Hello forum members,
The best reply for me, is this link:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385641Do you see next to CC? Would they be interested in dubious code?
And as far as bob3160 is concerned here, he has helped me out on various occasions once enabling me to install USB 2.0 on an old Win98 platform, etc. He shares his files for ages now, and he is a responsible chap, I'll eat my hat if he is not. He was the first out here to make me resize my avatar, do you remember Bob? I had that dancing monkey, then?
There was a test report from greenknight: "Don't jump to conclusions, this should be tested objectively. I just did a small test; I went to a site with that file in place and timed how long it took to load, returned to my home page, closed Firefox, and ran CCleaner to clear the cache, cookies, etc. Then I disabled the file by renaming it .txt, and did it again.
I repeated this, alternately with the file enabled and disabled, until I had loaded the page five times each way. When I was done, it averaged out exactly the same either way!
There was one noticeable difference - there was more variation when the test file was enabled than when it wasn't. With the file, it took from 4-16 seconds - without it, 7-9 seconds. But the average was 8.4 seconds, either way.
This doesn't really prove anything; it would take many more tests, with different pages varying in content. But it demonstrates that there is so much variability in page loading speed that it's very hard to judge based on your impression of loading time - it could be just a coincidence that it's faster or slower at any given time.
That this test came out exactly even is wildly coincidental, considering how much the results varied. Like I said, this test isn't big enough to prove anything - except that it's a difficult thing to test."
polonus