SillyDog701

[W.R.]

I actually think Netscape Communicator is FASTER than NS6/7 on XP.... While it is SLOWER on Windows 98 than version 6 and 7... It seems pretty backwards to me but a difference really exists, maybe this is why the 4.8 release came about? Maybe they know how nice Communicator is on XP and wanna take advantage of it.

[Antony]

Would you give us some more details of your test results?

[Shark Daddy]

I highly doubt what you are saying, but I'd be interested to hear the results. Suggest you download the files and view them from a local drive, making sure to clear all cache and disable other programs.

[Dickerson]

I know I am new to the forum, but let me jump in with both feet.

I just downloaded 4.8 last week, and while having the profile issues described in another topic, was using both 4.8's mail client (and 4.79 before that - still the best they ever came up with), and the browser. While 4.79's browser WAS slow by IE and N7 standards. 4.8 is almost as fast.

I thought I was imagining it at first, so I visited fwe graphics intensive sites that I knew 4.79 took forever to load. 4.8 loaded the pages almost as fast as IE or N7, but not quite. The difference could be messured in seconds, but usually less that 4 or 5.

Now, I know this is a very un-scientific test, but I was surprised, not too mention pleased. While I look forward to the finished N7 product (my CD is on order), 4.8 is a very viable back up now, leaving IE only to be used as a *VERY* last resort. 8)

Michael

[Antony]

So are you saying Netscape 4.8 is much faster then 4.79?
From what I read, Netscape 4.8 is only "minor" maintainence release.

[Dickerson]

So are you saying Netscape 4.8 is much faster then 4.79?
From what I read, Netscape 4.8 is only "minor" maintainence release.

That is what I thought also, but when I first used 4.8 the speed *increase* was noticable to me. Maybe am still imagining it, but it seems much faster than 4.79 (wishful thinking?).

Michael

[Antony]

Make sure that the loading is not from cache.

If I decide to install Netscape 4.8 myself, I might do a test first. The problem is... I don't have a stopwatch (sport's one) only one from my Casio BabyG watch.

[Dickerson]

Make sure that the loading is not from cache.

I don't cache pages, at least I have it set to check the page everytime, not once a day, etc. With my settings that way, that should load each page fresh, correct? If not, then I need to re-do my very un-scientific test, as they may not be accurate.

Michael

[Antony]

I don't cache pages, at least I have it set to check the page everytime, not once a day, etc. With my settings that way, that should load each page fresh, correct? If not, then I need to re-do my very un-scientific test, as they may not be accurate.

Michael

To be honest, you need to clear your cache each time. and better with restart of Netscape. Also, you should measure the same page for about 2 to 3 times (if you have enough time). Also try not to run other programmes such as ICQ, AIM...

[Fulvio]

I don't cache pages, at least I have it set to check the page everytime, not once a day, etc. With my settings that way, that should load each page fresh, correct? If not, then I need to re-do my very un-scientific test, as they may not be accurate.

Michael

To be honest, you need to clear your cache each time. and better with restart of Netscape. Also, you should measure the same page for about 2 to 3 times (if you have enough time). Also try not to run other programmes such as ICQ, AIM...

I really do not know, if there is a good test. To me, eyeballing was sufficient when I used NS6.0(i.e.the Curse), which took four minutes to load. And, I tried a stopwatch, and there is some difference. IE, for obvious reasons, and Opera will load pages faster, while Netscapes can be slightly slower. It is hard to compare because of variable internet traffic, and something else which is not done exactly the same. But, in Win 98 , NS7 and Moz1.0 appear faster.
I did the bandwidth speed test to all browsers, and Opera held the record with 1.3 Megabits/sec., while all other browser seem to be about the same, clustered around 850 kbits/sec. But, last night I found that NS4.8 clocked at an incredible 1.7 megabits/sec. These numbers apply to downloads, and not to uploads.
I have a nearly four years old Compaq 350Mhz, 128 MB.

[Shark Daddy]

Well there is no such thing as a good test for rendering speed. Dickerson, how fast is your processor?

[Dickerson]

Well there is no such thing as a good test for rendering speed. Dickerson, how fast is your processor?

I have a 3 year old, Packard Bell 400MHz Pentium II.

AND - I may have been a bit hasty my statement re: 4.8 v N7.

See my post under N7 issue.

Short version of that post is that I dumped all my profiles, created a new one from scratch today, and N7 is noticably faster now than 4.8. I think I was having more issues with my old profiles than I was aware of.

I will try an do some time tests, but it will later in the week before I have time.

Michael

[Fulvio]

Well there is no such thing as a good test for rendering speed. Dickerson, how fast is your processor?

I have a 3 year old, Packard Bell 400MHz Pentium II.

AND - I may have been a bit hasty my statement re: 4.8 v N7.

See my post under N7 issue.

Short version of that post is that I dumped all my profiles, created a new one from scratch today, and N7 is noticably faster now than 4.8. I think I was having more issues with my old profiles than I was aware of.

Mike,
if I had one hundred issues, the speed issue would come a 100. I am more concerned about resources being drained.

Tag fixed by Antony.