It's nice they managed to include Quick Launch feature and made it accessible conveniently via preferences menu.
However even on my humble P3 450 running Windows 98SE, the Quick Launch takes a while to load up when startup inside Windows desktop.
I wonder the actual value vs performance coming out from this approach. It looks essentially same to my view that (without Quick Launch enabled) Mozilla takes a while to start up on first run, and subsequently fast in load up because of caching, which almost identical to Quick Launch enabled in emphirical sense.
Without Quick Launch, I get to work on Windows desktop faster. IE did a better integration job than this. But then both are Microsoft products.
I hope they can further improve Quick Launch performance (and thus being truely useful).
Slashdot Mirror
From a typical user view,
It's nice they managed to include Quick Launch feature and made it accessible conveniently via preferences menu.
However even on my humble P3 450 running Windows 98SE, the Quick Launch takes a while to load up when startup inside Windows desktop.
I wonder the actual value vs performance coming out from this approach. It looks essentially same to my view that (without Quick Launch enabled) Mozilla takes a while to start up on first run, and subsequently fast in load up because of caching, which almost identical to Quick Launch enabled in emphirical sense.
Without Quick Launch, I get to work on Windows desktop faster. IE did a better integration job than this. But then both are Microsoft products.
I hope they can further improve Quick Launch performance (and thus being truely useful).