🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <creative-1011951716140001@slip153.inlink.com> creative@inlink.com (Lanny Chambers) writes:
>In article <skov-1011951602360001@mxs233.rh.psu.edu>, skov@psu.edu
>(Michael Skovrinskie) wrote:
>
>> >: I would just like to point out that Netscape 2.0b1 is a bug-riddled
>> >: disaster that very likely will not be cleared up until well after that
>> >: date.
>> >
>> >I agree.  However, I've been using 2.0b2 for several weeks now (ever since
>> >it came out) and have had NO problems.  I'm not disputing you, but
>> >there are some people out there who would benefit from progressive JPEGs.
>> 
>> ON the other hand, I haven't been able to use b2 for more than 5 seconds
>> without it crashing my machine, no matter what I do.
>
>I don't know about the PC version, but Mac 2.0b2 works OK (for a beta), as
>long as you don't let its amazing memory leak fill its Get Info
>allocation. I give it 15 MB, open About This Macintosh, and keep an eye on
>the RAM bar. WIth that much RAM to play in, it'll last for a couple of
>hours. When it hits 90% or so, it's time to quit and relaunch Netscape.
>Otherwise...kaBOOM!


You have low standards!  Note what your discovery implies: that the
Netscape crowd never tested it over an extended period of time.
What sort of beta release is that?  What sort of shitty company is that?

Brendan.