XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: flatfish@marianatrench.com   
      
   On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:57:51 -0400, Big Steel wrote:   
      
   > On 3/29/2011 11:47 AM, flatfish+++ wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:35:24 -0400, Big Steel wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 3/29/2011 7:54 AM, Ezekiel wrote:   
   >>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"   wrote in message   
   >>>> news:imrvme$tgc$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...   
   >>>>> That's right, dog-slow. The much-vaunted Firefox/Chrome killer is only   
   fit   
   >>>>> for 32-bit use.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And for some reason, this gets the Windows fans really riled up...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So at least you not admit that there is a 64-bit version of IE.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Here they compare IE9 32 vs 64 bit.   
   >>>>    
   >>>> Internet Explorer 9    Total (ms)   
   >>>> 32 bit                 133.7   
   >>>> 64 bit                  87.28   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So here you have it, with the exception of few tests, Internet Explorer 9   
   >>>> (64 bit) pretty much destroys its 32 bit brother.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>> http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-9-32-bit-x86-vs   
   ie9-64-bit-x64/   
   >>>   
   >>> The idiot olive fly Lawrence D'Oliveiro won't believe his lying eyes.   
   >>> He'll come up with some excuse and he wins. :)   
   >>>   
   >>> He is a real piece of work.   
   >>   
   >> Olive Oil is a slippery one!   
   >>   
   >> Wasn't his original claim that IE9 users were stuck with a 32 bit   
   >> program?   
   >>   
   >> He sure moved the goal posts around on that one.   
   >   
   > And the goal posts fell on him and crushed poor little Olive Oil.   
      
   Hahah!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)