×

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!

X11 Chrome Reportedly Outperforms Windows and Mac Versions

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the please-keep-it-that-way dept.

X 542

An anonymous reader writes "In a curious contrast to conventional wisdom, there are reports of X11 Chromium being faster than Windows or Mac versions. In the thread titled 'Why is Linux Chrome so fast?,' a developer speculates that it is due to the use of X11 capabilities: 'On X-windows [sic], the renderer backingstores are managed by the X server, and the transport DIBs are also managed by the X server. So, we avoid a lot of memcpy costs incurred on Windows due to keeping the backingstores in main memory there.' Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

542 comments

http://www.goatse.cz (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962806)

Go to Time Warner News [goatse.cz] for more on this X11 Chrome vs. the "other brands." Lol, don't. I'm trolling in order to waste modpoints. :)

Mod me up!!!

MODERATORS!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962842)

mod parent up

captcha: vermin

BALL LICK GOATSE TUBGIRL LEMONPARTY MEATSPIN!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962894)

Wow, this is like feeding crumbs to the pigeons.

TWO GIRLS FOR EVERY ONE CUP!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963574)

As seen on TV [2girls1cup.com]

Test of time (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962820)

"Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for?"

Yes of course it has. X11 is great and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand it properly, or have an accurate idea of what it's genuine problems are actually due to.

Re:Test of time (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962904)

It sure does stand the test of time - instead, those who program for X11 are the ones that take the toll, in the form of impotence, receding hairline etc.

So in other words (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963044)

So in other words, those who programmed on X when X was the only big player are now older where you lose hair and sexual virility.

Colour me surprised.

Meanwhile X is still working better than Mac or Windows as a GUI framework.

Thing I don't get is why so many guys have a hard-on for dissing X.

Why?

Re:So in other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963180)

It's obviously not as good as you make it out to be.

I read the article. So sue me. (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962822)

Interesting comment from one of the developers:

We could also just move process creation to a background thread. An unused process might just get swapped out and be no cheaper to "make live" than it would be to create a new process.

Surely this reusing of a process would negate the supposed security benefits of Chrome/Chromium's multi-process spawning architecture?

Re:I read the article. So sue me. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963022)

We could also just move process creation to a background thread.
Ok, that's just making the process and subsequent address space.

An unused process might just get swapped out and be no cheaper to "make live" than it would be to create a new process.
It sounds like process just being put into a pool - the process creation thread is holding onto the handle - and when someone wants a new process, the thread just hands over that one presumably the heap and stack for that process would be cleared.

I don't see where there could be a security issues - but, then again, it's been 15 years since I worked on an OS, let alone an Intel based one; I have only 1 cup of coffee in me; I'm still drudging through the posts in the "article".

X11 Chromium on Mac? (3, Interesting)

Danathar (267989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962832)

Does anybody know if it's possible to compile a version of Chromium for X11 Mac?

Windows and OS X versions, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962834)

It's OS X, not "Mac", just like it's "the Windows version", not "the PC version".

I know it's hard, so very hard! And I know it's whiny to comment, but, for f***s sake... get the terminology right so as to avoid confusion, avoid mistakes.

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (1, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962868)

No. It's MacOS 10. OS X is just stupid intentionally confusing terminology.

We already had a GUI called X. It was around for about 20 years before Apple decided to start it's Microsoft-esque nonsense.

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (3, Interesting)

Danathar (267989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962934)

Uh. Maybe you don't understand what I am saying....

I KNOW that MacOS 10 is OS X.

I'm asking if anybody has compiled a version of Chromium to use X11 instead of using Cocoa.

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963196)

GP wasn't responding to you, dood.

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963014)

That's not what he's talking about. OS X is a BSD-based system and as such, can run almost any Unix program, including X11. Apple has been including XQuartz (X + a bunch of libraries + hooks so it works nicely with the rest of OS X) since Leopard.
http://xquartz.macosforge.org

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963048)

X11 is not an OS, and Mac OS X is not a network protocol or GUI. Why even compare these two? Why does someone even throw this argument when they know how this Apple product's name is written?

The _pronounciation_ is "Mac OS ten". The written name and labelling has always been Mac OS X. What's next, attacking "SpaceX" or referring it to "Space10" because "The X Window System was here first"? :D

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (1)

Beezlebub33 (1220368) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963460)

As a non-GUI developer, what's the Mac and Windows equivalent to X11? Would it be Quartz on the Mac? I don't know what it would be on Windows, since I avoid developing windows-specific things and have always viewed Windows as a monolithic, integrated mess.

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (1, Informative)

Nikker (749551) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963632)

MS Windows = Explorer.exe Linux = X11 MacOS = Quartz

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963636)

Windows has the GDI and DirectX, neither of which are remotely comparable to the X window system.

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963486)

No. It's MacOS 10. OS X is just stupid intentionally confusing terminology.

X is the Roman numeral for 10. It's "Mac OS X", which I pronounce as "Mac oh-ess ten".

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963090)

SIX!

No, half-dozen, you retard!

Re:Windows and OS X versions, please. (0)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963648)

At least they said Mac and not MAC. To those who spell it in all caps, I say: Hey retards, it's not an acronym!

Predictable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962856)

I usually don't agree with him but I am with Linus on this one.

Hold the phone (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962860)

Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for?

No, this is just a freak occurrence noted by some guy on a Usenet forum (yeah, that's reliable). Nothing to get excited about, but it's Linux so lets pat ourselves on the back and roll around in a tub of our own awesomeness.

Re:Hold the phone (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963364)

Yeah. As opposed to tests made by Microsoft and Apple paid "impartial and reliable" entities.
\sarcasm

Even if X is usually slower... (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962912)

Even If X is usually slower then other system it doesn't mean it is always slower for all applications... For most applications sadly X11 runs slower then Framebuffer based GUIs. However X11 does do better then the Framebuffer apps for apps that are better made for X. X11 is great at the vector based information, It does get bogged down on bitmapped images. Framebuffer OS GUI like Bitmaps much better then Vector Graphics.

It is not that X11 cant handle Bitmaps nor can Framebuffer handle Vector well. But X11 does Vector better.

Re:Even if X is usually slower... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962956)

I like how you took a bunch of graphics and video related words and threw them together in a post that sounds coherent, yet is totally wrong.

Re:Even if X is usually slower... (5, Funny)

everynerd (1252610) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963454)

Give the guy a break. He's only trying to create synergy among web-enabled paradigms.

Re:Even if X is usually slower... (2, Informative)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963016)

Framebuffer is an unaccelerated bitmap display, X11 is an accelerated graphics layer (that can use a framebuffer)

something that writes directly to a framebuffer is going to need a lot of additional programming in order to be as fast as X11 is.

Leading statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963068)

Wheres the proof for the "If"?

What if X isn't generally slower at all?

What if generally it's faster but in a few cases slower? This, then would be one of the few cases where it is not slower.

Re:Even if X is usually slower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963188)

What a bunch of incoherent nonsense. Are you one of those college computer experts I've heard so much about? Also, who the hell thumbed your post up...

X11 has never been a problem. (5, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962920)

X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop. Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (5, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962972)

So you are saying it is not X11 that is slow but Linux... Oh man you are taking it out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963158)

No, im saying that X11 is fast and not a bottleneck, not that Linux is slow. The slowest applications on Linux is non native applications like OpenOffice, Firefox, Azureus and the like. Native apps are mostly fast and nimble.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (1)

nicodoggie (1228876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963290)

?? Firefox is a non-native application on Linux? How exactly is it non-native? It's compiled by gcc for the platform isn't it? I agree that OpenOffice and Azureus and loads of other Java-based junk are god-awfully slow though... (Firefox is too, but AFAIK it's Linux-native)

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (2, Informative)

domatic (1128127) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963494)

I think he means applications where Linux or a BSD is the primary development environment and those APIs were the target. Agreed it is a sloppy use of "native". In the case of Firefox, XP is a the primary dev environment and it also benefits from Profile Guided Optimizations when compiled. The Linux port could in principle but the work hasn't been done (and probably won't be).

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (5, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963516)

To be fair I think the gp meant Linux exclusive, not native. But even then Firefox is a pretty bad choice, since its development has always had Linux in mind as well as other platforms.

If you benchmark some random 3D games between Linux and Windows there is no Linux slow-down. If you benchmark the responsiveness of a well written GUI environment on Linux vs Windows, there's no slow-down. In fact, I've only rarely run into a situation where Linux is slower than Windows in a GUI or otherwise. The primary reason I've come to realize is lazy programmers writing slow client software, and in some cases, horribly inefficient GUI toolkits (Gtk, I'm looking at you).

X11 isn't the bottleneck, and ever since a few tweaks were done for desktop users, the Linux kernel isn't either.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (5, Interesting)

pz (113803) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963330)

X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop. Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness.

Yes, exactly. X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today, and did so with entirely acceptable speed. X11 isn't the problem -- hardware is what, two orders of magnitude faster now? -- it's all of the poor programming practices that have layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high.

I had a 266 MHz laptop in the mid 1990s (about 15 years ago) that ran Linux (RedHat 6.2, mostly) and X11 perfectly well with a mere 64 MB of main memory. A while ago, I tried to load a Fedora release (9, if I recall correctly) on it. "Laughable" is a good term to describe the result. My current laptop has a 10x faster processor and 50x more memory. There's more cache on the processor in my new laptop than total system memory on the old one --- And yet, Fedora 11 feels sluggish on the new hardware. X11 is not the problem.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963402)

Yeah sure because every layer of indirection is faster than direct ram access... sorry
But I still after 10 years am not convinced about the design. X11 follows the design philosophy of enforcing
a methotology (remoting on drawing level) which is needed by about 5% of its users and thus burdening a layer
of complexity on top of the rest of 95% users who then have to deal with shoddy drivers.
Heck even the remoting does not scale well enough that it is usable without tricks for modern UIs out of the box.
Unless you use athena widgets or third party hacks you wont even get remotely the performance RDP or even plain VNC has.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963508)

This is the one gripe about X that I can understand and get behind.

Wayland is not designed to be network transparent, nor do remote rendering. I'd rather have a system like that.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (3, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963662)

memcpy of 1000s of bytes is slower than sending a message. Many of these systems that provide direct access to RAM require lots of copying too. (OSX one example I'm most familiar with)

X11 also supports direct access to memory, but it is only used in very specific circumstances because it's extra work to set up.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963498)

I never thought that X11 was slow. My problem with X windows has always been that it was too fragile and complex. A lot of features of X seemed to be over kill for use on a standard desktop.
I never felt X11 as too slow just that it tended to break way to easy.

Re:X11 has never been a problem. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963624)

people should be blaming B-Bus, GNOME and GTK+ for performance issues of Linux desktops, not X11.

Absolutely. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962950)

Of course it's faster. What would you expect? That WINDOWS (aka Mr. Bloated)'s version of Chrome is faster that Mac or Linux's versions? What did you smoke this morning?

Really? (2, Informative)

complete loony (663508) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962986)

From the later discussion on that topic, it seems the conclusion was that windows had a large history in the profile and may be bitblt'ing the first draw operation from main memory. Both of which have an impact on how slow it feels to the user.

20% faster on his 20% faster machine.... (5, Insightful)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 4 years ago | (#29962988)

After doing a fresh install on both systems the guy determined that it was just some sort of freak occurrence. He had one laptop with a 2.0ghz processor and another with a 2.4ghz processor and after the reinstall on both systems, VOILA...it was only roughly a 20% difference...

TFA - just keep reading further and further down the usenet post

Re:20% faster on his 20% faster machine.... (0, Flamebait)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963066)

What, you mean some X11 fanboi has a hard-on for confirmation bias, and led us astray in the article summary? Say it ain't so...

Re:20% faster on his 20% faster machine.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963530)

"X11 fanboi"? Like, seriously!?

Re:20% faster on his 20% faster machine.... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963720)

Real X11 fanbois would ssh into a remote client, and run firefox over the network.

Just wait until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29962992)

Oops, my chrome just crashed.

It's Chrome OS (0, Offtopic)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963046)

Google's main purpose in developing Chrome is currently as the browser in Chrome OS, so it's natural that they would optimize it for Linux.

Re:It's Chrome OS (2, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963108)

This doesn't say it's optimized for Linux - it says that it runs well on *X11*. X11 is used on almost all Unix derivatives, not just Linux. Most importantly though, all indications are that while Google intends to use Linux (the kernel) for ChromeOS, they have made some statements that would indicate that they likely will not use X11.

Re:It's Chrome OS (1)

Youngbull (1569599) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963580)

well... ChromeOS ~= google Chrome / Chromium, right? just add some way of running Chromium and your done!

Re:It's Chrome OS (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963294)

And you know this because? Oh, you're just wildly speculating and don't actually know anything at all.

Re:It's Chrome OS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963744)

That logic makes significantly less sense than the fact that it's ultimately based on Konqueror, which was designed for X11 (and Linux) to begin with.

windows 7 != vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963052)

win 7 does not copy to ram-backingstore afaict, so it should also be faster than vista...

Linux is always faster (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963100)

How could anyone be surprised the greatest achievement in OS history has the fastest running software and in this case browser!

Choosing the correct abstraction layer (5, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963142)

If you choose your abstraction carefully, you can hide expensive details from user space.

In the short term it may not gain you anything.

But if the abstraction lives and thrives, then much can go on behind the scenes to improve the situation.

Java is another example of this: they carefully designed the language so that it would be possible to make vast simplifiying assumptions and implement optimizations that really improve performance without impacting the "other side" of the wall. Originally java was slow, but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run much faster now, without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.

X Windows is a great example of this. Originally we had dumb frame buffers with no acceleration at all. And yet X provides an abstraction that allows lots and lots of hardware optimizations to take place.

The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes. We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.

Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963712)

The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes. We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.

Or maybe they do provide the API, and the non-X11 branches of the code simply didn't use them because the guy writing the code didn't know how, and it hasn't been long enough for someone else to come around and fix it?

Not trying to troll here... (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963156)

But the 4.X beta runs incredibly fast on my dual core Windows workstation. If the Linux version is significantly faster in rendering, I would be very surprised.

Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chromium (5, Interesting)

iamsquicky (450495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963166)

I'm pretty sure that the biggest slowdown for Chrome isn't the memcpy/bitblitting for the display - it's probably something to do with the insanely big history files it generates as part of it's searchable history.

Files you can't limit in size, can't compress, can't optimise. Instead all you can do is to delete them and loose all your precious history information.
It also has the bonus of providing a searchable address bar that performs significantly worse than firefox's searchable address bar !

I use both firefox and chrome simultaneously at home and at work, dedicated each browser for different tasks I do. It's a real shame that Chrome is being seriously degraded over time by this fault - I've started switching back to firefox because of it as my laptop just struggles too much with it now...

Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom (2, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963600)

I had the same problem with Google Desktop. It was a great tool and worked well for a while, but eventually its little database file was immense and was dragging my system down with it.

Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963692)

Which is the same for any other program that indexes the text inside different types of files...

The idea behind file/text-indexing is to generate that searchable index trading searching-time with hard disk space.

Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963658)

I haven't noticed any degradation of performance, but yeah, the history files are 900mb for me for only 9 months of use and the thumbnails are 300mb. That's pretty big.

So, X11 gotta suck? The point? (2, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963190)

If you can take risk of re-compiling every X related app/library in case you give up in future, try the semi official/unofficial at http://xquartz.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org] , it is newer than the Apple bundles. Install anything with the help of Fink/Macports like Konqueror from KDE 3 and see the amazing GUI speed, scroll speed, widget drawing speed.

I don't understand, as an OS X user, why a modern x.org on a good, supported hardware should be surprising to give better results. Also remember the insane things x.org has to do on OS X like using Aqua layer.

X11 is not bloated (5, Interesting)

dvh.tosomja (1235032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963206)

X11 is not bloated nor slow, GTK is both. Put 100 or so spinedits on one form in Win32 and in GTK. On netbook or anything other than quadcore machine, you will see significant difference in speed. And it is not because of the graphics. Sometimes I think GTK render fractals somewhere just to keep processor busy. Meanwhile, when I draw 100 spinedits using only cairo, it is almost as fast as Win32 while giving the same output as GTK including shadows, gradients, etc... I've being noticing this GTK behavior since forever.

GTK folks, please fix it.

Re:X11 is not bloated (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963536)

GTK folks, please fix it.

Have you tried posting your test to the gtk mailinglist?
I am sure they would love a nice objective testcase like that.....

Re:X11 is not bloated (-1, Troll)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963566)

Most (all now?) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI, for things like drawing fonts, arcs, ellipses, fills, etc.

For whatever reason, Linux drivers have NEVER taken advantage of this, and that is why Linux often looks clunky compared to Windows on the same hardware.

Re:X11 is not bloated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963748)

"blah, blah blah, I'm retarded and have no clue what I'm on about, blah blah blah."

You obviously chose your nickname well.

No NTLM, no Respect (1, Troll)

KWolfe81 (1593877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963318)

Until Chrome starts supporting NTLM, I know it will not get any respect at my firm, and likely many others....

Chrome - Webkit - KHTML - Linux (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963344)

Maybe it's because Chrome is based on Webkit that is based in KHTML that was developed mainly on Linux

Other performance gains (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963352)

How about a Qt build of Chromium as opposed to a GTK build of Chromium? I'd be real curious to see how it performs.

I was also saddened to see the port team bitch and complain initially that they had to use GTK, because GTK is "the standard toolkit" for Linux, while in the same paragraph complaining that Linux doesn't simply have one standard toolkit. Last time I checked, Windows has a bevy of toolkits and APIs to choose from as well. They also complained that writing audio in Linux was difficult.

If they had written a Qt app from day one, porting would be minimal, they wouldn't have to maintain this huge separate trunks, it would have worked from day 1 on Solaris, Mac, Linux, Windows, BSD, etc. Audio would have been very easy to code with Phonon.

I'm curious to see if Chrome (the browser and OS) are indeed both developed with GTK, then will they both need some retrofits when GTK 3.0 ships, further complicating the matter?

What's with writing "[sic]" after "X-windows"? (2, Insightful)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963384)

It's been called X-Windows for a long time. Longer than the term "X11" has been around. It's not a misuse of Microsoft's Windows® brand name.

Faster because it's incomplete? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963386)

I've been using the daily Chromium PPA builds for a couple months now (updated weekly usually), and Chromium is by far more responsive than Firefox on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop. For some reason FF just seems to get laggy in the UI dept, and if I open up a handful of tabs, especially if there is Flash involved, the whole thing chokes and the app turns grey. Chromium seems to perform much better.

That said, it still feels very much incomplete. I don't think printing is working still, although I haven't tried it in awhile. For some reason there are no "arrow button clickers" on scrollbars...not sure why that is the case. I can't open a file download directly or inline - for example to view a PDF I have to save it somewhere first, THEN open it. FF lets me choose what to open it with without having to save first. 99% of my browsing on Chromium is super fast, except for the Gizmodo.com RSS feed through Google Reader. I don't really know why, but it seems like it has something to do with the adds loading or something...does FF pre-fetch or cache things or something?

I've switched back and forth off and on for awhile now. I"ll get tired of the UI laginess in FF, or I'll break it on a nightly update, and then use Chromium for some time. Eventually I'll miss some features or speed in the RSS reading of Firefox (I wonder how much of that is due to Adblock?), and then return. All in all both browsers are good, and I'm looking forward to Chromium becoming a full fledged option on Linux.

Re:Faster because it's incomplete? (1)

domatic (1128127) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963550)

Printing works on the newest builds of google-chrome and chromium-browsrer but it can be buggy. It seems to get a little bit better steadily as more releases come out.

Read this yesterday, installed, then removed. (2, Interesting)

isolationism (782170) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963400)

The font rendering settings are locked in. There are some Google Groups discussions about why this is so, but it was all white noise -- every other application can use .fonts.conf (even if it is a workaround to do so) and Chrome can't/won't for a while, so it got promptly uninstalled.

What to make of X11? (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963436)

I'm wary of any real old legacy code.

I also know that graphic displays and inputs are vastly different today than they were 10 and 20 years ago.

Do I know that X11 is inefficient? No, but I sure read plenty of other people making those claims. However, I suspect that X11 wasn't developed initially with today's needs in mind. I do know that the X team keeps promising features, cutting them, and then still shipping six months past their projected release dates.

Novell has guys working on Mono, Evolution, OOo, KDE, Gnome, the kernel, etc. What I don't see a whole lot of is major distro companies (Red Hat, Novell, Canonical) paying for major upstream development with X. Maybe it just needs a little more love, some deprecation of old cruft, and a new forward-thinking design. There seems to be somewhat of a future direction (GEM, DRI2, MPX), but perhaps X needs a revolution.

Is Wayland a step in the right direction?

What to make of ignorant flamebait? (3, Interesting)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963696)

"I also know that graphic displays and inputs are vastly different today than they were 10 and 20 years ago."

Really what is so different other than the number of pixels on the display?

"I suspect that X11 wasn't developed initially with today's needs in mind."

Then perhaps you should read about the original goals of the X window system.

Guestimates (2, Insightful)

wye43 (769759) | more than 4 years ago | (#29963588)

I read TFA and all there is are feelings of some people that its faster, no numbers. I guess that is what "reportedly" means. Weasel words.

network transparancy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963680)

Forget performance.

Network Transparancy man. Thats what X does so well that no one else can.

Firefox did that already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29963736)

Firefox on Linux already leaned heavily on X11 just like described. The problem that caused was constant memory leaks... In X11. Firefox crashing especially tend to leave a lot of stuff into X11's raster caches. When I was still using Linux I had to restart X11 several times of day because of that problem... Your mileage may vary but for me normal usage is some 500+ tabs open simultaneously and some 10 000+ page loads in one day..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...