>My experience with NetScape 3.0 win95 / Internet Explorer 3.0 win95:
>
>Having just purchased a zip drive and returned to school from summer
>vacation, I was anxious to download all of the newest "toys."  When I 
>connected from home over a slirp'ed ppp connection on a 14.4K modem, I
>couldn't believe the performance.  Slow isn't a proper adjective to
>describe it.  Certain graphic files that are 8K, yes 8K, refuse to / take
>a very long time to download from mole.  This was true with both
>browsers.  They've both been trashed, or 'em, recycled.

        That's quite opposite of my experience.  One of the contributing
factors to IE 3.0 (since the second beta) to becoming my primary browser is
the perceptive speed difference over Navigator.  It seems Navigator did some
tweaks for 3.0, so they're quite close.  My experience is that both are much
faster than previous versions (*) for both network and my 28.8k dial-up
connection.  On my 486-66 Win 95 machine with a paltry 8 megs of RAM.

        For a project I've been working on for the past month, I've had to
use the "big three" browsers (IE 3.0, Navigator 2.0, and Navigator 3.0).
The biggest difference (aisde from Navigator 2.0 not supporting frames) is
that both Navigators crash with much more frequency than IE 3.0 does.  This
appears to be related to reloading pages, apparently.  In the month that
I've worked on this particular project, IE 3.0 hasn't crashed once, and
again, that's using it as my primary browser and hardly ever closing it.

        Aside from that, my feeling is that it's not just smarmy kiss-up to
say that Navigator 3.0 and IE 3.0 are pretty much equal.  Because of the
need to support multiple platforms, my recommendation would be Navigator
3.0.  I can't imagine the performance would be that unacceptable on a 33 MHz
machine.

 TTYL
 Chris
(*) Ok, like this was hard from the atrocious turtle known as IE 2.0.