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!

IE9 Team Says "Our GPU Acceleration Is Better Than Yours"

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the them's-renderin'-words dept.

Firefox 360

An anonymous reader writes "Over on the IE blog Microsoft's Ted Johnson writes, 'With IE9, developers have a fully-hardware accelerated display pipeline that runs from their markup to the screen. Based on their blog posts, the hardware-accelerated implementations of other browsers generally accelerate one phase or the other, but not yet both. Delivering full hardware acceleration, on by default, is an architectural undertaking. When there is a desire to run across multiple platforms, developers introduce abstraction layers and inevitably make tradeoffs which ultimately impact performance and reduce the ability of a browser to achieve 'native' performance. Getting the full value of the GPU is extremely challenging and writing to intermediate layers and libraries instead of an operating system's native support makes it even harder. Windows' DirectX long legacy of powering of the most intensive 3D games has made DirectX the highest performance GPU-based rendering system available.' Some Mozillians hit back in the comments to the IE Blog post and others have written blog posts of their own. PC Mag's Michael Muchmore seems to conclude that IE9 and Firefox 4 are more or less the same (despite the title of his article) while Chrome currently lags behind."

cancel ×

360 comments

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

So? (2, Insightful)

AnonGCB (1398517) | about 4 years ago | (#33554970)

IE 9 still can't pass Acid3.

Re:So? (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 years ago | (#33554996)

It can't run on XP either, nor phones, nor tablets. Fringe browser for the platform of yesteryear.

Re:So? (1)

Pfhreakaz0id (82141) | about 4 years ago | (#33555386)

Fringe? It's still 60% of the browser usage:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 [netmarketshare.com]

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555566)

They still have 60% of the market share because web developers keep it alive, throwing away standards and making sure IE users can see the best out of their apps/websites.

I never saw a website forcing the usage of Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Anything better than IE, but I can't count the number of time I had to fake the usage of IE to bypass a block from a website forcing IE for no apparent reason.

Which websites? (3, Informative)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | about 4 years ago | (#33555690)

I haven't seen a website require IE in years.

Re:So? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555748)

Wow! MS has really outdone themselves this time... IE9 doesn't go public beta until the 15th and they've already gotten 60% market share? I'm amazed...

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555818)

It's all thanks to their stranglehold on the desktop market. They just flip a switch and IE9 is installed on PCs worldwide showing the world how popular (or is that spoon fed?) this new browser is!

Wrong chart (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 years ago | (#33555772)

You're looking for This one [netmarketshare.com] . W7 and Vista have together less than 30%, and that's the only operating systems IE9 will run on. So if they get 100% of those, which seems unlikely, their max upside today is 30% of the total browser market. Since as you note they only get 60% share even though Windows is over 90%, it's a 20% upside potential for IE9 today - probably less since early adopters are also the people most likely to choose a different browser. Fringe. Not enough to dominate the developers.

XP has a very long tail. It's still selling in the market and will be installed through downgrade rights for the entire life of W7. XP will likely still be over 50% three years from now. IE9 doesn't run on XP.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

Millennium (2451) | about 4 years ago | (#33555134)

Unfortunately, Firefox's stubborn refusal to pass Acid3 legitimizes IE9's stubborn refusal to do the same. The dev team needs to swallow its pride and implement the standards.

Re:So? (1)

mpeskett (1221084) | about 4 years ago | (#33555250)

If IE8 is any indication, Firefox comes a damn sight closer to passing.

Not perfectly in compliance, granted, but really rather close when compared to what it looked like in IE for me.

Re:So? (5, Informative)

dotwhynot (938895) | about 4 years ago | (#33555394)

If IE8 is any indication, Firefox comes a damn sight closer to passing.

Not perfectly in compliance, granted, but really rather close when compared to what it looked like in IE for me.

Firefox does 97, IE9 does 95 on Acid3.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555418)

Firefox developers are never going to implement SVG fonts, because they think they are stupid (and they are right, in fact passing the Acid3 test is the only reason to implement SVG fonts these days). Implementing "HTML5" features is far more useful. But they welcome external contributions.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

arose (644256) | about 4 years ago | (#33555618)

Ignorance at it's finest. Acid3 is not a standard, it doesn't measure standard compliance. Implementing just enough to pass Opera/Webkit style is absurd, go bark up their tree.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555646)

Firefox has 97/100 points in Acid3. The three missing points are for SVG Fonts, which is an XML-based font completely inferior to the WOFF format, which is widely supported.

Acid3 is overrated.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | about 4 years ago | (#33555700)

SVG Fonts is an optional part of the SVG 2.0 spec, FWIW. Frankly, I wouldn't call the other browsers' half-baked, supported-enough-to-pass-the-test-but-not-much-more support to be that much better than not supporting it at all.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

FooBarWidget (556006) | about 4 years ago | (#33555702)

What, 97% ACID3 compliance ain't good enough for you?

100% ACID3 compliance doesn't mean it's fully standards compliant. Chrome is 100% compliant but one check at quirksmode.org and you'll see that it doesn't support some CSS 3 features properly, like 'content', while Firefox supports those same features properly.

Seeing that Chrome still doesn't support basic features like saving tab state after a restart - features that Firefox has had for a long time - I'd say the Firefox team is doing a hell good of a job. Your "needs to swallow its pride" statement is uncalled for.

Misleading. (2, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about 4 years ago | (#33555218)

That's misleading. IE9 gets something like 96/100 in the Acid3 test.

That's absolutely OK for most practical purposes.

Re:Misleading. (2, Informative)

blai (1380673) | about 4 years ago | (#33555292)

Until you're the dev who needs to develop for a client, and each browser has 4/100 chance of breaking some shit up, which adds up to, like, 12/100 probability that you'll need to patch it up with per-browser css.

Re:Misleading. (2, Insightful)

u17 (1730558) | about 4 years ago | (#33555362)

Actually, it doesn't. What you want is the probability that (not (everything is OK in all three browsers)) = 1 - 0.96^3 = 0.115264.

Re:Misleading. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555468)

Which, incidentally, rounds to 12/100. ;P

Re:Misleading. (3, Informative)

arose (644256) | about 4 years ago | (#33555644)

Acid3 doesn't measure standard compliance. The only thing that you that has a 4/100 chance to break is if you are developing an Acid3 test.

Re:Misleading. (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33555652)

Which would be valid if Acid3 didn't include a lot of things which are deliberately broken. Beyond that the test tests things which aren't particularly useful.

It's also not a probability situation, if you're a competent dev, you know or can look up what is and is not supported across browsers and platforms. You're not supposed to routinely implement something only to have an oh shit that doesn't work with browser X moment.

Re:Misleading. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555742)

Until you're the dev who needs to develop for a client, and each browser has 4/100 chance of breaking some shit up, which adds up to, like, 12/100 probability that you'll need to patch it up with per-browser css.

It's not surprise things that are missing, both Firefox and IE9 drop SVG Font support (which affects your calculation), and for a reason. As noted by others here the only reason to implement this today is to pass this particular artificial test, not affecting real world standard compliance. In fact, the browsers that do get 100 on Acid3 have implemented the specs so selectivly that it is clearly done just to pass this test, again not really helping real world standard compliance.

Re:So? (1)

wampus (1932) | about 4 years ago | (#33555230)

The reasons they gave for not passing those 5 tests seem pretty good to me. I don't honestly know how much use of SVG fonts there is in the real world, but given how many SVGs I run into on a regular basis, I'm going to guess "not much." Also, I seem to recall some discussion of the browsers that DO get 100 only implementing enough of several of the specs to pass acid3.

Re:So? (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 years ago | (#33555276)

But thanks to GPU accelleration, IE9 fails the Acid3 test much faster.

Re:So? (1)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33555314)

Yes, passing ACID3 is the most important thing for browsing HTML4 Slashdot properly.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555318)

IE 9 still can't pass Acid3.

The latest version get 95/100 (Firefox get 97?). The last points involve SVG Fonts and SMIL SVG animation, which are the focus of discussion and possible change of status/specs, it is wise to wait on implementing this and not being led by achieving 100 score on an artificial test (and btw. no browser support all of SVG 1.1).

Re:So? (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33555616)

Acid3 isn't a particularly useful test for real world performance and the folks doing the coding and development were right to push it down the list. It uses deliberately broken code to see how the browser handles it. Handling broken code is a bad idea, just make sure it fails without causing a vulnerability and let the web dev fix it. Most decent web devs would rather have a consistent properly functioning target than a browser that handles other browsers broken code.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 4 years ago | (#33555782)

IE 9 still can't pass Acid3.

So what? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 [wikipedia.org] IE9 gets a 95 and Firefox got 94. Besides the ACID test is about how well a browser handles the testing of esoteric, completely fucked up, marginally correct coding. It's also testing compliance for stuff that isn't rarely if ever used, and some stuff that's not even in the current standard (e.g. the CSS2 recommendations that were later removed in CSS2.1, reintroduced in the draft CSS3). It simply doesn't represent the real world.

In particular, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Criticism [wikipedia.org] which summarizes the farce that is the Acid3 test.

Jim Gray MSFT database guy finally found !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33554988)

And he was pissed !!

What good is... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 4 years ago | (#33555008)

What good is having GPU acceleration that only works on one platform? The -entire- point of the trend of doing things in-browser is to make cross-platform compatibility a reality. If I wanted a game to work just on Windows, why wouldn't I just make an application that did that?

Re:What good is... (3, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 4 years ago | (#33555060)

This is Microsoft we're talking about, they still believe they are the *only* platform.

Re:What good is... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555564)

This is Microsoft we're talking about, they still are the *only* platform of importance.

Fixed that for you.

PS.. please ignore the pile of money behind me.

Re:What good is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555736)

Because they *are* the only relevant platform right now.

Re:What good is... (1)

TClevenger (252206) | about 4 years ago | (#33555066)

Wouldn't it be better to just make the rendering code more efficient? My desktop shouldn't have to fire up a 180 watt graphics card just to render 480p video from Hulu.

Re:What good is... (1)

mejogid (1575619) | about 4 years ago | (#33555130)

It isn't either/or.

If your 180 watt graphics card cannot function without drawing less power than that, you have bigger problems. It would, for example, be drawing 180 watts in any modern composited desktop (windows 7/compiz/kde 4/os x). Fortunately, graphics cards don't always run at 100%.

Regardless, it's not either or - code can be made more efficient and be hardware accelerated. One of the real advantages of interpreted code is that we can make sensible and reusable decisions on how best to use hardware to run it.

Re:What good is... (2, Insightful)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | about 4 years ago | (#33555156)

As it is unless you have a supported graphics card, Adobe Flash will scribble videos in the 2D frame buffer. Full screen video? It goes into overdrive and revs the CPU to scribble that video while the GPU is twiddling its thumbs. Take the same FLV file, play it through VLC (or whatever) and not even using hardware decoding (eg: not h.264), but just the directX video scaling and the CPU sips power.

Re:What good is... (5, Funny)

dnaumov (453672) | about 4 years ago | (#33555084)

"Cross-platform" means its usable on both Windows 7 and Windows Vista.

Re:What good is... (1, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33555316)

Same difference. Like Windows 2000 and XP. Or 3.0 and 3.1 ;-)

Re:What good is... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555086)

Last I checked, Firefox's hardware acceleration is Windows-only too, so you're not gaining anything by using Firefox, either. (Oops, I'm wrong. Turns out it's just only "activated" for Windows Vista/7 [mozilla.org] , and from what I can tell, "activated" is code for "built into the provided binaries," meaning you can't try it on other platforms without compiling Firefox yourself. Which, if you haven't tried it, is retardedly hard to do.)

Plus, with the new beta (4.0 beta 5), I had to turn Firefox's hardware acceleration off because it broke font rendering. Somehow I find displaying readable text to be more important than being able to display unreadable crap REALLY REALLY FAST!

I tried to submit something through the feedback thing, but as far as I can tell, things written there go nowhere, so who knows.

Re:What good is... (4, Informative)

dracvl (541254) | about 4 years ago | (#33555284)

I tried to submit something through the feedback thing, but as far as I can tell, things written there go nowhere, so who knows.

No, we read pretty much all the feedback (through filtered and clustered searches) -- the volume is very high, and so we can't respond to individual comments, though.

We are aware of the issue with hardware acceleration on certain setups. Try updating your graphics card drivers and try again?

-- Alexander Limi, Firefox User Experience Team

Re:What good is... (0, Redundant)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 4 years ago | (#33555116)

It looks to me from the page describing IE9 that they GPU accelerate all HTML content, not just special Microsoft-only tags.

Re:What good is... (2, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | about 4 years ago | (#33555120)

Playing devil's advocate here. Adobe Shockwave is pretty much Winhoze specific and games written in it are very much alive and kicking.

In fact the only reason it is still alive as a runtime is because it is hardware accelerated. So there is a niche for that which means that there will be a niche for a Windoze only browser with hardware accel.

Re:What good is... (4, Informative)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33555242)

Adobe Shockwave is pretty much Winhoze specific and games written in it are very much alive and kicking.

That's fine, but realise that the web is about hypertext. Shockwave and flash are supposed to be on the web in the same way that movies and sounds are: as embedded elements of media. Building an entire site or app in shockwave or flash is NOT building for the web, it's only running a non-web app over http.

Re:What good is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555240)

What good is having GPU acceleration that only works on one platform? The -entire- point of the trend of doing things in-browser is to make cross-platform compatibility a reality. If I wanted a game to work just on Windows, why wouldn't I just make an application that did that?

A lot since the browsers on other platforms already are already as fast as the hardware accellerated windows browsers

Re:What good is... (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | about 4 years ago | (#33555372)

Browsers are just client software. It shouldn't matter what platform they run on as long as you can get SOME decent web client on all the platforms you use. Of course, that presumes IE9 actually follows standards... that might be the angle you want to attack here.

Re:What good is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555526)

Well, it works for 85% of the folks out there: http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=11 [netmarketshare.com] . I'd say that's a good start.

Re:What good is... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33555694)

They'll be adding it to other platforms, they just finished the Windows one first. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there isn't ever going to be one for Win XP and I don't think OSX either. From what I gather, it isn't activated in Safari, so it's probably not going to be of much priority for Firefox either. Not sure why it wasn't activated in Safari though.

The best part about in-browser GPU acceleration... (5, Interesting)

Lost+Found (844289) | about 4 years ago | (#33555044)

...is that thanks to the lack of an IOMMU on consumer x86 computers, JavaScript exploits in the browser can now give you access to all the computer's memory, and along with it, ring 0. I can't wait to see the first whitepaper on the subject :)

Re:The best part about in-browser GPU acceleration (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33555274)

Is this the fabled Scotch mist? [wikipedia.org]

Re:The best part about in-browser GPU acceleration (1)

Lost+Found (844289) | about 4 years ago | (#33555308)

Color me surprised!

Re:The best part about in-browser GPU acceleration (1)

butlerm (3112) | about 4 years ago | (#33555384)

...is that thanks to the lack of an IOMMU on consumer x86 computers, JavaScript exploits in the browser can now give you access to all the computer's memory, and along with it, ring 0.

You are claiming that the graphics drivers / host kernel give user processes the ability to read any location in the computers physical memory? Or is a separate vulnerability in the graphics driver required?

Re:The best part about in-browser GPU acceleration (4, Informative)

sitharus (451656) | about 4 years ago | (#33555516)

The GPU, as it's normally on PCIe these days, has DMA capabilities. On most (all?) x86 systems DMA isn't restricted through an MMU, unlike CPU memory access. This means that by sending the correct commands to the GPU you can access any part of the system memory.

If this is possible in reality I have no idea, but that's the concept.

Re:The best part about in-browser GPU acceleration (4, Informative)

don.g (6394) | about 4 years ago | (#33555640)

AMD x86_64 processors have an IOMMU. Intel's first x86_64 processors didn't but I don't know if this is still the case. IOMMUs are also important if you are running virtual machine software that allows some VMs access to physical hardware -- Xen lets you do this, for instance.

Re:The best part about in-browser GPU acceleration (1)

sitharus (451656) | about 4 years ago | (#33555684)

Well that'll teach me for not reading the minutiae of hardware revisions :P

Great (2, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 4 years ago | (#33555068)

So now IE 9 can make my GPU drivers crash. Instead of simply locking up and making me kill the process.

Re:Great (3, Informative)

jabelli (1144769) | about 4 years ago | (#33555104)

If any program makes your GPU drivers crash, then take it up with the GPU manufacturer. If the drivers are crashing, then they're defective.

Re:Great (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 4 years ago | (#33555460)

We have hardware memory protection for a reason. There is no such thing as a flawless program, or a perfect programmer.

Re:Great (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33555310)

Only bad operating systems, bad driver programmers and alcohol can make your drivers crash.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555540)

Is it a coincidence that all three of those are available on Microsoft's campus in Redmond? I think not!

How do we change the debate to important stuff? (2, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 4 years ago | (#33555094)

Free software web browser projects should reply by saying that they have better privacy, give away less personal / identifying information, help users avoid being mislead into clicking on ads, etc. etc.

I've never noticed whether my browser has fast, or slow, or any GPL acceleration.

Re:How do we change the debate to important stuff? (4, Funny)

Superken7 (893292) | about 4 years ago | (#33555144)

wow, GPL acceleration!

Of course! If its free software it must run faster! ;)
How fast is Apache, then?

(very funny typo ;)

Re:How do we change the debate to important stuff? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 years ago | (#33555392)

To be fair, all those activation schemes, Digital Restriction Management algorithms and anti-copying rootkits take up a significant amount of CPU%. GPL code has none of those.

Re:How do we change the debate to important stuff? (1)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33555370)

Slashdot doesn't care about privacy anymore. After all, they swing from Google's nuts at every opportunity even though Google's CEO has spoken out against privacy, they've scanned and archived people's private networks, and they index everything.

Remember when Slashdot was pro-anonymity, pro-cryptography, pro-privacy, etc.? How easy it was to flip Slashdot into a corporate shill for an internet giant.

Who cares if most people use IE9 (1)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | about 4 years ago | (#33555756)

The real war was against IE6 and ActiveX and that has been won.

Microsoft is no longer holding back web development, the new problem is going to be XP hold-outs running IE8 and 7.

Whatevs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555096)

I'm just glad there's some real competition in the browser market. Kind of nice when companies actually work on improving their products in order to get market share rather than resorting to becoming litigation machines.

Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555098)

Although the next question should be.. "so? pretty much everything else sucks AND you have managed to build yourselves A Bad Name in the Internet." , I'd say at least that much they can say about being better than others.

So yeah, even if other browsers (i.e. FF4) might come close, give credit where its due. They got it right. At least they got that ONE thing right ;)

Personally, and this is my opinion of course, even if they got the entire browser right I don't think i would use it having alternatives like FF and Chrome.
I just don't feel right "supporting" (if you could say "supporting) what still represents and carries the name of "Internet Explorer": ridiculously anticuated, slow, bad software which has brought countless hours of headaches to many web designers, programmers, users, etc.. and is/was generally seen as a necessary evil which you had to support because everyone used it. I find it just disgusting. IMHO

*cough* (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 4 years ago | (#33555170)

*cough* [mzzt.net]

Re:*cough* (1)

pvera (250260) | about 4 years ago | (#33555358)

What build/os? here's the best I could get from Windows 7-64:

Chrome 7 dev (had to manually turn on GPU acceleration): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fPLo8aIju-A/TIfgbvlguaI/AAAAAAAAOoc/dCc-Tj6IgUo/s400/2010-09-08_150824.jpg [blogspot.com]
FF 4 Beta 5 (as is): http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fPLo8aIju-A/TIfgccSWk1I/AAAAAAAAOog/Wg6qzEH3_fk/s400/2010-09-08_150943.jpg [blogspot.com]
IE 9 platform preview (as is): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fPLo8aIju-A/TIfga8sAWVI/AAAAAAAAOoY/MW51u3pV53M/s400/2010-09-08_150745.jpg [blogspot.com]

yes but the issue is Video!! (1)

FranckMartin (1899408) | about 4 years ago | (#33555174)

The issue is video at the moment. Without accelerated video the browsers are not giving full capability to HTML5.

Stuff like http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ [thewildern...wntown.com] are fun, preview of what comes, but unfortunately very browser specific.

Waiting for a video standard....
---
Franck
http://www.avonsys.com [avonsys.com]

Video, sound, panoramas, 3d... all there for years (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33555774)

Waiting for a video standard....

What for? Object tags have been around for years, and can embed ANY type of content in a webpage. I was doing video streaming (along with custom play/pause buttons etc.) with them and the older embed tag back in 2000. I believe object has been around since '96, and embed longer. AND, object can support any multimedia content, including video, audio, flash, panoramas, applets, etc. I'm not sure how advanced/generic DOM scripting is for them, but that should be relatively easy to define as well as anything for the video tag can be defined.

The only thing special that I know of about the video tag is a standardised video format, but mpeg4 and now x264 are pretty much de facto anyway. WebM is nicer, if it supports the multiple angles and subtitles and everything that matroska supports. Apart from that, the open standard is nice, but I don't see much to get excited about.

Oh yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555188)

I use Lynx. A thousand times zero is still zero.

Re:Oh yeah? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33555328)

I use Lynx.

In some countries, it's called Axe [wikipedia.org] .

Pointless battles (5, Insightful)

mariushm (1022195) | about 4 years ago | (#33555192)

I find it ridiculous how browsers battle over something like this when they can't fix very old and stupid bugs, and fully support some older standards such as CSS 1 and CSS 2.

For example, Firefox crashes when a user loads a 2-3 MB GIF file, because each frame is kept decoded in memory and the browser goes over the 2 GB memory barrier (for 32 bit applications). https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523950 [mozilla.org]
Or, another example, the file input box ignores any css color rules simply because the html specs doesn't specify any rule so for several years nobody is able to decide something. It's actually since 2000 ffs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52500 [mozilla.org]
Or, for several years now, when uploading a file using a form, the progress is stuck somewhere around 50% and it's discussed over and over but nobody can actually do even a temporary simple fix. Since 2004: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249338 [mozilla.org]

It's actually surprising they're able to code something as complex as gpu acceleration when they can't fix small bugs and at the same time it's unfortunate that basic things are forever and ever skipped in the hunt to get the latest "features" (sometimes just to check something on a feature list) instead of actually getting some things working properly.

Re:Pointless battles (1)

Xtravar (725372) | about 4 years ago | (#33555456)

Bug fixes don't sell. As long as it works good enough for most people...

Re:Pointless battles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555622)

But that's what happens when there is no incentive for people to do the parts of programming that aren't fun. Fixing bugs isn't fun; going through the bug list isn't fun; but rewriting everything from scratch is fun (because "this time it will be done right", ha ha) and so that's what happens, over and over again.

from jwz (http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html)

However, I've never experienced any of those bugs. I would like Firefox to be faster, and GPU acceleration is a means to that end.

Re:Pointless battles (2, Interesting)

toxickitty (1758282) | about 4 years ago | (#33555738)

Speaking of Firefox bugs that should've been fixed ages ago but never have. There's my all time favorite bug: Bug 105843 - Cache lost if Mozilla crashes (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105843 [mozilla.org] ). This bug basically says it all it is 9 YEARS old. So for well probably since Firefox has been made it has never cached anything right. Never set that browser cache too high one crash and it's all gone. I can't even begin to imagine how much extra data Firefox needs to download over other browsers. It's also why Firefox seems to chug so much after it crashes when you have 20 tabs open and the thing crashes.

Like the OP I find it really ridiculous they can't get the basics right yet we seem to get GPU accelration, it's just pathetic.

Re:Pointless battles (4, Insightful)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | about 4 years ago | (#33555760)

You're assuming that the developers who implemented the hardware acceleration support were doing so instead of fixing those bugs, which is a big and likely incorrect assumption. It's a tired straw man argument.

Re:Pointless battles (2, Interesting)

FooBarWidget (556006) | about 4 years ago | (#33555762)

I can't say any of those bugs have ever bothered me. The upload progress thing only slightly. If I can choose between a faster Firefox and proper upload progress I'd rather choose the former. Your definition of useless battles isn't the same as everyone's.

Re:Pointless battles (2, Informative)

mariushm (1022195) | about 4 years ago | (#33555802)

Your "proper upload progress" would most likely involve Javascript or Flash, which not all people may have enabled or even installed on their computers.

The file input field bug is again one of the main reasons why lots of websites resort to using Flash or complex Javascript libraries to simulate an input field, because it's the only way to be sure it looks the same in all browsers (Chrome is a real problem here as their file input field looks totally different than the rest)

It's a pain in the ass to do workarounds and the ones hurt are the actual developers - one of the big reasons Firefox was started in the first place.

staaaaaandards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555226)

Is IE really making the claim that they can incorrectly display your website faster than the competition?

Hmm...

wake me up when we don't have to waste an extra 20% fixing apps for IE

Re:staaaaaandards? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33555794)

Is IE really making the claim that they can incorrectly display your website faster than the competition?

Sadly, when the competition is also rendering it incorrectly, the comparison seems fair.

Re:staaaaaandards? (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 4 years ago | (#33555832)

Is IE really making the claim that they can incorrectly display your website faster than the competition?

Hmm...

wake me up when we don't have to waste an extra 20% fixing apps for IE

No they are not. RTFA. Most web sites are written against IE, so even if IE renders some little piece it differently than the spec implies it should, IE is showing it how the author intended and is therefore "correct".

But it's still in IE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555236)

Their accelerator being better may or may not be true.. But it's still built into Internet Explorer.

The biggest pile of shit we've ever had to deal with. Over and over for every crappy version.

How many BILLIONS of hours have been wasted directly because ie is a pile of shit?

Yes, but will it bring all the boys to the yard? (1)

cblack (4342) | about 4 years ago | (#33555258)

Will they license/open this technology? Will they have to charge?
They better warm it up, we all are waiting.

Re:Yes, but will it bring all the boys to the yard (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33555636)

> Will they license/open this technology?

Which technology? Their methods of ignoring established design principles in favor of quick & dirty programming? Patented.

Gallium (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33555842)

There wouldn't be much to license; they'll simply be pushing high-level graphics calls down the API/driver stack to the graphics layer. The open equivalent would be for firefox/webkit to have high-level graphics API calls added to the X rendering libraries (cairo or whatever) and call those directly when running on systems that have the necessary libraries. The X-window graphics stack would then do its part, by providing high-level graphics primitives and high-level API functions implemented with fast, low-level code that's tailored to your hardware. The most obvious candidate for achieving that is Gallium3D.

Sounds more like (1)

harris s newman (714436) | about 4 years ago | (#33555322)

An crash accelerator

So (1, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | about 4 years ago | (#33555380)

What I'm reading is "Our browser is so fat we have to tap the GPU to make it appear fast." Frankly, bloat is nothing to be proud of.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555532)

What I'm reading is "Our browser is so fat we have to tap the GPU to make it appear fast." Frankly, bloat is nothing to be proud of.

yeah, that is what I'm ready too any time any software tries to take advantage of moderne hardware capabilities.

Re:So (1)

wampus (1932) | about 4 years ago | (#33555638)

Bloated fucking operating systems depending on FPUs for decent performance. What the hell?

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555836)

Fucking GPUs, how do they work?

When hell freezes over. (2)

budfields (1663047) | about 4 years ago | (#33555396)

I don't care if Albert Einstein rises from the dead and announces on Colbert that he has proven that Internet Explorer's display technology is fastest that the laws of physics allow.

I still will not use any browser controlled by Microsoft.

Our GPU Acceleration ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555458)

... brings all the boys to the yard
Damn right! It's better than yours.
We could teach you,
but we'd have to charge ...

MS now driving browser innovation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555570)

Great thing that they put an emphasis on the combined performance of all browser subsystems and picked the next one, seriously focussing on Graphics perfomance. That's a good new direction after all the hype over Sunspider and JS benchmarks.

Let's just forget about the big bottleneck here... (1)

Pzychotix (949807) | about 4 years ago | (#33555630)

Do people even give a crap about how one browser renders a page 0.0001 seconds faster than another? I mean, we still have a huge honking bottleneck here (internet speeds), so it's not like render speeds is that much of a factor at all when viewing a page.

So? (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 4 years ago | (#33555668)

OK, so the display portion that takes milliseconds at most now takes 4-5 milliseconds less time. Meanwhile the browser's taking 10-30 seconds choking on bloated Flash, over-large images and hundreds of K of insanely-convoluted nested Javascript files. Somehow I don't think graphics acceleration will help speed up Web sites significantly.

It's kind of like cars: sure the McLaren F1 may be faster than my Ford Focus, but it's not the car that's setting the 75mph speed limit.

I don't care (2, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 4 years ago | (#33555728)

I've never gone to a website and cared about how fast it rendered. What I do care about is how secure I am and if the browser is able to deal all the pop ups, pop unders and other junk.

The IE dev team are just lacking any other decent USP to sell the merits of IE over other browsers. Firefox hasn't really made all that many big improvements for some time. So there's not much for IE to copy.

Good job IE9. Now how about fucking CANVAS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33555810)

Great, we now have GPU-accelerated HTML in IE9. Note to the IE9 team: howsabout implementing the one thing MOST LIKELY to need that acceleration - the canvas tag. Nobody is going to switch to VML or whatever proprietary garbage you're pushing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>