Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

246 comments

That's hardly a benchmark (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30945790)

Now someone just needs to port the Quakes over, for a real benchmark. None of this turn-based strategy nonsense. :p

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (3, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945820)

Well, seeing as Freeciv runs at 7 or 8 fps on Chrome for them, I imagine Quake will run pretty phenomenally.

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945994)

In the interests of deliberate perversity(and broad cross-browser compatibility), some madman should really just use the good old HTML table as a graphics rendering mechanism.

Make it 320 columns wide and 240 rows deep, for old-school flavor, with all cells empty, and just treat each cell's background color as a pixel value...

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (-1, Troll)

buswolley (591500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946320)

I don't care how much faster it is, I won't let fucken Google own ALL my shit. They own half of it already. So fuck Chrome.

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946390)

i'm pretty sure i've seen that :(

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946462)

I tried that once but its SERIOUSLY slow. Way way back I made a Tetris clone on some old Pentium 90 that way. It took some nasty hacks just to keep it chugging fluently. Just for shits and giggles I wrote a quick PHP script to dump out a 320x200 table with black cells... It results in 677KB of HTML which takes 4 seconds to load, triple that to "view source" and just plain scrolling does not go smooth at all.

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946976)

I saw it done in Excel once...

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30947306)

I've used that to draw pretty 2D line & bar graphs in an HTML app once, though it wasn't quite that - it was rather a table of N cells, where N is the width of the graph in pixels, and each cell having vertical padding such that it became a "stretched out" vertical pixel. It actually worked with a decent performance back in 2001 (when it was done).

Still, I'd rather stay anonymous, just in case.

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946340)

Canvas lacks perspective mapping, so any 3D application will have to fake it by using many small tiles with linear mapping. That would indeed be very slow. If the HTML5 canvas element had perspective mapping, Quake would actually be quite feasible, because there aren't that many primitives in a Quake scene. (Who's responsible for limiting transformation matrices to 3x3?)

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946074)

QuakeLive [quakelive.com] isn't too bad.

Re:That's hardly a benchmark (3, Informative)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946346)

QuakeLive doesn't run in the browser. It is just the Quake 3 engine wrapped into a browser plugin.

what the fuck? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30945808)

why the fuck are there twitter and facebook buttons all over slashdot?

Re:what the fuck? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946084)

May /. isn't as cool as it used to be? Seriously, when was the last time /. got slashdotted?

Re:what the fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946148)

To annoy the hell out of one Anonymous Coward.

There, now don't you feel special?

Re:what the fuck? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946256)

Cowboyneal has worked out a system to automatically transfer all 2 posts where they belong.

Or someone sold out.

Re:what the fuck? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946272)

... all posts less than 2...

come on slashcode !

IE8 performs awesome, as usual (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945832)

Wow, really just WOW. I don't know what to say at that comparison. I don't care if it uses some feature thats slow as balls in IE8 for a very good reason, thats still completely unacceptable.

I wonder how MS's online office stuffs benchmark in IE8 compared to other browsers.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (5, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946116)

Clearly you didn't even read the article, just looked at numbers. IE should not have even been tested - it does not support HTML5 canvas elements! They worked around this using a bunch of really ugly hacks that completely destroyed the performance, but honestly they'd have been better off simply saying "it doesn't work, we'll wait until IE9, thanks for giving us Acid2 compatibility but you've got a long way to go!"

IE8 actually works pretty damn well for much of the modern web; it's far from the fastest but it's fast enough for most, it is compatible with CSS2 and the other standards most web developers still use, and it has fixed most of the issues that people have cursed at IE over for so long. However, it has very little support for new standards - its CSS3 is still limited, and as far as I know it supports no HTML5 at all. Compared to the rapid improvement of other browsers, the IE team had better be on their toes or they'll be left far behind in the dust.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946190)

Worth pointing out that HTML5 isn't a standard yet. It's still in draft for the next couple years.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946260)

Maybe Microsoft is satisfied with the performance of the ugly hacks in which case it is fair to report the numbers.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946448)

IE8 is sure not slow for most web browsing. I messed with it recently before deciding to go back to Firefox and it displays normal web pages noticeably faster. In either case we are talking like a second or less, but still. Most websites out there, IE8 was enough of an improvement I noted it.

Now obviously that wasn't enough for me to switch, but you are right that the "Oh it is so slow!" crap is disingenuous. IE8 doesn't have support for the new standards, but what it does support it seems to be pretty zippy with.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946776)

nglayout.initialpaint.delay [mozillazine.org]
Change it (Eat more CPU in exchange for faster display)

[Default 250ms or 0.25 seconds, try 20]

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946508)

shouldn't have done the hacks, should have just put up a browser incompatibility page... you know, like ie only sites do for firefox users telling us to upgrade to Netscape 4...

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946540)

But they didn't say it doesn't work, and the alternative method means you can use IE8 to try it. The did however say that Opera doesn't work.

Since more and more things are going to use Canvas it doesn't matter how IE8 gets supported, just that it does since its the most common browser out there, and how it performs in those cases.

Neither me nor any other normal user give a fuck about how it works in this particular case, just how well it works. This sort of additude is so typical of douchebags like yourself. ... OMG IE DOESN'T SUPPORT SOME ALMOST-STANDARD SO YOU HAVE TO IGNORE IT EVEN THOUGH MOST WEBSITES WORK THEIR ASS OFF TO HACK TOGETHER SOMETHING TO MAKE IT WORK!!!!!

You don't rule it out just because it doesn't do something the way you want it too. You're an idiot if you write IE as a web developer, unless you intentionally want to cut your potential audience to less than half from the very start.

I did read the article first, thanks. Either way, your post reeks of someone entirely disconnected from the real world of what gets used on the web, and I'm positive that you're not a web developer, at least not one thats worth a shit.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (2, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946702)

Since more and more things are going to use Canvas it doesn't matter how IE8 gets supported,

correct

just that it does since its the most common browser out there, and how it performs in those cases.

Incorrect. IE8 isn't the most common browser in any graph I have seen however that is irrelevant (see below).

You're an idiot if you write IE as a web developer

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. Either way not writing a site specifically for IE doesn't mean you're disconnected from the real world. There are lots of reasons not to.

If none of your visitors use IE then it's not a priority to support it. If you're doing a demo showing off the canvas tag in HTML 5 then not supporting IE8 isn't going to bother anyone.

Your biggest problem is that you have fallen into the trap of thinking worldwide usage == my website's statistics. Worldwide common browser usage means nothing if 90% of your users are on chrome or Firefox. You sound like an amateur for not mentioning the basics such as target market, user requirements or even analysis of usage statistics of an existing website.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (4, Interesting)

Radhruin (875377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946630)

I think what info we've released publicly with IE9 is promising. New and vastly improved javascript engine, hardware accelerated rendering, lots of new standards support (and we're highly active in ECMAScript v5 and joined the SVG working group). Oh, and did I mention, we now do rounded borders?!

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30947148)

Does it have WinFS?

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (1)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946878)

IE should not have even been tested - it does not support HTML5 canvas elements!

Indeed it doesn't. A lot of the hacks involved to get IE to support canvas is merely an emulation of canvas [google.com] using VML [wikipedia.org] .

I've experimented with a bunch of sprite based animation stuff on canvas, and have seen similarly terribly poor results on a bunch of versions of IE using the code google wrote. (I'm assuming their benchmark is regarding the rendering sequence) Might as well create <image> tags, and animate the image tags with some style manipulation using js, because functionally what the hacks are doing to make canvas work on IE. (This is not regarding tricks to speed up the rendering, such as recycling DOM elements, which is cheaper than creating new DOM elements *shrug*)

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (2, Interesting)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946900)

Man, I should have read the article. FTFA:

Note that the implementation for Internet Explorer 8 does not use the HTML5 canvas element, because this isn't supported. Freeciv.net implements a canvas-replacement using DHTML and divs with clipped background-images. Therefore the test results are not directly comparable with the other web browsers.

That's what I get for not reading the article :-(

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (1)

VirexEye (572399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946942)

Or maybe they will define the lowest common denominator of standards support through their market share. Again.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30947180)

IE should not have even been tested - it does not support HTML5 canvas elements!

Firefox 3.0 doesn't support HTML5 either, but they've included that in the test, and it performs a lot better than IE8.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946202)

Yeah, because all these browser makers falling all over themselves to implement a half baked, incomplete standard that nobody's using for much of anything are so ahead of the game, amiright? Nobody but neckbeards cares about HTML5...yet.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946534)

And people who are tired of flash dominating the web, yet performing abysmally for video.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (1)

maitai (46370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946692)

I don't know, I ran their benchmark in IE8 and got 382ms, so not sure how they got 4000+. Their benchmark though.

Re:IE8 performs awesome, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30947252)

It's only a benchmark if you tell us what you got for everything else. It could be that the PC you're running on is much more powerful or has more RAM or fewer TSR applications, non-standard browser configuration, etc. so comparing your figure to their figure is meaningless. Comparing your figure to your other figures would be more useful (but again, if you've changed any of the browser default configuration settings it could modify the results).

Drop IE8 (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945840)

IE8 isn't the dominant IE browser yet. Drop IE8 support and offer the IE6/IE7 users a chance to go to another browser. If they have to get used to a new 'look' anyway, what's the difference between IE6->Chrome vs IE6->IE8?

Re:Drop IE8 (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945914)

Um, don't most benchmarks put IE8 Javascript performance like, an order of magnitude better than IE 7, which is like an order of magnitude better than IE 6?

If they showed IE 6, either Chrome, Safari and Firefox would all appear to run the benchmark in 0 time, or you'd spend 5 minutes scrolling to the bottom of the image to see the relative 'performance' of IE 6.

This is assuming of course, magical versions of IE 6 and 7 that even partially supports HTML5...

Re:Drop IE8 (1)

Xaduurv (1685700) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945964)

They wouldn't. When I use other people's computers (people who still use IE6), I'm always jarred by just how ancient it is. I always find myself trying to open new tabs before realising... it can't be done in IE6.

Re:Drop IE8 (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945938)

For the home user, not much, and Google's sneaky updates in the background model will piss them off less than Microsoft's blatant tooltips whining at you to update.

To the gimlet-eyed corporate IT guy who controls the browser on 10,000 seats and DroneCorp Inc, LLC, on the other hand, it will pretty much come down to "Which one will allow me to break anything you might possibly do instead of your work just by clicking at group policy objects for a few minutes?" and "Which one will pull updates from WSUS?". This is why Chrome's marketshare is increasing at a fair clip; but the worker bees at DroneCorp Inc, LLC will be getting IE7 sometime in 2012...

Re:Drop IE8 (3, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946104)

If it was just GPOs and WSUS, IE8 would dominate simply for security reasons. The main reason for IE6 is the combination of idiotic managers/developers that have locked a lot of applications into IE6 only. As for 2012, we got approval to upgrade to IE7 six months ago. Thanks, Oracle.

Re:Drop IE8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946818)

I'm a web developer with an IT background and have dealt with the resistance to upgrade many times. In house apps and dead systems still have the occasional compatibility issue with newer IE versions and microsoft has done little to allow running both. IT is always resistance to changes that "may" break things. I just got approval a few montgs ago to drop IE6 support in our product and that will free up about 30% of my time to work on actual functionality rather than hacks to make it not broken. I expect within a day of release someone will be complaining about only giving 6 months notice it would be removed. This is never a good situation. Building to modern published (complete) standards is the only real way. No JS hacks for IE6 and no creative workarounds to implement HTML5 in IE.

Re:Drop IE8 (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946404)

Freeciv should probably be blocked at work anyway.

We used to have an old client/server installed in the office a few years ago. It was a fun game to login every hour or two and do a turn or two.

But these days, SmartFilter pretty much grabs everything that isn't work-related.

Re:Drop IE8 (2, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947424)

The problem is not the "corporate IT guy". Instead it's the lazy developers that insist that their product of 2010 will only work on IE6 running as Admin with three different versions of dotnet. I wish these MS Windows application developers would actually learn about the platform they develop for instead of thinking it's still MSDOS with no network.

Re:Drop IE8 (2, Interesting)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946542)

NTLM/windows domain authentication - single sign-on.

I haven't seen an alternative browser that it works reliably on yet. Yes, its a windows specific thing, but until other browsers properly support single sign on you're not going to get them into the corporate workplace in any fully supported manner. And if they're not at work, they're less likely to end up getting installed at home, either.

I mean, i'm an admin and run plenty of different browsers, but from a "please why won't the users leave me alone" perspective, properly patched IE plus any half competent malware protection (corporate firewall, managed AV solution, etc) IE on the corporate desktop wins.

Re:Drop IE8 (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946550)

It will be by the end of the year, the new look isn't much different than IE7 as far as I've seen, and it comes with the most popular OS on the planet. Dropping support for IE8 is a most idiotic thing to do, regardless of how shitty it is.

Not fast (3, Informative)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945930)

Worth noting that Chrome, as the fastest, is still only eight frames per second, which would be dreadful even for a turn-based game. I didn't see where they said how powerful of a machine they ran it on, so I assume it's a moderately powerful pc. Still, it's within an order of magnitude of where it needs to be, so it'll probably be running smoothly within a year or two.

Re:Not fast (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946268)

which would be dreadful even for a turn-based game.

Erm, wouldn't a turn based game only need to refresh once per turn?

Re:Not fast (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946486)

Most people like to scroll around the map a bit while they're planning their turn . . .

Re:Not fast (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946576)

No, the data updates once per turn. Things like animations (not sure that freeciv uses any) and moving the map around for a different view can happen many times in the interium, and of course as you send it all the commands each turn for what to do, loading UI displays and such, all of that is running at 8fps too.

Re:Not fast (2, Informative)

maitai (46370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946398)

I'd assume it's not. I ran their benchmark with Chrome on Win 7 and my Sony laptop and got 43.8ms as the result which is quite a bit faster than they listed as their result.

I also got 149.72 with FF 3.6, which again is quite a bit faster.

Re:Not fast (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946422)

only eight frames per second

And this, kids, is why we don't run applications inside of web browsers.

Re:Not fast (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947318)

only eight frames per second

And this, kids, is why we don't run applications inside of web browsers.

... yet. Besides, you seem to be equating games with apps - there would be a lot of non-game apps that would happily run at 8fps. Graphing or spreadsheet apps don't need killer refresh rates and even something with more animation like powerpoint wouldn't look horrible (well, no more so than the actual product) at that rate. If anything, business apps are likely to drive a more widespread adoption of HTML5-based browsers in corporate environments, which will in turn allow more effort to be devoted to pushing the boundaries of the current technology.

Re:Not fast (5, Funny)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946506)

Computer processing speed has increased well over an hundredfold over the past decades; so what do we do with all the extra power? We rewrite games we played many years ago on top of so many layers of abstraction that they're no longer playable, even on our modern hardware. Hurray for progress.

Re:Not fast (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946968)

Like

Re:Not fast (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947236)

And I believe the trend will be for consumer CPUs to aim for lower heat and power, rather than higher speed. Unfortunately, the abstraction layers just keep piling on there.

Give it another few years, and we might not be able to emulate Commodore 64 games on the desktop any more.

Re:Not fast (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30947474)

The chief thinking behind Java was to sell Sun's hardware, meaning to run user's applications slower and to create all kinds of bottlenecks that only a new and better Sun's 'mainframe machine' could possibly fix.

Re:Not fast (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946526)

8fps is fine for Freeciv. (And by the way check out Freeciv, especially if you liked any of the Civilization series. I am stoked to hear they're getting it working within a browser; goodbye productivity!)

They want me to sign up (1)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945950)

This seems like a con to get me to sign up to their service.

Re:They want me to sign up (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946186)

That's because they are benchmarking the service, which requires one to be signed in to use. If you don't care about replicating the results yourself, then just read the article and don't sign up.
Quick and dirty paste of the results, for the lazy:
Web Browser | Operating System | Average Rendering Time| Frames / Second
Google Chrome 4.0.249.78 (36714) | Windows Vista | 126ms | 7,9 fps
Google Chrome 4.0.249.30 | OpenSuSE Linux | 128ms | 7,8 fps
Safari 4.0.4 | Windows Vista | 222ms | 4,5 fps
Firefox 3.7a1 | Windows Vista | 385ms | 2,5 fps
Firefox 3.6 | Windows Vista | 405 ms | 2,5 fps
Firefox 3.0.15 | OpenSuSE Linux | 689 ms | 1,5 fps
Internet Explorer 8.0 | Windows Vista | 1756 ms | 0,6 fps

Re:They want me to sign up (1)

maitai (46370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946362)

I'm going to mention I got a score of 149.72ms using Windows 7 and FF 3.6 on my laptop. Which doesn't matter much since my hardware is probably much difference that what they used to do their benchmark. But their 405ms seems pretty dang slow.

No Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30945988)

I'd like to see their 10.1 beta up there..

Also - HTML 5 isn't a "standard"...

Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946006)

Opera didn't make the list?

Re:Opera? (4, Informative)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946032)

They had rendering issues with Opera's implementation of one of the functions they were using. One of the Opera developers is actively helping them fix it, which is pretty impressive on Opera's side.

Re:Opera? (5, Insightful)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946222)

Indeed. I found the comments more interesting than the article.

Re:Opera? (3, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946848)

A year ago I experimented with HTML5, and made (you guessed it) a Tetris clone, which took advantage of Canvas elements.

I noted that when drawing entire images, it was all very fast. Drawing a frame took about 12ms in Firefox and Opera. (limited by the precision of the timer)

Then I tried combining all the images into one, and drawing a region from the tileset. Talk about slowdown! Wow! Separate 64x64 images blitted fast, but as soon as it was dealing with a 512x512 image, the time to render jumped to about 500ms.

I did some quick pixel math and concluded both Opera and Firefox must've been making a copy of the entire tileset every time I tried to blit a region from it. It's the only thing that added up. When I boosted the size to 1024x1024, it jumped to over 2000ms for a frame. Completely ridiculous! ;)

Perhaps someone else could chime in about whether this bug has been fixed? Note: I was blitting from Image elements to Canvas elements. Canvas to Canvas always worked fine for me.

Re:Opera? (2, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947130)

I'd expect them to help out.

It is kind of bad for pr when performance test of all popular browsers do not include yours because it won't run in it (and in it alone)...

Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946022)

Where is Opera 10.5 alpha? Would like to see that put up there with the rest.

Re:Opera? (2, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946178)

Try looking at the comments on the linked page. There's an opera dev that has commented and they appear to be working on getting it working.

Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946046)

Enough said.

In case anyone was wondering... (4, Funny)

Beardydog (716221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946062)

The iPhone is not quite fast enough : /

Graphics (0, Offtopic)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946070)

Speaking of graphics, why am I seeing Twitter and Facebook graphics next to the "Read More..." link? Has my subscription expired and this has been going on all along? Is it time to "opt-out" of Slashdot?

Re:Graphics (1)

The boojum (70419) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946290)

Ugh, yes. I don't even use either of those services.

I couldn't find a control specifically for them, but I did discover that turning on Help & Preferences > Layout > Use Classic Index seemed to kill them without too much impact.

Re:Graphics (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946358)

Thanks, that seems to have worked.

I'm still a bit pissed-off that such a change would be made, unannounced, to people like me that actually pay for their services. This is a bit angrifying.

Re:Graphics (2, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946594)

I'm still a bit pissed-off that such a change would be made, unannounced, to people like me that actually pay for their services. This is a bit angrifying.

Why? The buttons are small, not particularly intrusive, and useful for people that use those services -- and as they're very popular, that's a lot of people.

If you don't use FB/twitter, or don't want to link to slashdot stories from there, then don't click the buttons.

Yeesh...

Re:Graphics (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946714)

It feels a bit like not being able to turn off the "astrology" tab on your Yahoo home page. While it doesn't actively HURT you, it's unpleasant to have it in your face, and it would be nice if the site gave you an option to turn it off.

(I haven't look at my yahoo home page in a year or two, though, so maybe they eventually fixed that.)

Re:Graphics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946822)

Isn't the exact kind of thing you CAN turn off in My Yahoo! ?

Re:Graphics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946832)

you are such a wangless COCKSMOKER!

Re:Graphics (2, Informative)

Endymion (12816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946910)

in stylish or usercss or whatever:

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

@-moz-document domain("slashdot.org") {
  .share, .sharebar {
    display: none !important;
  }
}

Safari on Snow Leopard? (2, Insightful)

EmotionToilet (1083453) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946374)

Would testing it in Safari on Snow Leopard make much of a difference compared to the 32-bit Windows version? To me it seems Safari is always snappier on OS X. My general rule is that on Windows I use Chrome and on OS X I use Safari. This just seems to work well for me.

bias (1)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946470)

Linux outperformed by windows Vista! or "Vista fastest web operating system!"

Seriously though, any idea why Chrome is faster on Vista, the most maligned, stereotyped as slow OS there has ever been? Would also be keen to see OS X results.

Re:bias (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946622)

'Cause Vista's not as slow as people claim. I've never seen any evidence, either in my testing or online, that Vista ran programs any slower than XP. Most of Vista's slowness rep came from two things:

1) Lots of messing with the disk, particularly on boot. Vista wanted to cache a ton of shit in memory, probably to aggressively, as well as other stuff. Could lead to a system being sluggish to respond to users when it first started.

2) People running it on crap hardware. Vista has a much higher minimum bar than XP for good performance. You really want a dual core and 2GB minimum for a nice system (as opposed to a P4 and 1GB being fine for XP). Lots of people had older systems, tried the new OS, and got mad because it didn't work well. Duh. Newer software needs more resources.

So it doesn't surprise me that a pure app test worked fine on Vista. It was never slow at that.

Re:bias (2, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946830)

On my laptop I have noticed a huge performance increase with Ubuntu compared to Vista running netbeans, open office, and Firefox. You are right its mostly disk. However disk access is the number one bottleneck on modern pcs so that is very important.

The problem is Windows loves to load a million services at once and the disk can only handle so much when it boots.

You should try running your win32 apps on Windows7 with the same hardware as vista? You will notice quite a difference. Also the slower processors and the 1 gig of ram are in again thanks to netbooks and the recession we are in. Windows 7 is really nice ... except for the 3 app limit in the default installations.

Re:bias (1)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947040)

Cheers for the response and for the record I agree. I run/ran vista on plenty of hardware and yes on anything that was purchased with a decent spec in 2004 or so, it is fine.

My post was more taking the piss at the /. majority who rant on how shit vista is, and how "it is year of the linux desktop!", only to have it outperform Linux on tests like this.

Yes, its only 0.002ms or whatever, but it steal beat linux on that test :D

Re:bias (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947402)

It's also possible that Chrome is optimised for Windows as that's the majority share OS - it's where all their benchmarking is going to show up in the marketing metrics for how Chrome is so much faster than everyone else. They likely didn't spend so much time optimising the Linux port because it only had to be fit for purpose.

On a side note, Vista takes almost three minutes to boot to a usable state on my intel core 2 quad core q6600 (overclocked), 4GB desktop PC with a moderate amount of software installed (mostly web development and design tools, apache, a few benchmarking tools, etc). Meanwhile my core 2 duo laptop with 3GB and pretty much the same software installed boots Win7 in around 25 - 30 seconds (when I previously ran XP on the desktop, boot time was probably a minute and a half). It's purely anecdotal I know, but for me Vista is incredibly slow - especially when doing anything with lots of little files.

Coherence? (3, Insightful)

renoX (11677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947098)

Amusing so Vista is as good as XP for running programs but it need much more powerful hardware(!).
Don't you see a "small" contradiction/incoherence in your post?

Re:bias (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947218)

Newer software needs more resources.

Windows 7 needs more resources than Vista? Duh.

Look, Vista was a festering pile of diseased dogshit. You know it, I know it, Microsoft knows it. There's simply no need to defend it, especially when the "defence" runs to "Well, if you run it on monster hardware, it's not as slow as you think."

The nightmare is over, man. Just let it go.

Re:bias (1)

Raptor851 (1557585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947260)

2) People running it on crap hardware. Vista has a much higher minimum bar than XP for good performance. You really want a dual core and 2GB minimum for a nice system (as opposed to a P4 and 1GB being fine for XP). .

Uhh...how exactly is that supposed to prove that vista isn't slower than xp? The OS itself is dog slow on identical hardware...we're downward directed to deploy vista to all workstations 10 minutes ago at my work and we're having to upgrade the hell out of or buy entirely new machines just to get the same level of usability we had before... If we want to go that route though, solaris 10 is WAYYY faster than windows xp or vista... i run it on 8 spark 64 processors with 256 gigs of ram, it's way faster than my old P4 box running xp!

Re:bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30947308)

2) People running it on crap hardware. Vista has a much higher minimum bar than XP for good performance.

The entire problem was that Microsoft was not up and honest about these requirements. While Vista may well run ok on a modern computer today, it certainly did not run very well on the system requirements that were announced when it was released.

Re:bias (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947458)

It still doesn't run well on current machines and never will no matter what happens to the hardware.

The main problem is the memory floor before you actually run anything is far too close to the memory ceiling that can be addressed by 32bit Vista (some other MS 32 bit systems don't have that problem - eg. some versions of MS Server2003). That means that a machine with the maximum memory that 32bit Vista can support is still horribly slow in a lot of circumstances and there is no way to fix it while keeping 32bit Vista. A fast CPU won't save you when Vista is busy swapping memory to disk.

Re:bias (2, Informative)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947346)

I can admit to never having used Vista.

But I have noticed on the back of pretty much all of the boxed PC games at my local Game store that the each game's requirements now quote differently depending on whether you're running XP or Vista - and the difference for Vista is usually an additional 0.5GB of memory plus a slightly faster CPU.

So it does suggest that Vista has considerably more overhead than XP.

Re:bias (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947364)

Newer software needs more resources if it offers more functionality or it is badly written, and I don't see more functionality in Vista/Win7...

Re:bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30947524)

Duh. Newer software needs more resources.

Are you serious? Did you seriously just type that? Do you WORK for Microsoft?
NEWER SOFTWARE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NEED MORE RESOURCES. (except from 32bit to 64bit jump, but that isn't a huge problem either)
I wish people would get this stupid idea out of their heads.

Vista was AWFUL, plain and simple fact. It was the most bloated piece of crap their has ever been in software HISTORY.
The Service Pack was like spraying fake tan on shit.
Yeah, Windows 7 (literally a service pack) certainly fixed a lot of the mess, but it is still a joke of an OS, the requirements for disc drive being the worst.
Half an hour of using Vista, i went straight back to XP. SP, same. Win7, better, but still not decent enough. Maybe Win8 will be better... we'll get that modular OS we were promised yet...

Funny how the "current" bunch of OSes prior to even XP was capable of doing the things "Vis7a" does without all the resources, kind of nullifies your whole 2nd point, whole post even.
XP is even able to do more of the "flashy" crap that "Vis7a" does without all the resources. Now THAT is sad.

All "Vis7a" is good for is better support for SSDs, 64bit... and that is it to be perfectly honest.
Oh, well, computer noobs of course, can't deny it protects most of the idiots, outside of the point where the users were turned in to button clickers without even reading anything.

I know, i know, "He's bashing Vista, look out!", but i'm just stating facts, not opinions. (well, the paragraph previous to this was opinion)

Firefox 3.5 outperformed Firefox 3.0 (4, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946814)

SuSE OpenLinux had an old 3.0.7 version of Firefox while Vista had a newer version.

Firefox 3.5 has a totally rewritten javascript engine from scratch. It uses some dynamic tree mathmatical aglorithms to perform operations many times faster and has support for javascript functions mapped in ram before execution. Vista used Firefox 3.5 while SuSE had Firefox 3.0.7 installed without the new javascript engine. Firefox 3.0.x was a ram hog compared to 3.5 too.

I also imagine Safari would execute on MacOSX much better than Windows since its designed for it. Itunes is kind of proof as it sucks on Windows.

Re:bias (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946816)

It could be for lots of reasons. Two in particular are:

1 - Most distribution maintainers compile their packages with the -O2 option instead of -O3 for debugging purposes.
2 - The windows builds might have "profile guided optimization" enabled. Again something typically not done on the standard distributions.

Re:bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946920)

Um, are we looking at the same results?

The one I see shows Chrome performing more or less the same. The only other Linux result is Firefox 3.0.15, all the other Firefoxes are much newer (read: faster) versions running on Windows.

These results show nothing conclusive about the operating systems either way, nor would I expect them to since they are more or less the same in most of the regards that would effect this test.

Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946510)

FUCK FLASH

IE8 x86 vs 64bit? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946602)

Has anyone compared IE8 x86 vs 64bit with this benchmark? If so, what were the results?

Re:IE8 x86 vs 64bit? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947358)

The x64 version of IE is an afterthought. For example, last I checked IE8(x64) still didn't work with Windows Update.

Some browsers (such as Opera) do not have 64-bit versions for the Windows platform. This is to be expected for many reasons, such as (a) browsers do fine with the amount of memory that a 32-bit process has access to (b) 32-bit plugins can't be loaded into 64-bit processes (c) any sort of javascript compiler (IE doesnt have one, but..) would require both a 32-bit and 64-bit codegen due to the incompatibilities.

The 64-bit version of IE is essentially just a "me too!" compile. Last I checked on XP, IE8-x64 still didn't even work with Windows Update, and required that you close the 64-bit version and run the 32-bit version.

Slow vs. Old (1)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947288)

Wow, that benchmark makes IE look almost as antiquated as the game Civilization.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...