To under cut the Zune, I think the prices will be;
16GB @ $199
32GB @ $249
64GB @ $349
Re: Google Chrome
While it is great seeing how fast Chrome currently is, it is far from being a shipping product (pre-alpha!?) I can understand why they do these types of comparisons, however speed doesn't mean a damned thing without stability. IF you want to see how far along Safari is coming and how fast it may be in its next update, you can always download the Webkit nightly build. I use it for development purposes, but it is extremely stable and very fast.
Re: AT&T Voicemail
Who dials into voice mail anymore? That's so 2006. ;-)
Really guys the last part of this article makes me want to barf. Comparing Browser speeds is fine as long as they are at similar levels of development. Comparing a buggy aloha or beta to shipping software that is relatively bug free is senseless. It might be usefull info to developers but most people here want reliable browsing.
As to the iPods I could see Apple being even more agressive with pricing. It all depends upon what new devices are coming and how they will be positioned. I could also see Apple offering camera free models at $25 dollars less. I do expect the entire iPod line up to get cheaper though, maybe not by a lot but enough to generate comments and notice.
Really guys the last part of this article makes me want to barf. Comparing Browser speeds is fine as long as they are at similar levels of development. Comparing a buggy aloha or beta to shipping software that is relatively bug free is senseless. It might be usefull info to developers but most people here want reliable browsing.
I don?t think it?s disingenuous since the browser engine they are using is usually not the buggy part, the browser app is. I?d wager that the final release product will be even faster in these same tests.
What I find more disingenuous is that sites and people reporting a browser as being x-many timex slower or faster than another but only basing it on one test type, lke JavaScript, and making it seem like it?s overall performance.
Earlier I did testing with Snow Leopard to see how the 64-bit app and whatever else Apple has done under the hood has affected the performance of the browser and that is, of course, still in beta, but I don?t see how my results are bad. I?d like run it against Leopard this weekend to see some comparative scores on the same hardware.
A new blog post from John Gruber of Daring Fireball suggests that Apple will announce a camera-equipped iPod touch at its September event, with capacities of 16GB, 32GB and 64GB at price points of $199, $299 and $399, respectively.
Yummy. Everything and iPhone can do except making calls for $199. I am so close to pulling the trigger on an iPhone here in Japan but I might get a Touch instead. Since the kanji input is a tad slow compared with regular mobile phones, I might buy a high end regular mobile phone and a Touch at the same time. Having two devices sorta sucks but fast kanji input is my priority and the iPhone/Touch are a bit slow in that area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
David Pogue of The New York Times recently began a campaign to shorten system voicemail messages that come by default on all four major cell phone carriers. The messages often give recorded instructions on how to do things like send a page, and Pogue contends that they use up users' cell phone minutes.
You can already do this with land line voicemail (at least in Canada), but most people have never even heard of it. The lady's voice is called "The Marsha prompt/voice]. I used to always call the telcom [even 10 years ago] and get it removed so all that people heard was either my voice or a beep. I reckon it would be just as simple for AT&T to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Chrome 4.0 fastest Mac browser by 34 percent
My Safari has never been zippy. Takes forever to start up and takes forever to load gmail. When a page loads and I go to do something on that page like scroll down, I get the spinning beach ball because it's still trying to load the page while I'm attempting to scroll. It can't handle that simple overload. YT as well. Latest updates, always clean with Onyx or Cocktail, repair permissions etc. Doesn't help. Two year old Intel MacBook.
I've used Chrome a bit, and I really like the way it handles tabs and searching through your history. It's also fast, though frankly I can't see any speed difference between browsers on a fast computer.
However, I'm "stuck" with Firefox thanks to Adblock and Flashblock. Can't surf without 'em.
That is pretty significant compared to Safari and WebKit on Leopard.
To add to my previous posting Chromium took 580ms and Firefox 3 took 3050s. Both are 32-bit apps compared to the 64-bit, and obviously improved Safari for Snow Leopard.
Why does AppleInsider feel the need to bundle stories together, it just makes all the comments go all over the place. How about one article per news piece please.
As for the iPods, does anyone think the new touches will include GPS?
I'm getting a little impatient with Safari 4. I'm starting to really feel that it is slowly than Safari 3.
Seeing how most web pages these days are dynamic, is there really any purpose in caching. It seems the time required for comparing the cached page to the current one is wasted and I'd like to be able to keep a cache that is only a few hours old, or get rid of it altogether.
Webkit nightly is faster than Chrome Alpha. Using alpha versions of products for speed tests is stupid. Is the feature set even complete? I don't see why people even take these numbers seriously until Chrome is released as a product. Again, you are talking about Webkit nightly 32bit being faster than Chrome alpha. The 64bit version of both products should be much faster.
Webkit nightly is faster than Chrome Alpha. Using alpha versions of products for speed tests is stupid. Is the feature set even complete? I don't see why people even take these numbers seriously until Chrome is released as a product. Again, you are talking about Webkit nightly 32bit being faster than Chrome alpha. The 64bit version of both products should be much faster.
Competition is good, silly items making news is annoying.
With most apps testing an Alpha app can be bad, but with a web browser and doing testing on the engine it?s okay. Chromium is using WebKit with V8 so even if the app itself is not the most stable and it?s missing some key elements the JS engine should be intact.
Regarding your comments about 32-bit v. 64-bit, my testing has shown that to be quite true.
In order from fastest to slowest.
Snow Leopard:
Safari 4.0.3 (64-bit): 440ms
Chromium Alpha (32-bit): 590ms
Safari 4.0.3 (32-bit): 640ms
Firefox 3.5.2 (32-bit): 1170ms
Leopard (32-bit):
Chromium Alpha: 660ms
Safari 4.0.3: 880ms
Firefox 3.5.2: 1,500ms
Opera 10 beta 3: 5,900ms
As you can see, 64-bit & Snow Leopard make a big difference with Safari of the same version numbers. Chromium is about 10% faster on Snow Leopard than on Leopard with the same HW, Safari users will get twice the speed than they previous had when they move to Snow Leopard. Seeing as how the 32-bit version of Safari is still slower on JS than Chromium it?s likely that the 64-bit version will be on top again. And perhaps if they optimized for Snow Leopard they can squeeze even more efficiency, though every browser tested is faster under Snow Leopard, even Firefox 3.5.2 isn?t so shabby out of the gate.
With most apps testing an Alpha app can be bad, but with a web browser and doing testing on the engine it?s okay. Chromium is using WebKit with V8 so even if the app itself is not the most stable and it?s missing some key elements the JS engine should be intact.
If you put it that way, like the Ars article says, lets compare oranges to oranges. The browser engines always undergo improvements. Nitro in the webkit nightly builds is much faster than what is present in Safari 4.0.3. So the comparison should really be between the nightly of webkit and the alpha of Chromium. All said and done, let the browsers sort it out amongst themselves eventually. The end user is the winner.
If you put it that way, like the Ars article says, lets compare oranges to oranges. The browser engines always undergo improvements. Nitro in the webkit nightly builds is much faster than what is present in Safari 4.0.3. So the comparison should really be between the nightly of webkit and the alpha of Chromium. All said and done, let the browsers sort it out amongst themselves eventually. The end user is the winner.
These tests are great for a few reasons. JS is important to rendering speed and JS getting more dominant every day, but measuring JS speed is not the only metric that needs to be measured. While on Leopard V8 is the fastest JS engine tested if other areas falter have one area that is faster can become pointless.
However, just being faster, even if it?s at every metric doesn?t mean that it?s the best browser to use. Plus, Webkit with V8 or Nitro are so fast that I?d never drop Safari for Chromium simply because of a slight speed advantage that I likely can?t determine without hardcore testing. Mozilla will likely never catch up to but that doesn?t matter to most Firefox users because it has options and features that Safari and Chrome will likely never offer.
The best thing is that IE is falling in favour of open source and open standards and will likely be under 50% within 6 months.
Comments
I just ran on my 2006 MBP, 10.5.8, http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/
- latest Webkit (r47291): 3274
- Safari 4.0.3: 3111
Not the WebKit pre-built dmg. You have to build it yourself.
To under cut the Zune, I think the prices will be;
16GB @ $199
32GB @ $249
64GB @ $349
Re: Google Chrome
While it is great seeing how fast Chrome currently is, it is far from being a shipping product (pre-alpha!?) I can understand why they do these types of comparisons, however speed doesn't mean a damned thing without stability. IF you want to see how far along Safari is coming and how fast it may be in its next update, you can always download the Webkit nightly build. I use it for development purposes, but it is extremely stable and very fast.
Re: AT&T Voicemail
Who dials into voice mail anymore? That's so 2006. ;-)
As to the iPods I could see Apple being even more agressive with pricing. It all depends upon what new devices are coming and how they will be positioned. I could also see Apple offering camera free models at $25 dollars less. I do expect the entire iPod line up to get cheaper though, maybe not by a lot but enough to generate comments and notice.
Dave
Really guys the last part of this article makes me want to barf. Comparing Browser speeds is fine as long as they are at similar levels of development. Comparing a buggy aloha or beta to shipping software that is relatively bug free is senseless. It might be usefull info to developers but most people here want reliable browsing.
I don?t think it?s disingenuous since the browser engine they are using is usually not the buggy part, the browser app is. I?d wager that the final release product will be even faster in these same tests.
What I find more disingenuous is that sites and people reporting a browser as being x-many timex slower or faster than another but only basing it on one test type, lke JavaScript, and making it seem like it?s overall performance.
Earlier I did testing with Snow Leopard to see how the 64-bit app and whatever else Apple has done under the hood has affected the performance of the browser and that is, of course, still in beta, but I don?t see how my results are bad. I?d like run it against Leopard this weekend to see some comparative scores on the same hardware.
A new blog post from John Gruber of Daring Fireball suggests that Apple will announce a camera-equipped iPod touch at its September event, with capacities of 16GB, 32GB and 64GB at price points of $199, $299 and $399, respectively.
Yummy. Everything and iPhone can do except making calls for $199. I am so close to pulling the trigger on an iPhone here in Japan but I might get a Touch instead. Since the kanji input is a tad slow compared with regular mobile phones, I might buy a high end regular mobile phone and a Touch at the same time. Having two devices sorta sucks but fast kanji input is my priority and the iPhone/Touch are a bit slow in that area.
David Pogue of The New York Times recently began a campaign to shorten system voicemail messages that come by default on all four major cell phone carriers. The messages often give recorded instructions on how to do things like send a page, and Pogue contends that they use up users' cell phone minutes.
You can already do this with land line voicemail (at least in Canada), but most people have never even heard of it. The lady's voice is called "The Marsha prompt/voice]. I used to always call the telcom [even 10 years ago] and get it removed so all that people heard was either my voice or a beep. I reckon it would be just as simple for AT&T to do.
Chrome 4.0 fastest Mac browser by 34 percent
My Safari has never been zippy. Takes forever to start up and takes forever to load gmail. When a page loads and I go to do something on that page like scroll down, I get the spinning beach ball because it's still trying to load the page while I'm attempting to scroll. It can't handle that simple overload. YT as well. Latest updates, always clean with Onyx or Cocktail, repair permissions etc. Doesn't help. Two year old Intel MacBook.
.
However, I'm "stuck" with Firefox thanks to Adblock and Flashblock. Can't surf without 'em.
I know what the initialisms are, but don?t know how to adjust for them with the WebKit/Safari builds.
I just tried the WebKit build from last night (r47291) and I get a marginally better result of 450.4ms. For some reason
Results:
? Webkit build from Safari 4.0.3: http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspide...38,37,36%5D%7D
? Webkit build from 14/08/2009: http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspide...34,34,32%5D%7D
That is pretty significant compared to Safari and WebKit on Leopard.
To add to my previous posting Chromium took 580ms and Firefox 3 took 3050s. Both are 32-bit apps compared to the 64-bit, and obviously improved Safari for Snow Leopard.
Results:
? Chromium build from today: http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspide...49,47,48%5D%7D
? Firefox version 3.0.13: http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspide...,104,107%5D%7D
As for the iPods, does anyone think the new touches will include GPS?
Seeing how most web pages these days are dynamic, is there really any purpose in caching. It seems the time required for comparing the cached page to the current one is wasted and I'd like to be able to keep a cache that is only a few hours old, or get rid of it altogether.
my iphone voicemail use to beep directly after my greeting. now the Marsha prompt with the lady talking comes on, and then beeps after that.
What happened? why has it gone back to the old way? My iphone 1gen, 2gen, 3gen, voicemail has never done that
So ironically AT&T has made the iphone voicemail greeting longer, rather than shorter (just keeping it the way it was)
Article from Ars Technica comparing webkit to chrome.
Competition is good, silly items making news is annoying.
Webkit nightly is faster than Chrome Alpha. Using alpha versions of products for speed tests is stupid. Is the feature set even complete? I don't see why people even take these numbers seriously until Chrome is released as a product. Again, you are talking about Webkit nightly 32bit being faster than Chrome alpha. The 64bit version of both products should be much faster.
Article from Ars Technica comparing webkit to chrome.
Competition is good, silly items making news is annoying.
With most apps testing an Alpha app can be bad, but with a web browser and doing testing on the engine it?s okay. Chromium is using WebKit with V8 so even if the app itself is not the most stable and it?s missing some key elements the JS engine should be intact.
Regarding your comments about 32-bit v. 64-bit, my testing has shown that to be quite true.
In order from fastest to slowest.
Snow Leopard:
Safari 4.0.3 (64-bit): 440ms
Chromium Alpha (32-bit): 590ms
Safari 4.0.3 (32-bit): 640ms
Firefox 3.5.2 (32-bit): 1170ms
Leopard (32-bit):
Chromium Alpha: 660ms
Safari 4.0.3: 880ms
Firefox 3.5.2: 1,500ms
Opera 10 beta 3: 5,900ms
As you can see, 64-bit & Snow Leopard make a big difference with Safari of the same version numbers. Chromium is about 10% faster on Snow Leopard than on Leopard with the same HW, Safari users will get twice the speed than they previous had when they move to Snow Leopard. Seeing as how the 32-bit version of Safari is still slower on JS than Chromium it?s likely that the 64-bit version will be on top again. And perhaps if they optimized for Snow Leopard they can squeeze even more efficiency, though every browser tested is faster under Snow Leopard, even Firefox 3.5.2 isn?t so shabby out of the gate.
With most apps testing an Alpha app can be bad, but with a web browser and doing testing on the engine it?s okay. Chromium is using WebKit with V8 so even if the app itself is not the most stable and it?s missing some key elements the JS engine should be intact.
If you put it that way, like the Ars article says, lets compare oranges to oranges. The browser engines always undergo improvements. Nitro in the webkit nightly builds is much faster than what is present in Safari 4.0.3. So the comparison should really be between the nightly of webkit and the alpha of Chromium. All said and done, let the browsers sort it out amongst themselves eventually. The end user is the winner.
If you put it that way, like the Ars article says, lets compare oranges to oranges. The browser engines always undergo improvements. Nitro in the webkit nightly builds is much faster than what is present in Safari 4.0.3. So the comparison should really be between the nightly of webkit and the alpha of Chromium. All said and done, let the browsers sort it out amongst themselves eventually. The end user is the winner.
These tests are great for a few reasons. JS is important to rendering speed and JS getting more dominant every day, but measuring JS speed is not the only metric that needs to be measured. While on Leopard V8 is the fastest JS engine tested if other areas falter have one area that is faster can become pointless.
However, just being faster, even if it?s at every metric doesn?t mean that it?s the best browser to use. Plus, Webkit with V8 or Nitro are so fast that I?d never drop Safari for Chromium simply because of a slight speed advantage that I likely can?t determine without hardcore testing. Mozilla will likely never catch up to but that doesn?t matter to most Firefox users because it has options and features that Safari and Chrome will likely never offer.
The best thing is that IE is falling in favour of open source and open standards and will likely be under 50% within 6 months.