Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Frame Benchmarks 9x Faster than IE8

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the they-framed-me dept.

Google 152

ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Early tests with Google's Chrome Frame found IE8 runs 9.6 times faster than usual. The testers ran the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark suite." The other question is what is the performance hit of using the Frame plug-in instead of running the browser natively.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

benchmarks always forget the user experience (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529127)

However it seems like they only measured JavaScript engine, which by no means contribute everything to how fast browser or browsing feels. And everyone probably knew already that Google's JavaScript engine outperforms MS's (and being one of the main thing Google's thing use, they have a reason to optimize it till its dead)

This seems to be the usual thing with other browser benchmarks too, they only benchmark the javascript engines and similar under the hood things. Yeah it's easier, but it doesn't really tell the truth.

User interactions and GUI responsiveness contribute a lot, actually even more so, to how fast browsing feels. IE is horrible with this and has always been; everything lacks behind, scrolling is galaxies far from smooth and the general feeling is just bad. On that note, Firefox suffers a bit from the same things. I think only Opera and Chrome have done UI responsiveness good. Which also brings the question, does Chrome Frame improve it on IE too?

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529187)

This seems to be the usual thing with other browser benchmarks too, they only benchmark the javascript engines and similar under the hood things.

Nonsense. Aside from the retrieval of a page, rendering said (static) page will be instant in almost all cases, regardless the browser. If it doesn't, either the page is way way way too complicated or you are using an antiquated machine.

So... when benchmarking a web browser, the only real target to measure is javascript performance.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529251)

There are actually other points you can look at. Things like how fast the browser starts rendering the page while its loading makes a huge difference too. If you sit there waiting for the page to load and looking at white/previous page, its slow. If the browser starts immediately rendering the loading page, atleast something is happening. MS improved this a lot in Win7 too. Just if you see that something is happening or whats loading, it feels faster than just waiting. Of course feel is hard to benchmark, so they usually don't, but it counts a lot too.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (5, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529885)

This! ^

Benchmarks aside, I feel like Chrome is the slowest thing on earth, because I see NOTHING until the page is finished loading. I try to be objective. I'll load the same page in Chrome and in FF. True, the page FINISHES about the same time, but with FF, I can see bits and pieces as they become available. Since I am interested in the text most of the time, it doesn't matter how long it takes for some other element to load - I'm never going to look at it. I WANT MY TEXT NOW!!

That said - I agree with those who say web pages are to complicated today. Add in useless bloat like flash, advertising, etc. I can't browse any faster today with DSL than I did a few years ago with dial up! Something is badly wrong here.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529981)

Add in useless bloat like flash, advertising, etc.

Don't install flash, install AdBlock. Problems solved.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (3, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530229)

Correct - BUT, I am trying to consider the "average user". Like my wife, for instance. I finally weaned her from Microsoft, and she's perfectly happy on Ubuntu. But, HER Ubuntu looks nothing like MY version Ubuntu. If her flash don't flash, she'll throw a fit. She's not a fashion nut, but she still wants to see what's "hot" - meaning she READS those stupid advertisements! Did I mention that on a shared connection, her flash games and adverts slow down MY connection?

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531199)

If a flash or advert slow down your connection, you should switch ASAP your ISP...
Or you might want to invest in some Avian carrier, they can transfert 4gb faster than slow ISP.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531445)

I think this is some kind of general principle. Greater capacity doesn't mean you get to go faster, just that more stuff will fill up the capacity. Like adding more lines to a freeway doesn't necessarily mean less congestion. Or how making more money doesn't mean you save more. Or like how faster computers don't mean your applications run faster. Something else is always going to fill that capacity other than what you want it to be used for.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29531473)

Especially when you try to separate adladen cruft pages versus actual content - you can often see that a half-loaded page is full of garbage and not relavent to what you are searching for.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29531509)

Not true here. In fact I just observed the opposite. Yahoo.com loaded all in one go in firefox, while chrome loaded first the text and displayed it, then the images.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531041)

Partly untrue, while the kind of benchmarks in the article have nothing (directly) to do with "Feel" alot of companies who have web sites (especially the big ones) do have tools to gauge feel.

The two i stumble across most often are from Segue and Mercury (Silk perform and load runner and their associated software bits). Seque's silk line is very good at judging feel, its designed to hit websites (as well as DB's and almost anything really) pretty hard with "real user access" patterns and can tell you how it'll perform from the user perspective depending on the browser they're using (it emulates various browsers). It can tell you things like the time taken to first start rendering the page, how long it took to render the page entirely and how long it took to download it all (as well as the impact of various link speeds). Those are the only two im particularly familiar with, but there are many many more. Ultimately, you can take all that data, and get a feel for "feel" based on browser type and link speed.

Coming form an SI type role, seeing what automated testing tools exist these days is pretty kewl (more used by testers then myself) and gives you a good feel of "when im building infrastructure what am I aiming to do".

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29531563)

but man, I've hated the fact that most recent browsers let you see and start filling out login fields before the page is fully loaded, only to have a refresh of sorts when the page is don loading. This is usually right when I'm about to type my password, and the refresh kicks the cursor back to the username field. And there's usually someone looking over my shoulder. And I then have to explain why my default password is IliKe6Little9Boyz...

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529365)

Aside from the retrieval of a page, rendering said (static) page will be instant in almost all cases, regardless the browser. If it doesn't, either the page is way way way too complicated or you are using an antiquated machine.

Welcome to the world wide web, TheRealMindChild. Out here pages are "way way way too complicated". You can close your eyes and go "lalalala" but that doesn't mean those pages aren't there.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529849)

Aside from the retrieval of a page, rendering said (static) page will be instant in almost all cases, regardless the browser. If it doesn't, either the page is way way way too complicated or you are using an antiquated machine.

Welcome to the world wide web, TheRealMindChild. Out here pages are "way way way too complicated". You can close your eyes and go "lalalala" but that doesn't mean those pages aren't there.

But I'm sure the number of static non-javascript way-way-way-way-too-complicated pages is but a tiny fraction of the number of pages with poorly coded Javascript that can lock up a browser for minutes while the Javascript runs in order to generate the page. And with the number of people using AJAX, Javascript is playing an increasingly larger and larger role in ensuring that the Javascript engine is what holds up rendering.

The fact you can get "There is a script on this page that is taking a long time [Stop Script] [Continue]" type dialogs probably says it all.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531613)

Now find a popular web page these days that's static HTML. Even Wikipedia sends a metric arseload of JavaScript.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529193)

However it seems like they only measured JavaScript engine, which by no means contribute everything to how fast browser or browsing feels.

Yeah, we should include Average Time To Root in the benchmarks, too. Google wouldn't stand a chance.

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529497)

IE rooted 9x slower with Google Frame! Don't install it, friends and family!

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529407)

queue apple fanboi praising safari in 5, 4, 3...

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529441)

Hey, Safari scrolls really smoothly too! Same WebKit basis as Chrome you know! ;-P

Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529461)

You forgot Safari!

(seriously, on Mac OS X Firefox sucks but Safari and Opera run fine).

Whats the point... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529181)

Does anyone REALLY care how fast their browser is based on some silly metric these companys make up to look good?

In the real world its never the browser we're waiting on anyway. it's the connection or server on the other end that we're always waiting on.
you can't cram anymore data down the line depending on what browser you use.

Theres been like a dozen of these storys this year too.

Re:Whats the point... (5, Interesting)

Diabolus Advocatus (1067604) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529239)

You're wrong there mate. On our corporate intranet there's a section of javascript that's 256k in size. IE6 (corporate standard) takes about 20 seconds to load that while Firefox loads it instantly. It's not about how fast the Javascript is received, it's about how fast it's rendered.

Re:Whats the point... (5, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529339)

Likewise, I've seen javascript which manipulates large datasets, which takes the lion share of time to run; somewhere in the 30-60 second range. Recent javascript performance boosts have allows such manipulation of large datasets to become feasible and even practical.

The truth is, more and more people are attempting to use a browser as a general purpose user interface for many applications which were previously considered unattainable with older browser technology and I only see additional momentum building in this direction.

Fast rendering and javascript is a make or break for most of these types of applications.

Re:Whats the point... (3, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531149)

The truth is, more and more people are attempting to use a browser as a general purpose user interface for many applications which were previously considered unattainable with older browser technology and I only see additional momentum building in this direction.

We are doing *exactly* this. We provide a hosted, vertical software system, and for years we've done everything in our servers.

However, recent builds of the FireFox JS engine are fast enough that we can start moving the processing out from our hosted application server cluster into the user's browser. The users love the results - applications that load in a few seconds, and run from their computer at near-native speeds, accessible anywhere.

But, rather than spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get stuff to work in IE, we simply require Firefox. That way, we can support Windows, Macintosh, Linux, and any other platform that runs FF 3.0+. It's not been hard for us to make this requirement, basically only minor complaining from techs.

Our customers are more interested in "Cross Platform" meaning "Can I get it to run on MY computer" than "Can I get it to run in MY browser".

The evolution of javascript performance is an industry changer - it's what makes hosted applications actually WORK, despite all its warts.

Re:Whats the point... (1)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531095)

I'd argue that the real metric is user perception, not raw performance. If you can keep the user entertained with a screenful of flying monkeys, you can actually load slower but be perceived as faster than a blank-to-full-screen transition.

Re:Whats the point... (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529345)

Improvements and optimizations like this are ALWAYS welcome from any quarter.
Sure, for a single page - w0000t, i saved 0.1 seconds doesn't do it many favours, but when you consider:
lots of users open multiple tabs and load many hundreds of pages a day those savings start to add up.

Additionally, any optimizations done usually go towards powersaving and extending battery life.

in a mobile embedded platform its vital (nokia maemo platform for me..) and I'm sure these improvements and benefits will trickle down eventually.

well done google, keep up the good work.

Re:Whats the point... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529579)

In the real world its never the browser we're waiting on anyway. it's the connection or server on the other end that we're always waiting on.

I've seen Slashdot's home page freeze for a minute on Internet Channel on my Wii. I don't know whether it was a reflow or a JavaScript, but it was frozen.

Re:Whats the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529997)

I've had Slashdot freeze on Google Chrome all the time, I still have no idea why.

EEE (4, Interesting)

Diabolus Advocatus (1067604) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529199)

Looks like Google are going to try and beat Microsoft at their own game:
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Re:EEE (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529531)

that's an interesting perspective. It will create quite a stir if MS finds a way to degrade the google frame performance or outright refuse it.

Re:EEE (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530695)

I don't think they could get away with it. That would be a clear abuse of power.

Re:EEE (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530961)

It would be very bad PR if it got out.

Re:EEE (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529587)

quote>Looks like Google are going to try and beat Microsoft at their own game: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

I've seen several people mention this in the last mention of Google's plug-in as well. I don't understand and I have to wonder if the people saying this know what the strategy they're referring to is. The concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" is to comply with a standard interoperably until you are popular. Then extend the standard in a non-interoperable way, counting on your popularity and the new functionality to drive adoption. Then, extinguish the competition by utilizing the standard ubiquitously and in a non-interoperable fashion so that anyone who does not have access to the proprietary extensions you added, is removed from the market.

So for IE the strategy was to implement HTML and other technologies interoperably until IE was very popular, then extend HTML with nonstandard elements and rendering and add ActiveX for more functionality no one else could use. Then extinguish competition by building lots of tools and that rely upon the proprietary version and relying on Web developers to target IE's broken version of HTML instead of the actual standard.

So I'm trying to understand how people think Google is employing this strategy. They are embracing IE, sort of by implementing Web standards within it. How do people think Google is going to extend those Web standards in a proprietary way? Do they mean by building proprietary Web applications that use the standards? Do people actually think Google's strategy is to make Google apps really popular and then break compatibility with non-chrome browsers by making them no longer use Web standards? Won't that be hard while maintaining backwards compatibility especially since they're using an OSS browser? I suppose this is possible, but I don't see why people would assume it is Google's strategy.

So basically, while I see that Google is extending IE to use Web standards, I don't see this as a likely part of an "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. Nothing stops Microsoft from creating a better implementation of Web standards in IE's rendering engine and out competing Google's plug-in and they have a lot of advantages if they do decide to compete. Rather, this is Google managing to chip away at MS's anti-competitive use of IE and make MS actually compete fairly a little more, pretty much the opposite of Google trying to kill fair competition which is what the EEE strategy is all about.

Re:EEE (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530021)

You're right, but,

"Do people actually think Google's strategy is to make Google apps really popular and then break compatibility with non-chrome browsers by making them no longer use Web standards?"

To be fair, if compatibility with IE is broken (either by Google or by MS) then SOME people are going to realize they've lost something. I expect that IE would lose some measurable market share, in that case. Let's remember - there are two groups of browsers: standards compliant, and non-standards compliant. IE is pretty much alone in that second group. ;^)

Re:EEE (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530335)

Rather, this is Google managing to chip away at MS's anti-competitive use of IE and make MS actually compete fairly a little more, pretty much the opposite of Google trying to kill fair competition which is what the EEE strategy is all about.

So by putting their fingers in what's arguably Microsoft's worst product, Google is employing the corporate version of kancho [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:EEE (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530433)

I don't think that EEE can only apply to an open standard. It can also apply to an idea or a specific product (here, IE). In this case, Google's pretty much combined the steps: They've gone from despising and barely tolerating IE to embracing it, precisely because they've extended it (to properly support web standards and to support new standards), and for each convert, they're pretty close to extinguishing IE. Once Chrome Frame becomes popular and popular sites learn to detect Chrome Frame and disable their IE hacks, then Google will be able to effectively extinguish IE from their user's machines by releasing an update that sets Chrome as the default renderer for all pages. There probably isn't anything legal that Microsoft could do to stop them, because Chrome Frame is an opt-in piece of software.

Re:EEE (1)

thejynxed (831517) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531459)

Sure there is. They can completely disable external or non-signed plugin functionality in IE, force out an update via Microsoft Update, and there isn't a damned thing anyone could legally do about it.

Re:EEE (2, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530603)

Agreed, there are no signs yet. Which doesn't mean there isn't a threat. We can't say for sure at this point, but this doesn't feel like it to me, either.

If (and it's a pretty big IF) Google is going for "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" then they are still only in the "Embrace" phase. The "Embrace" phase is the most innocuous of all, and is impossible to differentiate from actually putting good product out in the marketplace for fun and commercial gain, in a very much "do no evil" way. Unless you start seeing internal memos or learning about Google's secret lair with frikkin sharks with frikkin laser beams, the "Embrace" phase is all goodness and light and fluffy bunnies and purring kittens all singing 'kumbaya' and giving warm fuzzies.

If they start adding Google-specific stuff to their Javascript engine (say, a fast and easy API to access Google Apps implemented directly in the engine) and encouraging people to use it, then I'll start to be suspicious. Because that's sneaking into the "Extend" part, and the next phase would be to drop support in other browsers for their plugin and only offer the "special sauce 2.0" in Chrome.

But, at the moment, they are making a standards-compliant Javascript engine and offering versions of it for various web browsers, yes?

Crucially, they don't have a development toolkit that builds Javascript that can ONLY be run on "Frame", right? If you see that, then it's the First Sign. Then, and only then, would it be time to start stockpiling food and ammo to survive the potential upcoming Javascript Apocalypse. :)

Re:EEE (2, Insightful)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531519)

Google's (not too secret) goal is to effectively rule your internet experience. It makes no sense for them to dictate what browser they want you to use. All they really need, is for you to use a browser that can run their web apps sufficiently fast, without crashing or running into compliance issues. To that effect, they are releasing most of their non-web applications into open source.

If they really wish to start "Extending" the features, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. As a hypothetical situation: say 50% of the market uses Chrome, and 50% uses something else. Further, let's say 50% of the "something else" crowd would convert to get these new features. So, Google can capture 100% of the market by supporting standards, or 75% of the market share by trying to lock people in.

Above all, Google is still a company, and there would be absolutely no reason to accept a smaller market share of your primary market. It's basic math at this point.

Re:EEE (1)

dhaines (323241) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531201)

I'm thinking the strategy may be more along the lines of Embrace, Extend, Extraneous; meaning instead of IE being extinguished, it's just made (more) irrelevant.

Re:EEE (1)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531561)

I don't think it has anything to do with IE. Google really isn't in the browser business. They're in the web services business. Their lifeblood is people using their products so they see lots of ads. Part of using those products is enjoying using those products. apparently Google deemed it necessary to pick up some of Microsoft's slack for Google's own good. I think it's far less about trying to take market share directly from MS and far more about trying to grow and maintain their existing market by ensuring quality experiences.

Would Apple allow this? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530157)

If Google were to do something like this with Safari, would Apple allow it? Or will the next update break it? (I know both are based on webkit, and Safari doesn't need the feature and speed boost, but just wondering out aloud).

Re:EEE (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530221)

Google have recently made major advances against Microsoft as a whole. Once the fascists and the Bolsheviks are done fighting each other, we'll all have to start worrying about when the victor is going to come after us.

The real question... (5, Funny)

bignetbuy (1105123) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529207)

So, Google Frame upgrades the engines...on the Titanic?

Re:The real question... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529731)

So, Google Frame upgrades the engines...on the Titanic?

I'm the Bing of the world!

This speaks a lot for Google (2, Interesting)

fifewiskey (1608023) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529209)

Google doing this speaks a lot to the character and principles of their company...that is if you trust big companies. I'm not surprised to see that IE 8 is running faster on the Chrome framework. All my experience with IE 8 confirms why I don't use IE. It has been very unresponsive for me in multiple situations. I'm sure this is one of many steps Google is pushing for to "speed up the web".

Not the "other question" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529213)

From the article: "Notably, IE8's SunSpider scores with Chrome Frame running equaled Google's Chrome browser, a solid indication that the plug-in effectively turns any version of IE into the speed equivalent of Chrome itself." So no, that isn't the "other question".

So just for giggles... (4, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529297)

...what's the ACID3 results for such a combo?

Re:So just for giggles... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529425)

IIRC, 100/100 in the frame.

Re:So just for giggles... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529501)

100%, Fool!

Proof : http://static.macgeneration.com/img/2009/07/googlexhrometestacid-20090922-225255.jpg

Re:So just for giggles... (3, Informative)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529597)

But the rendering is off a bit in the upper right corner. I just tested native Chrome - 3.0.195.21, I haven't updated it in a good while - and it has the same problem.

Re:So just for giggles... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529585)

Side-by-side demo. [youtube.com]

Re:So just for giggles... (3, Informative)

rliden (1473185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529589)

IE8 still fails the Acid3 test even with Google Chrome Frame installed. I was curious and tested it out. Chrome Frame doesn't take over full rendering from IE8 unless the site includes a meta tag to use the Chrome Frame. Here is a link to the Chrome Frame page [google.com] [code.google.com] (chocked full of good info).

Re:So just for giggles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529755)

Looks like you haven't read the chocked full of good info you're talking about. If you want to test a site that doesn't include the meta tag it says to just navigate to the URL prepended with "cf:".

Re:So just for giggles... (0, Flamebait)

rliden (1473185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530511)

Yes, I did. There's no need to be a smart ass dick head (I noticed you posted anonymously because you can't stand behind what you say if you're going to spout off like an asshat). It does render properly if you force it. That's not really a mystery since we already know Chrome can pass acid3. My point is that in normal browsing it won't render unless the site calls it. If you're going to preface every uri with "cf:" you might as well just install Chrome. The only advantage that will give you is that UA will still report as IE8 but will use Chrome Frame to render.

It's somewhat significant because it's easy to get the impression that just by installing Chrome Frame you will now be rendering through that as a default.

No Wonder (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529301)

It's no wonder Microsoft is claiming that Chrome makes IE less secure. If it lets IE run eight times faster that means that there will be eight times the rate of security breaches. Oh Noes!

Re:No Wonder (2, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529527)

Is that why Vista is the 'most secure version of Windows ever'? The slower it runs, the slower it can get pwned?

FFS read the articles you post! (3, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529305)

The other question is what is the performance hit of using the frame plug-in instead of running the browser natively.

FTFA: "Notably, IE8's SunSpider scores with Chrome Frame running equaled Google's Chrome browser"

Re:FFS read the articles you post! (4, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529327)

Greetings and welcome to Slashdot.

Re:FFS read the articles you post! (5, Funny)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529737)

Take me to your leader.

Re:FFS read the articles you post! (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529999)

Read all you want about them right here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:FFS read the articles you post! (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529827)

FFS read the articles you post!

You must be new here; we only read the comments. Obviously the submitter merely used his time machine to see the comments made on his article in the future, saw yours answering the question, and realized he'd need to ask it in the summary to ensure you would answer it in a reply. Simple, really.

Safety Warning. (4, Funny)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529311)

Microsoft has issued the following PSA: 'Some users have been found to experience sides effects from a sort of 'digital whiplash' after installing the new Chrome Frame plugin for IE8. This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.'

Re:Safety Warning. (1)

DJBurgie (679629) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529453)

Wow.... microsoft claiming it's not safe in some way to run third party stuff in their overly-secure browser? What a shocker when Google shows the IE JavaScript engine really is that bad. I'm really surprised they didn't welcome the enhancement of their own performance by an order of magnitude with open arms even though it shows that they can't code.

Re:Safety Warning. (2, Interesting)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529601)

In other words, just use Google Chrome itself. That way you do not have to worry about the additional IE vulnerabilities.

Re:Safety Warning. (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530757)

This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take

Mom (yelling down into basement): This website says I need to install the Framey Goggle Control to see it? What do I do?

Slashdot using son: (mutters something about javascript benchmarks) (spends the next day cleaning spyware off mom's computer)

Browser UI + guts mix and match (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529313)

I like the idea of segregating the browser's user interface/menus/controls skin from its rendering engine and plugin-model guts. Even better if there was a standard plugin API across browsers.

I would love to be able to pick any "shell" and put in one or more "guts," and even flip between them on a per-URL or per-site basis.

Of course, the security risks of this are not small. But still, it would be cool.

Re:Browser UI + guts mix and match (1)

Persol (719185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529723)

This might actually be an 'excellent' security model. Currently on Firefox I rely on noscript for security, whitelisting sites that I trust.... but this does nothing for JPG/GIF/whatever bugs.

I'd much rather have untrusted sites displayed as text only, with everything other than BR/line breaks filtered out in a more simple/stupid/secure renderer. Think Lynx in a browser.

Re:Browser UI + guts mix and match (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531051)

So basically what you are describing is Internet Explorer? You have the rendering engine built as a standalone control that anyone can utilize in their (Windows) application. Internet Explorer itself is really nothing more than an interface built around the rendering control.

WebKit has similar properties. It is not tied to any one interface and has the added benefit of being open source which has lead to its popularity across many different browsers and integration into many interface toolkits.

Granted, there is no standard allowing different engines to be swapped in. But the separation concept is not new at all and already being used by some of the most popular browsers out there.

Key piece missing (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531283)

The key piece missing is standardization, so I can mix and match.

I don't think this is meant to undermine MS image (1)

mkdx (1314471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529411)

Google is building and expanding its own online infrastructure (see weave for example).

It's also undeniable that IE has a big market share, and Google needs to account for it. So this seems to be the only reasonable route they can take as this issue doesn't seem to be of much interest to MS at the moment.

Defeats the purpose of IE (1)

Follier (901079) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529457)

While IE is our "company standard", they don't care if you prefer to use another browser.

However! Most of our corporate intranet applications will ONLY work on IE.
( *cough poorly written proprietary crap cough*)

So now with Chrome infecting my IE, I have no way to access vital corporate apps.

There is only one type of consumer who should be interested in this: corporate users who do not need IE for specific webapps, and whose companies will not let them install other browsers, yet will let them install plugins.

How many of them can there be??

Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529541)

you have to add meta tag to make chrome frame work, otherwise it uses slow ie engine

Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29530593)

Most of the other replies to Follier repeat what you said. Fix his conclusion it remains much the same as before:

There is only one type of consumer who should be interested in this: corporate users (...snip...) whose companies will not let them install other browsers, yet will let them install plugins.

Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529551)

It only uses the Chrome engines for pages that ask for it, or that the user chooses to use it for, the rest get handled by the host IE.

The situation where a corp forces you to use IE because of crap intranet apps, but can't be bothered managing two browsers is exactly one of the prime use cases for this. Particularly if they then buy a brand spanking new application which would run 8 times faster in any browser other than IE.

Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529561)

Err... no, it's able to be turned on or off per-site.

Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (3, Informative)

ControlFreal (661231) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529593)

So now with Chrome infecting my IE, I have no way to access vital corporate apps.

But you have: The Chrome-frame mode is activated only if one either prefixes URLs with cf: (which your corp. apps will not do), or if one includes a <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1"> header in the HTML (or HTTP), which your corp. apps will not do either.

Only websites specifically designed to use the Chrome frame could force IE into Chrome-frame mode.

Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529951)

The website has to explicitly ask IE to use WebKit/V8. Your cooperate intranets certainly won't be doing that.

CmdtTaco didn't read the article did he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29529547)

"Notably, IE8's SunSpider scores with Chrome Frame running equaled Google's Chrome browser, a solid indication that the plug-in effectively turns any version of IE into the speed equivalent of Chrome itself."

Last paragraph

Re:CmdtTaco didn't read the article did he? (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529709)

Had he read the article he'd have realised how fucking pointless it was: "Benchmark shows Chrome JS engine as fast as Chrome JS engine". I bought a new keyboard recently; should I submit a story benchmarking Google Chrome using the old and new?

A good idea (4, Interesting)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529727)

I'm going to go out on a limb here by /. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers. The problem with Chrome is twofold : 1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers. 2. It's very difficult (and expensive) to get people to change browser. Microsoft wins by default most of the time. This browser plug-in solves both problems. Now, only websites that the developer knows will render properly in chrome will call on the plug-in. Users will continue to use IE8, oblivious to the fact that some websites are actually being displayed using the chrome browser engine. Google applications will of course all properly render in chrome, and they will be set up to encourage you to download the plugin if you're running internet explorer. Some google apps may even require it, much like you need flash to see youtube videos. The only problem with the approach is overhead : obviously keeping multiple browser rendering engines running at the same time will eat up a hundred extra megabytes of memory or so. You know, about $3 worth of DRAM.

What does this benchmark even mean (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 5 years ago | (#29529959)

From the sounds of it Chrome Frame is just a web browser wrapped as an ActiveX control which can be hosted inside IE. In other words, you aren't using IE in the content area. While this is cool and all, the reality is that IE is just transformed into a dumb container for somebody else's browser so you're incurring the memory footprint and instability of two browsers, plus all the quirks that come from running two browsers, one inside the other. For example you probably can't use it in a whole raft of situations such as scripting with iframes & framesets, the cookies will be different, etc.

I'd add that this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened some later versions of the Netscape (version 8?) browser implemented a compatibility mode that ran IE inside the content area of the browser instead of Gecko for certain sites. A fat lot of good it did them too.

Re:What does this benchmark even mean (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530047)

It's not a full browser. It's just WebKit and V8. All of your network calls and any other related system functions are all passed back to IE to do the heavy lifting.

From an instability and memory footprint point of view, it's really no different than hosting, say, Flash inside IE. Flash essentially is it's own "web browser".

Re:What does this benchmark even mean (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530113)

This isn't about creating a good Browser design. It's about creating a technological work around to a human engineering problem, working around MS's anticompetitive bundling and intentional noncompliance and poor performance with IE. This lets Google create standards compliant Web applications that need new standards and good performance, while at the same time supporting those users still using the broken IE browser. Getting people to switch browsers when MS is leveraging their desktop OS monopoly is very hard. Getting people to install a plug-in is a lot less so. They're not trying to create the best browser here, they're trying to enable and motivate the creation of the best Web. They're not making IE the best browser, just a less significant roadblock to progress.

Re:What does this benchmark even mean (2, Informative)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530115)

IE is just transformed into a dumb container for somebody else's browser

IE is already a dumb container for the MSHTML control.

Ok 9x, but are you willing to pay the price? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530075)

Don't forget, installing satan's chrome frame means your children and all their family will suffer for all eternity, in HELL!

For some reason yet undisclosed by MS.

Re:Ok 9x, but are you willing to pay the price? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530127)

Don't forget, installing satan's chrome frame means your children and all their family will suffer for all eternity, in HELL!

For some reason yet undisclosed by MS.

All the good little satanists already run google chrome on linux.

Nice trick (0, Redundant)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530167)

I'm going to go out on a limb here by /. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers.

The problem with Chrome is twofold :

1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers.

Re:Nice trick (2, Funny)

blackfrancis75 (911664) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530491)

2. Profit!!

Re:Nice trick (2, Funny)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531567)

3. ???

Yes but ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29530319)

... does it have adblock yet?

If only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29530651)

If only I could download Google Frame...

Mmm... nothing like synthetic benchmarks! (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 5 years ago | (#29530685)

Gotta love synthetic benchmarks!

Who's the fool now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29530913)

Looks like someone took this [slashdot.org] seriously!

Oh hai (1)

PylonHead (61401) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531057)

I iz in ur browzr, fixn ur renderer

Something that would go a long way (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531175)

Making this installable and usable under Win2k would go a long way to getting people to facilitate the move away from IE6. Firefox works but tends to slow down on lower end hardware. I tried it today and it didn't install. Maybe there's a way to make it work by manually copying files.

Plug-in vs Native (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531293)

The other question is what is the performance hit of using the Frame plug-in instead of running the browser natively.

Well let me give you a hint: the native browser renderer is a plug-in itself (well known as mshtml.dll). The actual other question is, what is the point of this plug-in in reality. People who use IE can install Chrome today already. Those who keep IE mostly do it for two reasons: 1) it's a corporate policy and their business apps need it, and 2) they don't know any better. So the frame addresses none of those two segments adequately, since Google Frame is not 100% compatible with the standard MSIE stack, and requires people to deliberately install something (at which point they could as well install Firefox or Chrome itself). The only dividents to be had from this project appear to be political. Last time some competition showed up for IE, Microsoft put vast resources in order to catch up and create IE7 and 8. The prospect that their competitors will take over IE piece by piece via parasitic plug-ins must seem even scarier from their point of view.

Why IE8? (1)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 5 years ago | (#29531343)

Give us some benchmarks for IE6. I can't think of a single reason for anyone to run this on IE7 or IE8.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?