| From: | Matt Sealey |
| Date: | 19 Apr 2001 at 18:21:14 |
| Subject: | Re: Voyager Image Decoders |
Hello No_good@jgen.fsnet.co.uk
On 19-Apr-01, you wrote:
>> It's just better. Scientific proof.
>
> One picture? As if that is conclusive proof?
I don't have time to create an entire suite of pictures for you :)
>> Yes, and I would prove it too. And I did.
>
> One picture. If your were a scientist you'd be laughed straight off
> this list, you need more than one piece of evidence to be conclusive.
I only need one, just like you only need one sample of DNA to convict
a murderer.
>> Go on. Give me solid, noticable proof of somewhere that Voyager has
>> lacklustre dithering in the same situations as IBrowse. I bet you
>
> www.jgen.fsnet.co.uk look at the title at the top. now do the test
> PROPERLY, with both browsers being run on the workbench, rather on
> seperate screens, after all. As a scientist you obviously know that
> you must use standard conditions for all tests.
Standard conditions: they both had 720x560 pixel screens of 256 colours,
with 8 of them mapped to the standard MagicWB colourset (pretty much a
normal MUI public screen).
If IBrowse can't pick the right colours of of 248 to create a nice looking
image..
Running them on the same screen gives funny quirks which if you were
a scientist would know make the test unfair: having IBrowse run first
puts it at the mercy of an unused screen and therefore non-allocated
pens. It allocates pens. It looks shit. Voyager runs, uses the same pens
and looks one hell of a lot better. Having Voyager run first means that
Voyager allocates the pens, then IBrowse will use those SAME pens
and give it an unfair advantage (but on the test image I used, will still
look totally shit)
>> No, because compared to IBrowse, Voyager isn't that bad at all. I
> come here
>> and slag IBrowse off because IBrowse is a truly lacklustre browser.
>
> It's faster, and more stable on my system. Point to me a working
> Voyager that is the same. You can't. V3.2 is the last full version,
> and it's crap. V3.3 is still a beta, and still has lots of problems.
Nobody recommends you run 3.2 because it's got a huge crash-o-bug
with the Javascript stack. 3.2.13 is the last recommended 3.2 version.
If you're going to judge browsers with development like this, you can't
judge by what was "last major release".
I'm sure IBrowse 2.3 has all these lovely fixed bugs, but we don't see
them. Voyager 3.3.97 is the fastest browser on the planet (yo ho,
Opera look out :) and out-HTML's even Mozilla on some things. And
certainly strips IBrowse of any crown of being "stable".
>> nukes it in that department as of this week..
>
> But your talking internal betas not full working products. I have
> hardly ever had Ibrowse crash on me, Voyager does it as part of a
> routine.
At least they're reproducable, then.
>> HOW it's better, and what makes it a better buy than Voyager, then
>> go ahead.
>
> Why should I bother?
You seem to insist that I validate every one of my arguments in such
ways, I don't see why you should be able to get away with "no it isn't"
and a sly giggle.
>> IBrowse sucks. Voyager doesn't. And when Voyager sucks, Olli looks
>> at it and fixes it.
>
> It is only your opinion that it doesn't. I really would like to be
> able use it more regularly, but I have this weird requirement that
> software doesn't fall over more often than a pissed 3 legged donkey.
So wait for the next beta of 3.3 and I promise it'll be more stable. We've
got people with an alleged 10 hour uptime of V, when previous records
(running Planetarion :) are verging on 10 minutes.
Whereas the last time I ran IBrowse (to run those tests, no less) my
system nuked no less than 4 times trying to find an image that was
a suitable test with some gradients and stuff.
And I have no confirmation that IBrowse is still being developed or
will ever be released, or whether those crash bugs are known or
whether they have or have not been fixed..
http://v3.vapor.com/?readme=1
But I do for Voyager, not least because I'm poking Olli every night
to fix the bugs and creating testsuites for it.
Thanks
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2cW4jC/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/d8AVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/