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!

Acid3 Race In Full Swing, Opera Overtakes Safari

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the going-for-the-gold dept.

The Internet 261

enemi writes "Just a few days after Safari released version 3.1, Opera employee David Storey writes on his blog that they've overtaken Apple's browser in the Acid3 test. In the race to be the first to reach the reference rendering, Opera's software leads now with 98%, closely following by Safari with 96% and Firefox 3 beta 4 with 71%. He also noted the implemented features will not make a public appearance in the following weeks, because they are getting close to releasing Opera 9.5. That version has been under public testing since September and the new CSS3 color modes and font rendering features might further delay this. They will probably show the score in a preview build soon and wait for a post 9.5 stable build to release the new features to the public." Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z : Opera is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%. Update: 03/27 by J : Public build r31356 of WebKit (Safari's rendering engine) is at 100%.

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

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22873834)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
skip this ad [goatse.ch]

Opera is the greatest web browser ever. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22873836)

Firefox looks like Internet Explorer compared to Opera.

Closed source for teh win!

Competition - gotta love it (5, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873842)

'nuff said.

I just hope... (-1, Offtopic)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874046)

the race isn't anything like this one [youtube.com] .

WASP: The treasure, it's hidden below three big W's!
(Which one of our browser stars will be the first one to reach it?)

Re:Competition - gotta love it (0, Offtopic)

FireXtol (1262832) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874100)

4 GB of RAM not enough? You must be running the most elegant interface ever!

too late (5, Informative)

jbreckman (917963) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873846)

Re:too late (3, Informative)

Carthag (643047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873924)

Webkit is also up to 98/100 now. It'll probably be there within a day.

http://webkit.org/blog/ [webkit.org]

Re:too late (5, Insightful)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873944)

Until I can browse and see 100/100 on my screen, I don't see it as too late. 98/100 is the highest I've seen when browsing http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org]

Apparently Duke Nukem Forever is a great game, too...

Re:too late (3, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874326)

Yeah, Opera can do it, but isn't going to release the capability -- wonderful.

Safari 3.1 is a full release, and Firefox is a publicly available beta release. In my book Opera is losing the race. The race is silly, but Opera is still losing.

Re:too late (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874352)

Last time I checked Internet Explorer was losing. :P

Re:too late (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874598)

Theu didn't even make it to the grid.

Re:too late (2, Interesting)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874680)

Yeah, Opera can do it, but isn't going to release the capability
RTFA. They will, shortly.

In my book Opera is losing the race.
How so? Opera is ahead of Firefox. Heck Firefox hasn't even passed Acid2 yet!

Safari gets 96%? (2, Interesting)

SaidinUnleashed (797936) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873856)

My just-updated Safari (3.1) keels over at 77%.

What version is getting 96%?

Re:Safari gets 96%? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22873900)

Update your WebKit. You can get nightly builds from the webkit site that include a script to launch an existing install of safari using the new version.

Re:Safari gets 96%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874098)

ha, that is nothing...my IE get a whopping 12%....beat that...

Re:Safari gets 96%? (4, Informative)

n8_f (85799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874960)

What version is getting 96%?

WebKit nightly builds. Just go to http://nightly.webkit.org/ [webkit.org] , download, and run. It currently gets 96%, tomorrow's will get 98% or better.

Old News :) (5, Interesting)

niXcamiC (835033) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873868)

Re:Old News :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874050)

So when will Slowfox get there? 4.x?

Re:Old News :) (5, Insightful)

umrain (698867) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874240)

Just to be clear, reaching 100/100 is not equal to passing Acid 3.

To pass the test,a browser must use its default settings, the animation has to be smooth, the score has to end on 100/100, and the final page has to look exactly, pixel for pixel, like this reference rendering.

Opera has not currently made any claims about the animation smoothness that i have seen, and the screenshot is still missing a space after the first comma. Obviously reaching the 100/100 goal is great progress but they are not quite across the finish line yet.

Is anyone else concerned about the 'hacks' ? (5, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874656)

The problem with races is that the teams do almost anything just to cross the finish line faster. The speed at which the browsers seem to be gaining acid3 compatibility is frankly worrying me. Any developer worth his salt knows that browsers are huge and complex applications and every change must be discussed, designed and implemented properly as to not impact something else and be modular, be properly commented and be clean and well written code.

Also, Acid3 is just about the corner cases, and might not reflect the full standard completely. So a browser can pass the test and still suck at implementing standards, though passing the test is good step. It's just that the high speed of the compatibility improvements for ACID3 in almost all the mainstream browsers screams of hackathon coding sessions to get those few points a day till 100 so that there can be a marketing and PR blitz rather than properly planned programming. I think there is a very good chance of the code containing hacks and workarounds and also tons of security loopholes because of the insane speed at which features are being thrown into the code.

I think there is a very good chance of the new code containing hacks and workarounds and also tons of security loopholes because of the insane speed at which 'features' are being thrown into the code just to make headlines. Being a programmer, I am sure that non-trivial portions of the code will have to be rewritten later. Haste makes waste.

Re:Is anyone else concerned about the 'hacks' ? (3, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874806)

Bad form to reply to myself, but just wanted to add that this reminds me of the days of Netscape in which features were adding in a slapdash manner and with hardly any design or planning, which lead of the extreme bloat and memory leaks which the Firefox developers are still trying to get rid of to this very day(have you checked out Firefox's source code? Believe me, it's not pretty). I bet IE's code was as bad or worse because of the browser wars and was riddled with tons of security vulnerabilities which seem to have lessened only over the past few years. KHTML and Opera on the other hand seem to have developed and maintained a lean codebase(Opera had a total rewrite for version 7 IIRC).

Re:Is anyone else concerned about the 'hacks' ? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22875218)

http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/changeset/31322 [webkit.org]

Like this?

. // Workaround for strange CG antialiasing of the Ahem font. Limit to the Web font version.
          261 if (isCustomFont()) {
          262 RetainPtr fullName(AdoptCF, CGFontCopyFullName(m_font.cgFont()));
          263 String nameStr(fullName.get());
          264 m_allowFontSmoothing = (nameStr != "Ahem");
          265 }

Actually... (4, Informative)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873876)

Actually, as of today, Safari is also at 98/100. See today's entry in the WebKit blog [webkit.org] for more.

First equal, actually (2, Informative)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873888)

http://mothership.co.nz/files/Acid3-safari-nightly.png [mothership.co.nz]

Either way, it's us punters who are enjoying the fruits of this competition :-)

Sorry - Apple is 2nd place still. (0, Troll)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874228)

Opera is now 100% [myopera.com] & Apple is back to 2nd place (they should be use to that position by now).

Re:First equal, actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22875126)

There doesn't seem to be any explanation of why certain things are considered to be failures.

For example,
  "Test 54 failed: expected 'HIDDEN' but got 'hidden'"

REally? so documents that begin with <HTML> versus <html> are supposed to render differently? Since when does html depend on case? If this is new, I want to see where in the HTML specification this is documented.

And this one:
  "Test 61 failed: expected ' te st ' but got 'te st' - class attribute's value was wrong"

In test 61 javascript is setting the class of an element to ' te st ', notice the beginning and ending white space. I'd like for the Web Standards People to point me to either the ECMAScript standard or the CSS standard that says that when setting class names programmatically you're not suppose to trim white space. I want to know which standard specifies this, with line numbers please.

This is interesting.
Test 95 failed: expected 'string' but got 'number' - type of |"2147483648"| is not string

If I assign to a variable something enclosed in quotes, I would hope that it's kept as a string and not automatically converted to a number.

var j = "0.3141E+1"
j = j + "1"

I would expect j to equal "0.3141E+10" and not 4.141

In this situation,
var j = 0.3141E+1
j = j + 1
Then I would expect j to equal 4.141

I would seriously hope that ALL browsers would fail test 98. I don't want web pages to be using javascript to change page titles. That was annoying in Netscape 3, don't bring it back.

98%? (0, Redundant)

wh173b0y (825454) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873914)

The opera Desktop Dev blog claims full compliance now. http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2008/03/26/opera-and-the-acid3-test [opera.com]

Re:98%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874420)

That's an internal, development, not even the current version they are working on for release. Safari is still the current winner in terms of browsers Joe Six Pack can use and browse to that site with.

This is not news and should've never been made news. It would be the same as the Firefox dev team stating and showing a 100/100 screenshot for Firefox 3.5 or 3.0_DEV_TREE

Shoot.. (5, Funny)

zulater (635326) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873928)

With Firefox 2.0.0.13 I've been doing just find rendering the render image properly!

http://acid3.acidtests.org/reference.html [acidtests.org]

Re:Shoot.. (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874000)

Totally! That site loads flawlessly in IE4. I dunno what all these nerds are arguing about!

Does public release matter? (3, Insightful)

NiKnight3 (532580) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873940)

Which is a better title: "First browser to reach 100/100" or "First publicly-released browser to reach 100/100"? I might argue for the latter. If anything, I think this gives the WebKit team more of a spark to reach the end.

Re:Does public release matter? (2, Informative)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874782)

But when the test still has bugs [hixie.ch] that are being fixed, I don't know if getting it out of the labs the fastest is a great idea for consumers.

Pointless (1, Funny)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873952)

The whole competition is pointless - we all know IE8 will be the clear winner.
Its ok, I couldn't read that with a straight face either.

The Next Milestone (5, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22873986)

Okay, So Opera Firefox and Safari all are shooting for compliance with Acid3.

The next major milestone though, right after "X Achieves 100% compatibility in nightly builds" is "X releases version X of browser to the masses/into the wild, capable of passing Acid3 test".

Passing it "in the lab" is one thing, declaring it in a build "ready for release" is another.

Re:The Next Milestone (5, Insightful)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874106)

Either way, the consumer wins. The faster development builds get it right, the faster it will end up in a shipping, public release, build.

Lets give the developers all the motivation we can to get this to happen. If that means a pissing contest of nightly builds, let 'em go for it, I say.

Re:The Next Milestone (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22875008)

OK, how does the consumer win, exactly?

It's neat that there's actually competition between browsers for compliance, but the Acid tests seem to be picking just a few features. They're not comprehensive -- they're not even testing the more common or useful features.

Sure, it's great that you've got Opera and Firefox and Microsoft in a contest that involves fixing, for example, UTF-16 support, but if I had to pick the 100 top browser standards and compatibility issues in the world today, UTF-16 support would not make the list. It might not make the top 1000.

And Acid2, for all its emphasis on CSS, hasn't fixed CSS -- it's still wildly different everywhere, even if you only consider Acid2-passing browsers. I can pick 3 different browsers that pass Acid2 (Opera 9.26 and Firefox 3b4 and Safari 2.0), and my HTML pages don't look or act quite the same in any of them.

I guess maybe it was "really tremendously awful" before, and now it's only "pretty bad". That's neat, but how hard is it really to write a more authoritative test suite? I'm a bit disappointed by the AcidN tests.

My test suite would look like this:

The CSS test suite will start a web server on localhost:5533. It will then call your browser, as "browser_name --render --width=W --height=H --format=PNG URL -", which is expected to render the url 'URL' to a PNG bitmap, size W by H pixels, to stdout, and then exit. This is then compared to the reference rendering, and a 'pass' or 'fail' is recorded. This is done for *each* CSS feature. Not only is a single score (% of correctly supported features) reported, but also the list of actual passes/failures.

Similar tests for JS/DOM/HTML/etc. could exist. We would get not only a comprehensive test of the browser, but we'd get lists of exactly what each browser supports (and pictures of how it bones it) -- *far* more useful than simply "73/100 on Acid3", which doesn't tell me anything about whether my browser can render my webpage, or what to do if it doesn't.

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874150)

All browsers still need to cope with "the animation must be smooth", so even after reaching 100/100 you're still not necessarily passing. I think this mostly revolves around garbage collection; I wouldn't hold my breath if it turns out to need a concurrent collector or so.

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874388)

I think the "pixel for pixel" requirement is a bit of a red herring, though. What I, as a user, want is a format that scales well. I should be able to have a 3750x3000 pixel display that looks just like a 800x600 display, except much, much sharper. Also, image scaling should be a tad higher order than "step function."

Re:The Next Milestone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874716)

"pixel for pixel" applies to the colored boxes, nothing else. Well, the bounding box for the text has to be pixel-perfect as well. No one expects a font renderer to be pixel-exact with another. They really should have just dropped that wording or made it more precise.

As for the scalable format, it doesn't matter, since Acid3 does use relative measures but it's all constrained within a fixed-size frame.

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874236)

What makes you think Firefox is shooting for Acid3? Given how long they've rested on their laurels, dillydallying on Acid2 while IE of all browsers caught up to them, I have very little faith that they're going to suddenly give standards the priority they deserve again.

I use Firefox, Safari, Opera, and a range of other browsers. I probably use Firefox the most. But I've got to say, I've been really disillusioned with their devs ever since they put standards on the back burner.

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874572)

What makes you think Firefox is shooting for Acid3? Given how long they've rested on their laurels, dillydallying on Acid2 while IE of all browsers caught up to them, I have very little faith that they're going to suddenly give standards the priority they deserve again.

Firefox builds that pass the Acid2 test have been out for a long time now. Microsoft is just now releasing IE builds that pass the Acid2 test. I'm a little puzzled by what you mean. I do think it will be some time before we see Firefox passing the Acid3 test though, since Mozilla is getting ready to release the final beta of Firefox 3 right now, and the next public release isn't due for a year, I believe.

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874578)

Acid3 is just a stress test, it's just one measure of standards compliance, and certainly isn't a measure of actual design practices in use currently. Also, right now the Firefox devs are just trying to squash all the remaining bugs and push Firefox 3 out the door, it's nearing beta 5 and I don't think they had even intended for a beta 4 originally. Also, Firefox 3 nightlies do a whole lot better on Acid3 than IE8 beta, which gets around 10/100 (can't really see the score, some obnoxious box of XML pops up in front of it). MoFo/Co isn't shooting for Acid3 compliance because it's not much more than a pissing contest in the web browser arena, realistically it doesn't matter because no one's going to use that kind of CSS until the 800 lb gorilla (IE) starts supporting those features, because even now IE still has a majority of the browser market share, and a lot of that is stil IE6, which has absolutely horrible standards support.

Actually, I'm rooting for IE8.... (1)

tech10171968 (955149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874650)

Yeah, I said it. I'm actually praying for IE8 to be standards compliant as much as possible, and this is coming from a Linux junkie.

Why? Simple; we still can't deny the fact that better than 9/10 of the unwashed masses out there are still paying homage to the Microsoft/Internet Explorer gods. They always have and this, in turn, has always meant that 98% of the browsers visiting a website are going to be IE; this also means that all the authors of these sites are always going to code to specifications that work with IE. If IE is broken in how it renders websites and requires a bunch of HTML and CSS hacks to get things looking right then that same 98% of websites won't render properly in other, more standards-compliant browsers (Opera, Firefox, anything using WebKit, et al).

But, if IE8 defaults to a standards-compliant mode then those same 98% of IE users will eventually force the devs to start coding their sites to standards. This is a case where everybody wins; just like IE's massive user base helped "break" the web, this is a case where that same massive user base can actually force authors to fix their crap (just like we alternative browser users wanted them to do all along).

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874330)

CSS3 support would be more useful to me than passing Acid3.

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874814)

No fair, Opera needs to support all three platforms... and it needs to have a tiny memory footprint.

Sure mozilla slings things out the door with gaping memory leaks and security holes but people expect better from Opera!

Well if that's the contest Opera will probably come in second, apple doesn't like making people update unnecessarily.

Re:The Next Milestone (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874988)

The next major milestone though, right after "X Achieves 100% compatibility in nightly builds" is "X releases version X of browser to the masses/into the wild, capable of passing Acid3 test".
I think the next major milestone right after the release to the masses will be "Browser X gets pwned by hackers exploiting all the hurriedly written code with specially crafted and fuzzed CSS3 files.".

Well done (1)

KevMar (471257) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874036)

I love to see this competition to meet standards. We all win when this happens.

Although one could argue that any time a product deviates from the standard it should be logged as a bug.

Re:Well done (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22875106)

question is, where do you draw the line between "follows the standard" and "renders real websites correctly"?

Heh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874088)

You know, anybody can simply go to the reference page and just remove reference.html from the URL visible in the address bar. Voila, perfect screen shot. Pretty convenient that Opera's claim is not 3rd party verifiable.

robbIE goes full censorship, as in deleting posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874102)

how pathetic. phewwww

Someone better get a move on... (4, Funny)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874118)

... and get Acid 4 ready.

Who cares who's first? (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874140)

This isn't a race, it's a competition.

What do I care who's first? What I care about is who has the best browser that complies with standards. That may also include render speed, stability, javascript compatibility, security, or whatever. "Who's first" is about the thing I care about the least.

Awesome, but... (1)

lancejjj (924211) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874182)

It is awesome that web standards are being fully embraced by important browser vendors.

Although this "competition for standards compliance" is a huge leap forward for the industry, we should give accolades only to those who have delivered production software products, versus those who say they will based on numbers that they see within their non-production builds.

Because in the end, the services that my organization delivers like quality browsers in the hands of real users.

Re:Awesome, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874466)

Interesting story, actually. Turns out that some people (KHTML devs, I think) had been trying to get some patches for CSS3 selector support based on the KHTML code merged into WebKit for over two years, with zero success. Then Acid3 came along and needed it, and suddenly the main WebKit developer makes it a top priority to get them merged. (This attitude is probably partly why WebKit got such an awful score when the Acid3 test was released.)

Remember, the race to Acid3 isn't about standards compliance (though that's a nice side benefit); it's about being seen to be standards compliant. Standards compliance work that may be more important but doesn't help pass Acid3 is being sidelined in the process.

3D Mark? (1)

JazzXP (770338) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874216)

This is getting like the old 3D Mark pissing competition that was around a few years ago. I just hope it's being implemented properly, and not using some "optimisations" just for that page.

"vaporware"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874226)

So because it gets more points that Safari, it is vaporware?

Tag system got disabled for me today.

Closely followed? (1)

Aaron Isotton (958761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874230)

Not to be a nitpick, but saying "Opera's software leads now with 98%, closely following by Safari with 96% and Firefox 3 beta 4 with 71%" is like saying "Car A reaches 274 km/h, closely followed by car B with 268 km/h and car C with 198 km/h".

I like Firefox more than Opera or Safari, but saying that 98% is "closely followed" by 96 AND 71% is just stupid. The fact that IE is worse is not a justification.

Re:Closely followed? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874408)

Why do you say IE is worse? It is closely following with 17%!

That said, what bothers me more is that still, the official releases of the two most popular browsers (Firefox & IE) don't even pass Acid2. What is the point of struggling to get 100% on Acid 3?

I won't care how Acid3 compliant Opera gets ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874314)

... until the Opera development team decides to finally implement the onbeforeunload event.

Without that, it makes stateful Ajax techniques too risky to deploy on Opera.

Microsoft came up with it, and eventually Mozilla caved in
and added it because it was useful, despite its Microsoft origins.

The Opera guys, OTOH, still insist Opera doesn't need it.

Geez. Norwegians must be almost as stubborn as Finns.

Re:I won't care how Acid3 compliant Opera gets ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874456)

God, I hope not. The number of pages that pop up an annoying "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO LEAVE THIS PAGE" alert is getting huge.

I NAVIGATED AWAY FROM THE PAGE, YES, I'M SURE. NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Web pages are not applications, no matter how much the stupidass Web2.0 garbage wants them to be. You don't need to know when I leave your page.

Incorrect update (3, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874370)

Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z [slashdot.org] : Safari is now at 100% [opera.com] , apparently, with Safari close behind at 98% [slashdot.org] .

Looks like someone wasn't reading what they were writing. The links are right though.

Re:Incorrect update (2, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874508)

Yeah... odd...

But I REALLY want to know is, How is Safari doing? :P

Safari vs. Safari (4, Funny)

choongiri (840652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874372)

Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z: Safari is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%.
**$%..brainsplode

Makes perfect sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874446)

RDF

Re:Safari vs. Safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874552)

JOBS: WHAT? Slashdot says Opera is near 100/100 on Acid3? REALITY DISTORTION FIELD... ACTIVATE!

*ZOOOMMmoooowooooZOOOMMMMOOoowooo*

ZONK: Whuahh... gotta update that storrreeee... *clickytypetype* mmm I want an applesauce please.

JOBS: MUAHAHAHAHA! Next I will skin Slashdot in brushed aluminummmmmmmmm!!!11!

*tap* *tap* ... Is this thing on? (0, Troll)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874374)

Hello? Firefox developers, where are you? You already have a reputation for being sluggish. Why sit back and prove it every time? Is gecko so poorly engineered that it's really hard to fix? Or does nobody care about the actual page rendering side of the web browser? Either way is really bad for firefox's future.

Re:*tap* *tap* ... Is this thing on? (0)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874416)

Hello? Firefox developers, where are you? You already have a reputation for being sluggish. Why sit back and prove it every time? Is gecko so poorly engineered that it's really hard to fix? Or does nobody care about the actual page rendering side of the web browser? Either way is really bad for firefox's future.

Look on the bright side, they are still in front of IE at this point.

Re:*tap* *tap* ... Is this thing on? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874548)

Look on the bright side, they are still in front of IE at this point.


Thats kind of like comparing your marathon progress to someone using a walker.

Yeah, sure, they can make it as far as someone else, but it'll take them a lot longer and they will expend a lot more effort.

Compared to a marathoner, or your average High School student and suddenly your progress might not look so hot. :)

Re:*tap* *tap* ... Is this thing on? (1)

bothaus (1262876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874462)

Yes to all. Gecko is huge, old and hard to fix. Can't wait for my Mac to explode from Firefox 3's scroll bar redraw cpu suck. Scroll will crank cpu's to 70% on a 2.3GHz Core2! JUST SCROLLING!

Re:*tap* *tap* ... Is this thing on? (1)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874922)

Then your 2.3 Ghz Core 2 machine must be pants. Scrolling on FF3b4 makes my 2,2Ghz Core2Duo go from 3% idling to 40% with some maniacal scrolling going on. This on Vista46 SP1... So let it go already

Re:*tap* *tap* ... Is this thing on? (2, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22875032)

Maybe they're too busy adding actual features to the browser instead of competing in pointless tests to show how well it'll handle crazy error conditions that'll never actually happen on the web-at-large. God forbid.

Re:*tap* *tap* ... Is this thing on? (1)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22875046)

That would imply a correlation between standards compliance and browser adoption. Someone should probably tell MS :-)

Seriously, though, Acid3 compliance is mostly an academic exercise at this point. It's a great goal to shoot for, but making wholesale changes to their core rendering engine for the sake of bragging rights isn't really a good use of their time.

Safari latest nightly is at 98% not 96%. (1)

bothaus (1262876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874378)

So there.

...from the Dimensional Rift Department (0, Redundant)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874382)

Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z : Safari is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%.

I bet Safari is in third as well. Love that preview button!

Update: (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874386)

The articles update says that Safari has 100% and Safari has 98%.
Can you spot the problem?

Re:Update: (1)

Zekasu (1059298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874398)

It should be Opera, Safari.

Re:Update: (1)

Pennidren (1211474) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874410)

No, what is the issue? You didn't get your time machine in the mail like everyone else? Sucks to be you.

Re:Update: (3, Funny)

whitehatlurker (867714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874592)

Can you spot the problem?

Um, Zonk?

Re:Update: (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874746)

Clearly, Safari is beside itself with joy over its stellar performance.

Safari vs Safari? (0, Redundant)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874394)

Zonk writes: "Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z : Safari is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%."

The first "Safari" was linked to Opera, but unless you mouse over it, it's definitely confusing.

Re:Safari vs Safari? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874504)

Makes you wonder how Safari [mozilla.org] is doing using the HEAD code.

Re:Safari vs Safari? (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22875082)

Back and forth would be my guess.

Re:Safari vs Safari? (1)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874720)

Sorry, I was beaten by 2 minutes (several times). No other posts showed up when I was double-checking Zonk's links. Of course, it looks like a bunch of me-toos if the time-stamps aren't looked at, rather than a chorus.

The surprising thing is that 30 minutes later, Zonk still hasn't noticed the mistake. :)

The summary update has an error (-1, Redundant)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874436)

Someone needs to give the editors a hand since somehow safari is now behind safari in this race

Safari ftw! (0, Redundant)

sucker_muts (776572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874444)

Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z : Safari is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%.
Go safari! :-)

Zonk, next time, try to use the preview button. ;-)

Re:Safari ftw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874484)

That's all I needed to see!

Zonk, you dirty Apple fangurl!11

Safari is now at 100%??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874506)

Mistake in the update,

Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z : Safari is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%.


It should say Opera...

Firefox? (1)

WebmasterNeal (1163683) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874544)

We already know why IE7 is behind but what makes Firefox lag behind Safari and Opera with this? Does it all come down to browser share = slow progress? Or could it be that Opera and Safari are putting other projects behind to pass the Acid3 test?

Re:Firefox? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874694)

We already know why IE7 is behind but what makes Firefox lag behind Safari and Opera with this?

I'd be more likely to guess this has something to do with the code base and the number of different contributors. Opera has one group contributing. Webkit has about four big contributors. Gecko has a whole lot of different people contributing, even individuals. I've also heard the code for Gecko is a lot more convoluted, whereas the more recently engineered Webkit is fairly clean and straightforward.

Does it all come down to browser share = slow progress?

I doubt it, although the more versions of each platform supported adds to the time for each QA cycle.

Or could it be that Opera and Safari are putting other projects behind to pass the Acid3 test?

I don't know about Opera, but I know there are dedicated teams specifically targeting Acid3 for Webkit and Gecko.

ocean simian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874546)

Seamonkey 1.1.8 on linux *not* for the win! 52 out of 100. But I bet it still beats Mississippi and Zimbabwe!

It's just hype/marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874608)

Hello,
As a web developer I'dd like to say that I simply don't give a shit about any browser passing the acid tests.
Unfortunetly I've been stucked with some wordpress themes lately, and I got yet another bitter taste about how different can browsers behave. A day after IE8 has been released, I installed and tested a theme I created that used no IE specific hacks whatsoever, however on IE8 had a small glitch - small but very annoying - yes, it rendered identical on every other browser - ie6,7, safari, firefox, opera. The other day, I've done yet another theme - again no ie conditional css. Safari (even 3.1) rendered the layout wrong. Suffice to say that Konqueror, like every other browser rendered it right. So yeah, I just don't give shit, about any test browser developers brag about. I simply want to be able to use inline-block and many other not-so-new css properties, that one browser managed to screw up.
In case you're wondering inline-block is not rendered properly by firefox, and it won't be until 3.0. Yeah, -moz-inline-block, might work but not ALWAYS! .. don't even bother with the moz box..
Anyway, as stated above I'm not really excited about any of this. I'm just wondering wich very cool(useful, timesaving) css3 property will be crippled for the next 5 years.

That's good, but don't get too carried away (2, Interesting)

whitehatlurker (867714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874676)

Okay, I'm an Opera fanboi. (Well, it's my preferred browser, anyway.) Take that for what ever it may mean to you.

However, this falls into the "Firefox does Acid 2" category. Until this is done with the release version of the browser, it's a nice thing, but not really available to the average web user. (Cue the witticisms from the "hyuck, hyuck - well Opera users aren't average - either of them" crowd.)

This is a good thing. Opera has been a company which has been dedicated to (among other things like speed, security and innovations in the interface) support for web standards. This is just another step in that direction.

Kudos to the desktop crew for this accomplishment.

What about IE? (3, Insightful)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874690)

This is really cool that competition has provoked a response from the browsers to be compliant, but until IE is compliant, does it make a lick of difference? The combined market share of these ACID3 browsers is ~25%, so in the scheme of things, I'm still not going to be developing sites that take advantage of the newest features.

IE8 is still puttering around with ACID2...so I hate to sound like the cynic...

Re:What about IE? (1)

wicka (985217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874844)

Safari and Opera have more like 8% of the market (combined), so your point is even more true. Also, it just seems like they are going to keep making new Acid tests whenever browsers start rendering the old ones; no one will ever be compliant. It's almost pointless, except that pointless competition usually ends up paying dividends in the long run (see: Folding/Seti/Genome at Home).

Whoops on the update (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874778)

Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z : Safari is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%.


Err.... Safari is at 100% with safari close behind at 98%? Think one safari too many :)

Question is which one is opera and which is safari - and does it really matter?

How many sites out there will only work with Acid3 compliant browsers? I'd guess... 1 - the test site itself. Even if other sites look better with 100% compliance I doubt if the entire site will be unusable or so poorly rendered as to be unusable.

Bragging rights in this game is like boasting of having a car that can do 150 while your mate's can only do 145 - bloody pointless as those speeds are only any good on a race track, on a dry day, with a driver who knows how to get the last mph out of their car... most people won't notice the 5mph difference.

Reaching 100 is one thing... (1)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874800)

... But what I want to know is if reaching a perfect score necessarily means that the implementations are sound.

Maybe some quick and dirty code was used that in the end wont prove stable, safe, ... the recently discovered flaws in Win32 Safari spring to mind.

It just strike me as odd that Acid 2 compliance took so long as opposed to what we are seeing now with acid 3.

Hunh? (1)

ohxten (1248800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22874810)

Update: 03/26 21:21 GMT by Z : Safari is now at 100%, apparently, with Safari close behind at 98%. Hunh? Typo!

Not surprised (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22874862)

I am not surprised both proprietary crappy browsers focus on such irrelevant things.

I'll probably burn in karma-land for this (2, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22875004)

If this were news about IE, I'd care. If it were news about Firefox, I'd care. Since I'm a Mac user, if it were news about Safari I'd probably care, at least a little (although I use Firefox). But Opera? I don't even test my stuff against that browser - it's just never been particularly relevant.

Now, I realize that Opera zealotry is as fervent as the worst Mac fans, and loses nothing to the Nikon/Canon camps; but really - the installed base is tiny. When I look at my site stats, Opera doesn't even show up (and even Netscape 4.x still has a tiny sliver of the pie). So I'm not sure even the "competition is good for everyone" argument particularly applies here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?