This so-called "speed race" is highly reminiscent of the camera industry's battle of the mega pixels. Most people are now at broadband speeds, and thus is really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It may serve as bragging rights for browser developers, but for the end-user it hardly matters.
Why not focus start time (especially cold starts), reducing bloat, while adding interesting new features. Firefox for example is great, but I can't help but feel that it's becoming more and more bloated and sluggish.
Having said that I'm looking forward to Chrome on the Mac.
...what does broadband and page load time have to do with the speed of the Java Script engine?
...what does broadband and page load time have to do with the speed of the Java Script engine?
I think his point is that the web browsers themselves are getting quite large and bulky just to launch. This article is only focusing on the client-side engine for JS, but there is also something to be said for server-side code to be more optimized and use more open standards in the future. One reason the iPhone seems pretty fast for what it is is because there is no Flash or Java being loading which can slow down the page.
"I commend you for raising the issue(that AT&T has a lengthy voicemail introduction)."
This statement implies AT&T both was unaware customers didn't want it, AND that AT&T did not explicitly plan and configure their voicemail system to have a lengthy introduction at least partially for the higher revenues it gives them.
For those that haven’t read it, I recommend the Pogue article in full. It covers all the crazy shit that Congress is doing witha focus on the iPhone to the exorbitant costs of SMS to the foolish people complaining that new users get the iPhone 3GS for have the price of loyal iPhone 3G users.
This so-called "speed race" is highly reminiscent of the camera industry's battle of the mega pixels. Most people are now at broadband speeds, and thus is really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It may serve as bragging rights for browser developers, but for the end-user it hardly matters.
Why not focus start time (especially cold starts), reducing bloat, while adding interesting new features. Firefox for example is great, but I can't help but feel that it's becoming more and more bloated and sluggish.
Having said that I'm looking forward to Chrome on the Mac.
This benchmark is based on JavaScript execution speed, not page loading times.
What about the exorbitant charges for text messaging?
This speed seems to be without running 64-bit, because Finder GetInfo does not offer the option of opening 32-bit. If Chromium was compiled 64-bit it should run even faster.
WebKit Nightly Safari runs a helluva a lot faster currently than the most current stable version of Safari 4.
WebKit Nightly Safari runs a helluva a lot faster currently than the most current stable version of Safari 4.
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I’ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
Note that iPhones do NOT have that annoying AT&T voicemail message. Apparently Apple wouldn't stand for it.
Once you record your own message, there should be NO other message added by default. That's how it is for iPhone users, and that's how it should be for everyone on any carrier.
It's a tiny little dot, so I don't think so. (But it would be nice!)
I'm guessing it's a mic, which would be needed for video recording (and the iPod currently lacks that).
I was about to post that I'd rather see the mic positioned better for making Skype calls... but there's no earpiece anyway, so people will end up using a speakerphone mode or else a headset. In that case, having the mic positioned specifically for best video capture makes sense.
(And I remember seeing a similar dot in mockups of the new Nano--now I'm thinking that was the mic too.)
They could have put the speakers on the top (basically flipped an iPhone) and the mic on the bottom. Then you could use it as a phone.
It really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds.
Page load times make a HUGE difference. An average person perceives a lag in response/load times at just over 1/10 of a second(100ms). Obviously, server-side code has to work towards fast response times as well but, "half a second delay caused a 20% drop in traffic. Half a second delay killed user satisfaction...[and] would result in substantial and costly drops in revenue" (http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/...at-web-20.html)
Certainly, response times are important in all aspects of interaction from boot times and launch times to the code execution from a button click or other event.
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I?ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
Make sure you build against LLVM and GCC to see any trends.
But *everything* runs faster than IE8, and by a significant amount too.
You spend several sentences saying how fast it is and how you recommend it, but all you've ever done is compare it to the worlds slowest browser? That pretty much invalidates everything you said previously so what's the point of even making the statement?
I don't have to test it against Safari Because CNET has already done it. So if you don't want to believe me about how fast it is, just read the article you are blogging on. ni!
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I?ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
Stainless is based on Webkit, ie, it uses the same rendering engine as Safari, Mail and everything else in the OS.
Chromium is also based on Webkit except that it has its own Javascript engine. And it is based on rendering engine of Webkit. Safari adds all the chrome around the rendering engine.
Stainless (0.6.5) interestingly achieves a lower mark than Safari in the test linked to in my previous test: 2856
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I?ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Make sure you build against LLVM and GCC to see any trends.
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
Not a bad tip Thanks! (Unless some of those keys do OTHER unwanted things on the other services.)
7*#1 is pretty much the same swear word I'm thinking in my head when it happens, too.
DONT DO IT! If you type them all, you may end up with the "please enter your password" prompt.
many carriers use other carrier's "skip to the beep" key as their "log in to hear your voicemail key" just so that people will listen to the whole damned message.
This so-called "speed race" is highly reminiscent of the camera industry's battle of the mega pixels. Most people are now at broadband speeds, and thus is really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It may serve as bragging rights for browser developers, but for the end-user it hardly matters.
Why not focus start time (especially cold starts), reducing bloat, while adding interesting new features. Firefox for example is great, but I can't help but feel that it's becoming more and more bloated and sluggish.
Having said that I'm looking forward to Chrome on the Mac.
If you have ever used IE8 versus any other web browser out there, then you would see why it matters. I know it sounds kinda illogical but any speed increase they do helps tremendously in responsiveness and usability. IE is just too darn slow and it shows that MS is just bloatware. I praise any developer that improves upon their application speed.
I just downloaded and installed a build of this beast, and I am impressed. It is fast, drive it like you stole it fast. I love Safari, but there's no doubt that Chrome is faster. I haven't noticed any buggy behavior yet, but I've only been using it for about ten minutes. I like that the look and feel is much like Safari. It feels like what I'm used to, but a whole lot faster. Good job, Google. I hope they don't take over the world.
I just downloaded and installed a build of this beast, and I am impressed. It is fast, drive it like you stole it fast. I love Safari, but there's no doubt that Chrome is faster. I haven't noticed any buggy behavior yet, but I've only been using it for about ten minutes. I like that the look and feel is much like Safari. It feels like what I'm used to, but a whole lot faster. Good job, Google. I hope they don't take over the world.
Oh, and I do use WebKit, although I haven't updated to a recent nightly build in a while.
I just downloaded and installed a build of this beast, and I am impressed. It is fast, drive it like you stole it fast. I love Safari, but there's no doubt that Chrome is faster. I haven't noticed any buggy behavior yet, but I've only been using it for about ten minutes. I like that the look and feel is much like Safari. It feels like what I'm used to, but a whole lot faster. Good job, Google. I hope they don't take over the world.
Try also downloading the nightly Webkit build... it is supposedly just as fast, if not faster. Chrome is also in a pre-alpha stage, and apparently has many, many bugs to prove it.
Comments
This so-called "speed race" is highly reminiscent of the camera industry's battle of the mega pixels. Most people are now at broadband speeds, and thus is really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It may serve as bragging rights for browser developers, but for the end-user it hardly matters.
Why not focus start time (especially cold starts), reducing bloat, while adding interesting new features. Firefox for example is great, but I can't help but feel that it's becoming more and more bloated and sluggish.
Having said that I'm looking forward to Chrome on the Mac.
...what does broadband and page load time have to do with the speed of the Java Script engine?
...what does broadband and page load time have to do with the speed of the Java Script engine?
I think his point is that the web browsers themselves are getting quite large and bulky just to launch. This article is only focusing on the client-side engine for JS, but there is also something to be said for server-side code to be more optimized and use more open standards in the future. One reason the iPhone seems pretty fast for what it is is because there is no Flash or Java being loading which can slow down the page.
This statement implies AT&T both was unaware customers didn't want it, AND that AT&T did not explicitly plan and configure their voicemail system to have a lengthy introduction at least partially for the higher revenues it gives them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/te...rssnyt&emc=rss
This so-called "speed race" is highly reminiscent of the camera industry's battle of the mega pixels. Most people are now at broadband speeds, and thus is really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It may serve as bragging rights for browser developers, but for the end-user it hardly matters.
Why not focus start time (especially cold starts), reducing bloat, while adding interesting new features. Firefox for example is great, but I can't help but feel that it's becoming more and more bloated and sluggish.
Having said that I'm looking forward to Chrome on the Mac.
This benchmark is based on JavaScript execution speed, not page loading times.
What about the exorbitant charges for text messaging?
This speed seems to be without running 64-bit, because Finder GetInfo does not offer the option of opening 32-bit. If Chromium was compiled 64-bit it should run even faster.
WebKit Nightly Safari runs a helluva a lot faster currently than the most current stable version of Safari 4.
WebKit Nightly Safari runs a helluva a lot faster currently than the most current stable version of Safari 4.
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I’ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
Note that iPhones do NOT have that annoying AT&T voicemail message. Apparently Apple wouldn't stand for it.
Once you record your own message, there should be NO other message added by default. That's how it is for iPhone users, and that's how it should be for everyone on any carrier.
It's a tiny little dot, so I don't think so. (But it would be nice!)
I'm guessing it's a mic, which would be needed for video recording (and the iPod currently lacks that).
I was about to post that I'd rather see the mic positioned better for making Skype calls... but there's no earpiece anyway, so people will end up using a speakerphone mode or else a headset. In that case, having the mic positioned specifically for best video capture makes sense.
(And I remember seeing a similar dot in mockups of the new Nano--now I'm thinking that was the mic too.)
They could have put the speakers on the top (basically flipped an iPhone) and the mic on the bottom. Then you could use it as a phone.
It really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds.
Page load times make a HUGE difference. An average person perceives a lag in response/load times at just over 1/10 of a second(100ms). Obviously, server-side code has to work towards fast response times as well but, "half a second delay caused a 20% drop in traffic. Half a second delay killed user satisfaction...[and] would result in substantial and costly drops in revenue" (http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/...at-web-20.html)
Certainly, response times are important in all aspects of interaction from boot times and launch times to the code execution from a button click or other event.
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I?ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
Make sure you build against LLVM and GCC to see any trends.
But *everything* runs faster than IE8, and by a significant amount too.
You spend several sentences saying how fast it is and how you recommend it, but all you've ever done is compare it to the worlds slowest browser? That pretty much invalidates everything you said previously so what's the point of even making the statement?
I don't have to test it against Safari Because CNET has already done it. So if you don't want to believe me about how fast it is, just read the article you are blogging on. ni!
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I?ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
I just ran on my 2006 MBP, 10.5.8, http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/
- latest Webkit (r47291): 3274
- Safari 4.0.3: 3111
Could be a handy fix for now...
http://lifehacker.com/5326511/bypass...one-star-pound
Stainless (based on Chromium) takes 1.
Stainless is based on Webkit, ie, it uses the same rendering engine as Safari, Mail and everything else in the OS.
Chromium is also based on Webkit except that it has its own Javascript engine. And it is based on rendering engine of Webkit. Safari adds all the chrome around the rendering engine.
Stainless (0.6.5) interestingly achieves a lower mark than Safari in the test linked to in my previous test: 2856
Do you have any SunSpider benchmarks? My results for Safari 4.0.3 64-bit on Snow Leopard are 471.4ms. (I?ll run the WebKit nightly in a few hours to see a comparison)
Make sure you build against LLVM and GCC to see any trends.
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.
Not a bad tip
7*#1 is pretty much the same swear word I'm thinking in my head when it happens, too.
DONT DO IT! If you type them all, you may end up with the "please enter your password" prompt.
many carriers use other carrier's "skip to the beep" key as their "log in to hear your voicemail key" just so that people will listen to the whole damned message.
This so-called "speed race" is highly reminiscent of the camera industry's battle of the mega pixels. Most people are now at broadband speeds, and thus is really makes very little difference between a web page loading in 1 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It may serve as bragging rights for browser developers, but for the end-user it hardly matters.
Why not focus start time (especially cold starts), reducing bloat, while adding interesting new features. Firefox for example is great, but I can't help but feel that it's becoming more and more bloated and sluggish.
Having said that I'm looking forward to Chrome on the Mac.
If you have ever used IE8 versus any other web browser out there, then you would see why it matters. I know it sounds kinda illogical but any speed increase they do helps tremendously in responsiveness and usability. IE is just too darn slow and it shows that MS is just bloatware. I praise any developer that improves upon their application speed.
I just downloaded and installed a build of this beast, and I am impressed. It is fast, drive it like you stole it fast. I love Safari, but there's no doubt that Chrome is faster. I haven't noticed any buggy behavior yet, but I've only been using it for about ten minutes. I like that the look and feel is much like Safari. It feels like what I'm used to, but a whole lot faster. Good job, Google. I hope they don't take over the world.
Oh, and I do use WebKit, although I haven't updated to a recent nightly build in a while.
I just downloaded and installed a build of this beast, and I am impressed. It is fast, drive it like you stole it fast. I love Safari, but there's no doubt that Chrome is faster. I haven't noticed any buggy behavior yet, but I've only been using it for about ten minutes. I like that the look and feel is much like Safari. It feels like what I'm used to, but a whole lot faster. Good job, Google. I hope they don't take over the world.
Try also downloading the nightly Webkit build... it is supposedly just as fast, if not faster. Chrome is also in a pre-alpha stage, and apparently has many, many bugs to prove it.