But maybe i'm wasting my time explaining that to someone who claimed these guys never said they were comparing Safari to Chrome, just the iOS browser to the Android browser. I don't know how you can have any sense of self respect when you say something like that, then try to defend it. That's taking dishonesty to the level of a complete contempt for the truth.
Mouse could you maybe be a little more of a drama queen. How does a "sense of self respect" fall into the same sentence as Safari and Chrome? I mean we are talking about web browsers. Unless I missed something and he like knocked up your sister.
Mouse could you maybe be a little more of a drama queen. How does a "sense of self respect" fall into the same sentence as Safari and Chrome? I mean we are talking about web browsers. Unless I missed something and he like knocked up your sister.
We're talking about honesty and integrity, qualities you have demonstrated in your posts here that you are largely unfamiliar with.
I'm not a fanboy. I usually make fun of the fanboys, but I think Blaze could have saved face by holding their ground on what their test did show and just admitting what it didn't. I think their response was pretty lame, if you haven't read it the tone is pretty "14 year old gamer with something to prove"... Actually, it kind of reminds me of you guys... and I certainly don't trust a damn thing that any of you say.
Anyway, I think iPhone sales will weather the UIWebViewGate debacle. (I feel like this one doesn't roll off the tongue so cleanly, but I've coined it, you saw it here first!) if the stock drops it'll be because SJ sneezed in public. You saw that here first, too.
Any time some study comes out pro or against an Apple product, it inevitably fans flames from all sides. Go have fun Apple Devotes and Android Fans. I want to see a big old fight all over a 1 second difference in web page loading on a mobile device. I'll eat my popcorn.
What I found interesting was this:
Am I wrong in seeing a double standard here? Granted, it is Apple's devices, and they can do what they want, but still...
Not really. Allowing third parties to run code like this is a security problem. Not insurmountable, but still, I think they're being cautious. Ever heard of remote code execution?
By the way, web apps that don't open Safari are just as fast as they were. It's just mobile Safari that's faster.
They used the embedded browsers in both platforms.
Blaze's conclusion was that the embedded browser in Android was faster than the embedded browser in iOS. That conclusion holds up to scrutiny.
Perhaps it escapes AppleInsider, but in the real world of computer performance testing, a fair set of benchmarks compares platforms as equally across the table as possible. It might make AI happy to see a set of unequal comparisons, but that would hardly be considered fair outside the confines of fanboidom.
This was not a real world test, it was a manufactured, artificial test (which they admit). And, as a poster above quoted from the report, they claim that the embedded browsers have the same performance as the stand-alone browsers, which is false.
They hadn't claimed that they measured Safari and Chrome, they claimed that they measured iOS and Android browsers
"The measurement itself was done using the custom apps, which use the platform?s embedded browser. This means WebView (based on Chrome) for Android, and UIWebView (based on Safari) for iPhone. Manual verification showed that page load performance of the embedded browsers, when properly configured, is effectively identical to the stand-alone browsers. The load times are calculated using the ?Document Complete? callback from the browser, which is a standard way of measuring a web page?s load time. As mentioned above, the agents are now a part of a free service available at http://blaze.io/mobile/, and we encourage you to try it out."
And yes, they used the browsers and until iOS 4.3 the performance of embedded browser and Safari browser was the same as it is with android embedded and Chrome browsers.
Now I may be wrong, but I think that's where they made the connection between embedded broswer and the stand alone broswers. And by pronouncing those are "effectively identical", they were indeed making claims about Safari and Chrome. And since Safari and UIWebView doesn't perform the same way, they obviously either was very sloppy in their initial "verification", or it wasn't done at all. The later would make them liars.
A quick explanation for those wondering how limiting this to safari is justified from a security standpoint...
The JIT has direct access to memory. It writes dynamically generated code to memory and then flags that memory for execution. When this code is executed, it completely bypasses the OS and can do anything it wants, including modifying other memory or anything stored on disk... without the OS knowing about it.
As you can imagine, this is dangerous. It isn't just a security hole, it goes way beyond that. It entirely bypasses all security.
The ironic thing is that this type of security is one of the main purposes of an operating system, both to prevent nefarious software but also for stability purposes. When operating systems were first invented, it was quite controversial, cutting app developers off from direct hardware access. In the end, it was determined to be a desirable model despite the resource overhead.
And despite the metodology, the tests are stupid, it's irelevant that a page load a second faster or slower
I view ~100-150 web pages per day on average on my iPhone 4 (news, stocks, application testing, package tracking, stock charts, Facebook, etc). It may not sound like much, but waiting an extra 3 minutes a day is annoying. It's even more annoying when I need to urgently test something (i.e. is the mobile app up and working) and I have to wait longer. I'm just impatient, I guess!
Fortunately, the Blaze test doesn't really apply to me since I use Safari on the iPhone. The new Nitro engine is a lot faster than the last version, and Safari is way faster than the Android phones in our office.
Hopefully Nitro will work with other apps in the future, because viewing web pages from the Facebook app, etc. would benefit.
Even if it were 3 seconds faster, know what the really funny part is?
Android would *still* suck.
Android is characteristic of what Google likes to do:
Release beta software onto the open market and let the chips fall where they may. License it universally, flood the market and then claim greater market share. Meanwhile there's little to no profit.
The very act of licensing out your OS to anyone that can slam together a box already implies that you have very little concern for the integrity of your product.
This is the problem with Google's entire tablet strategy, for example: Adobe Flash 10.2 Beta for Android Honeycomb Beta running on a Xoom Beta.
AND NOW . . . pay money for this.
DOA fake iPads and knockoff iPhones. You might as well buy stock in Psystar.
If you want something that doesn't feel like a Wintel hack-job, see those long lines? Get behind one of them and hope you get lucky.
iPhone or iPad, folks. Those are still the only viable choices out there.
These include overall stability and usability of the platform, power management and battery life, hardware quality, and easy access to iTunes music and movie rentals, iBooks, and App Store, three features Apple has started promoting in series of new ads that end with the line, "if you don?t have an iPhone, well, you don?t have an iPhone.?
I don't get why AI constantly puts bits like this at the end of their articles. It's like they feel the need to over defend Apple. The rest of the article was informative but then it's just brought down by this ending that makes the article have a biased slant on it.
As someone who had an iPhone and now has another smartphone, I can safly say the "overall stability and usability of the platform, power management and battery life, hardware quality, and easy access to iTunes music and movie rentals, iBooks, and App Store" are no better on an iPhone to another smartphone. The iPhone does have plus points that other's don't, but this isn't the list.
... It appears that Cnet's findings must also be 'faulty' ...
Yes, you're right. Not enough data points, uncontrolled conditions, entirely not meaningful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
.... As someone who had an iPhone and now has another smartphone, I can safly say the "overall stability and usability of the platform, power management and battery life, hardware quality, and easy access to iTunes music and movie rentals, iBooks, and App Store" are no better on an iPhone to another smartphone. The iPhone does have plus points that other's don't, but this isn't the list.
You were doing OK until you ventured into fantasy land.
I guess it's hard being a troll when there's so little to work with.
Comments
But maybe i'm wasting my time explaining that to someone who claimed these guys never said they were comparing Safari to Chrome, just the iOS browser to the Android browser. I don't know how you can have any sense of self respect when you say something like that, then try to defend it. That's taking dishonesty to the level of a complete contempt for the truth.
Mouse could you maybe be a little more of a drama queen. How does a "sense of self respect" fall into the same sentence as Safari and Chrome? I mean we are talking about web browsers. Unless I missed something and he like knocked up your sister.
Real life proves the TOTAL opposite.
Just like this FAKE browser test, WITHOUT the browsers!http://forums.appleinsider.com/image.../1rolleyes.gif
Mouse could you maybe be a little more of a drama queen. How does a "sense of self respect" fall into the same sentence as Safari and Chrome? I mean we are talking about web browsers. Unless I missed something and he like knocked up your sister.
We're talking about honesty and integrity, qualities you have demonstrated in your posts here that you are largely unfamiliar with.
They hadn't claimed that they measured Safari and Chrome, they claimed that they measured iOS and Android browsers
Give me a brake! iOS browser is Safari. Others are apps. This is a common term.
I think that those "my d*** is longer than yours" contest are stupid
Well that is because yours is short. Hahahahahahaha
Anyway, I think iPhone sales will weather the UIWebViewGate debacle. (I feel like this one doesn't roll off the tongue so cleanly, but I've coined it, you saw it here first!) if the stock drops it'll be because SJ sneezed in public. You saw that here first, too.
High end PC laptop vs Mac who wins?
Is this test surprising? Apple has never been the fastest
Any time some study comes out pro or against an Apple product, it inevitably fans flames from all sides. Go have fun Apple Devotes and Android Fans. I want to see a big old fight all over a 1 second difference in web page loading on a mobile device. I'll eat my popcorn.
What I found interesting was this:
Am I wrong in seeing a double standard here? Granted, it is Apple's devices, and they can do what they want, but still...
Not really. Allowing third parties to run code like this is a security problem. Not insurmountable, but still, I think they're being cautious. Ever heard of remote code execution?
By the way, web apps that don't open Safari are just as fast as they were. It's just mobile Safari that's faster.
They used the embedded browsers in both platforms.
Blaze's conclusion was that the embedded browser in Android was faster than the embedded browser in iOS. That conclusion holds up to scrutiny.
Perhaps it escapes AppleInsider, but in the real world of computer performance testing, a fair set of benchmarks compares platforms as equally across the table as possible. It might make AI happy to see a set of unequal comparisons, but that would hardly be considered fair outside the confines of fanboidom.
This was not a real world test, it was a manufactured, artificial test (which they admit). And, as a poster above quoted from the report, they claim that the embedded browsers have the same performance as the stand-alone browsers, which is false.
They hadn't claimed that they measured Safari and Chrome, they claimed that they measured iOS and Android browsers
"The measurement itself was done using the custom apps, which use the platform?s embedded browser. This means WebView (based on Chrome) for Android, and UIWebView (based on Safari) for iPhone. Manual verification showed that page load performance of the embedded browsers, when properly configured, is effectively identical to the stand-alone browsers. The load times are calculated using the ?Document Complete? callback from the browser, which is a standard way of measuring a web page?s load time. As mentioned above, the agents are now a part of a free service available at http://blaze.io/mobile/, and we encourage you to try it out."
And yes, they used the browsers and until iOS 4.3 the performance of embedded browser and Safari browser was the same as it is with android embedded and Chrome browsers.
Now I may be wrong, but I think that's where they made the connection between embedded broswer and the stand alone broswers. And by pronouncing those are "effectively identical", they were indeed making claims about Safari and Chrome. And since Safari and UIWebView doesn't perform the same way, they obviously either was very sloppy in their initial "verification", or it wasn't done at all. The later would make them liars.
The JIT has direct access to memory. It writes dynamically generated code to memory and then flags that memory for execution. When this code is executed, it completely bypasses the OS and can do anything it wants, including modifying other memory or anything stored on disk... without the OS knowing about it.
As you can imagine, this is dangerous. It isn't just a security hole, it goes way beyond that. It entirely bypasses all security.
The ironic thing is that this type of security is one of the main purposes of an operating system, both to prevent nefarious software but also for stability purposes. When operating systems were first invented, it was quite controversial, cutting app developers off from direct hardware access. In the end, it was determined to be a desirable model despite the resource overhead.
And despite the metodology, the tests are stupid, it's irelevant that a page load a second faster or slower
I view ~100-150 web pages per day on average on my iPhone 4 (news, stocks, application testing, package tracking, stock charts, Facebook, etc). It may not sound like much, but waiting an extra 3 minutes a day is annoying. It's even more annoying when I need to urgently test something (i.e. is the mobile app up and working) and I have to wait longer. I'm just impatient, I guess!
Fortunately, the Blaze test doesn't really apply to me since I use Safari on the iPhone. The new Nitro engine is a lot faster than the last version, and Safari is way faster than the Android phones in our office.
Hopefully Nitro will work with other apps in the future, because viewing web pages from the Facebook app, etc. would benefit.
Android would *still* suck.
Android is characteristic of what Google likes to do:
Release beta software onto the open market and let the chips fall where they may. License it universally, flood the market and then claim greater market share. Meanwhile there's little to no profit.
The very act of licensing out your OS to anyone that can slam together a box already implies that you have very little concern for the integrity of your product.
This is the problem with Google's entire tablet strategy, for example: Adobe Flash 10.2 Beta for Android Honeycomb Beta running on a Xoom Beta.
AND NOW . . . pay money for this.
DOA fake iPads and knockoff iPhones. You might as well buy stock in Psystar.
If you want something that doesn't feel like a Wintel hack-job, see those long lines? Get behind one of them and hope you get lucky.
iPhone or iPad, folks. Those are still the only viable choices out there.
It appears that Cnet's findings must also be 'faulty':
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20043455-1.html
Though it's highly unlikely.
These include overall stability and usability of the platform, power management and battery life, hardware quality, and easy access to iTunes music and movie rentals, iBooks, and App Store, three features Apple has started promoting in series of new ads that end with the line, "if you don?t have an iPhone, well, you don?t have an iPhone.?
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I don't get why AI constantly puts bits like this at the end of their articles. It's like they feel the need to over defend Apple. The rest of the article was informative but then it's just brought down by this ending that makes the article have a biased slant on it.
As someone who had an iPhone and now has another smartphone, I can safly say the "overall stability and usability of the platform, power management and battery life, hardware quality, and easy access to iTunes music and movie rentals, iBooks, and App Store" are no better on an iPhone to another smartphone. The iPhone does have plus points that other's don't, but this isn't the list.
... It appears that Cnet's findings must also be 'faulty' ...
Yes, you're right. Not enough data points, uncontrolled conditions, entirely not meaningful.
.... As someone who had an iPhone and now has another smartphone, I can safly say the "overall stability and usability of the platform, power management and battery life, hardware quality, and easy access to iTunes music and movie rentals, iBooks, and App Store" are no better on an iPhone to another smartphone. The iPhone does have plus points that other's don't, but this isn't the list.
You were doing OK until you ventured into fantasy land.
I guess it's hard being a troll when there's so little to work with.