
>
> I am not aware of the potential for a secuirity violation that you elude
to.
> If logged-in as root, with the PC properly secured, why would doing the
> install via XWindows be any less secure than from the command line?
>
> >>
> it installs to /usr/local, and this creates unnecessary problems with
file
> permissions: either one does the download as root (so much for the
Principle
> of Least Privilege) or one does it as a user, and then has to fiddle with
> file permissions. I would much rather download the entire thing and then
> install it later.
> >>
>
> I installed as root, and did not see any problems with its' default
install
> folder of /usr/local - that's OK as far as the Unix Hierarchy spec. No
> permission problems encountered (I was able to boot Netscape logged in as
a
> user in the same fashion as I did as root. My other experiences with
> software requiring me to install as root (which makes sense) also require
me
> to screw around with permissions on some/all of the files, before users
> could boot the application, something I did not appreciate.
>
> I think in retrospect the StarOffice V5.2 install had it right. Install
as
> root, and then do a mini-install for users that you wish to grant access,
> with the installer taking care to set file permissions so that the sucker
> will boot.
>
> Make sense or am I missing your point?
>
> >>
> My system is a Pentium 233 MMX with 128 MB RAM. Netscape 6 will run on
it,
> but it is about 3 times slower than 4.75 to get up and running.
> Additionally, it is noticably slower while running, but not to the point
of
> annoyment.
> >>
>
> I read things along this line in two other reviews. Kinda throws a bucket
on
> all of the Gecko technology hype, which was supposed to increase speed
over
> NS V4.x. Unless of course it's a memory deal. I'll need to check the spec
> sheet for minimum NS requirements on CPU spped and RAM.
>
> >>
> Netscape 6 seems to be designed to run only under GNOME and possibly
under
> RedHat: it did not want to install under Slackware and KDE, giving error
> messages that there were libraries that (I think) were installed as part
of
> GNOME missing (sorry, I can't remember
> the names, something like GTK), and even after going back and installing
> GNOME, I was unable to get it working.
> >>
>
> Good information. If memory serves, I believe there is a not in the NS
> Readme, web page, or one of the other reviews along these lines. I'll
check
> it out and add to the article with respect to this issue.
>
> >>
> The modern GUI is somewhat washed out on my screen compared to 4.75, but
> there is an
> option to revert to the older interface if so desired.
> >>
>
> Wonder if that is the fault of the default theme/skin. May want to try
> changing to something else, so see if the appearance approves.
>
> >>
> I am not sure that I like this new version. I've used Netscape now since
> version 2.0
> under Windows, and much, much prefer it over any other browser, including
> Opera and
> Internet Explorer. I've tried Opera and Conquerer under Linux, and always
> gone back to
> Netscape. But given my druthers, I may just go to KDE's Conquerer and
stay
> with that, as
> I much prefer KDE over GNOME.
> >>
>
> You are not alone - NS V6 in two other reviews I have read were not
> favorable. I think the choice of going with GNOME was made based on that
> joint annoucement by the big fellas (IBM, HP and SUN) along the liones of
> supporting GNOME as the default XWin environment for enterprise systems
> (shipped). Was that not Sun's announcement I believe?
>
> Will not look at Opera until they do a real production release,
> hopefully soon!
>
> JimI.
>
> John Kottal
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
_______________________________________________
CLUE-Talk mailing list
CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
More information about the clue-talk
mailing list