 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Firefox: Heat and the CPU usage problem | |
|
||
| Time: 13:11 EST/18:11 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Firefox has a CPU usage issue and, consequently, can cause overheating problems in some laptops, particularly ultraportables. That's what I've found over the last couple of years. But don't take my word for it. This is documented on a Mozilla support page entitled "Firefox consumes a lot of CPU resources." The page states: "At times, Firefox may require significant CPU [central processing unit] resources in order to download, process, and display Web content." And forum postings like this one about a Dell Netbook are not uncommon: "Mini9 would get way too hot." |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 37 of 37 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at Sunday, November 22, 2009 04:52:21 PM |
| I strongly recommend to every customer that I have that uses a notebook computer to use a laptop cooler for longer life. I suppose I should just recommend to not use Firefox as the fire part is to be taken literally. |
| #2 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Sunday, November 22, 2009 05:14:21 PM |
|
First we were told that FF/Moz were so secure and next it was that it had such great performance.
Neither is true and the best, safest and smoothest online experience continues to be Internet Explorer 8. Synthetic JS bencmarks aside, side by side comparisons of validated sites we have written demonstrate in the browser that IE 8 is better. I am certain IE 9 will be good for devs and users alike. |
| #3 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:56:04 PM |
|
Keep that sucker off your lap!!
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_CPU_usage #2 blah blah blah... FireFox is bad blah blah blah and slow blah blah blah... seriously maybe your elite team should get together with avenger's elite team so that you both can produce really elite numbers to impress us all. As for the javascript benchmarks... with Microsoft coming out and announcing that javascript performance is in fact important (and crap in IE) you too will slowly change your tune to announce the same... once IE JS performance stops being so bad. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141096/IE9_will_close_performance_gap_Microsoft_says And the good news is that IE9 now scores 32/100 rather than the horrible 24/100 for IE8! 33% improvement! It's time to celebrate :) |
| #4 By 16797 (65.93.31.186) at Monday, November 23, 2009 12:15:34 AM |
|
#3 IE7 and IE8 have both improved JavaScript preformance, so nothing new there with IE9. What are you trying to say?
Having proper (fully compliant CSS2.1) box model was certainly more important for IE8 so it obviously was given higher priority than even better JavaScript performance. Priorities, as simple as that. It's not like they haven't improved JS performance at all. As for the Acid3, I don't think they even aim to score 100% on it with IE9, because, again it is a question of priorities and I just don't see SVG that important in that time frame (show me any important SVG-rich web sites). Nice to have, but not as important as HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, security, even that DirectX thing for faster and smoother page rendering, etc. We'll see, I guess :) |
| #5 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Monday, November 23, 2009 01:02:14 AM |
|
#3, Show me where what I wrote is not true?
Firefox has proven to be the exact opposite of what it was reported to be. It is not efficient and it is not smooth and that matters a lot more than pure synthetic benchmarks. The same is true of systems, cars, planes and boats and anything subject to any engineering discipline. "Smooth" is the experience we always go for - above any other sense we try to deliver. How is my sharing that objective and an opinion about it so much of a problem? How is pointing out the truth about Firefox so wrong? And in defense of that team, yeah, they are elite. They're amazing, really and I am blessed to have them. I think that is true of any business owner and how they see their people. You seem like such a bitter fellow and that's sad. It really is. I hope you find something to be upbeat about. |
| #7 By 218115 (65.90.202.10) at Monday, November 23, 2009 06:47:20 AM |
| I run NOSCRIPT when browsing with FF, and NOFRY when downloading. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Monday, November 23, 2009 07:32:59 AM |
|
#6, "Subjective" - exactly.
That is exactly my point and it is and that is perhaps the most important point I was driving at with my post at #5. As things run in the browser and in the real-world, subjective JS benchmarks tell only a small part of the story. In the browser, and at the desk, or lap, IE 8 delivers a smoother experience. Until FF/Moz leverage Microsoft's securable objects and UIPI, as both IE 7/8 do (protected mode) and Google does (their sand box), it will be less secure and less safe to use than IE 7/8, or Chrome. |
| #9 By 29664 (38.116.145.60) at Monday, November 23, 2009 08:17:32 AM |
|
I don't notice any SIGNIFICANT performance differences. Bottom line for me is I like Firefox's add-ons FAR better than the IE add-ons. I don't care for the interface IE gives me compared to Firefox with the add-ons I load.
Firefox may be a gas guzzler compared to IE but, I'm more comfortable in it. IE has a long way to go. Firefox has been quite stable. There are a few multimedia sites that don't do as well but, half of that is the site's old code and the other half is solved with yet another magical add-on that lets me designate certain sites to load via the IE engine. No need to switch browsers. Just hit an icon in FF and all is solved. This is something like 1% of sites I visit. As for security, When I last ran IE I was also forced to run ad-aware nearly every day. It would collect all sorts of garbage.. not just cookies. When I switched.. ad-aware found nothing. Still true if I even bother anymore. MSFT dropped the ball at a critical time. IE may be better now (compared to itself) in some respects but, I see no reason to switch. |
| #10 By 12071 (124.171.4.239) at Monday, November 23, 2009 08:21:29 AM |
|
#4 "What are you trying to say?"
That Lloyd's opinions constantly reflect Microsoft current view of the world. When Microsoft considers something to be unimportant so does Lloyd, a few months later when they announce that they have indeed fallen behind Lloyd starts the pom poms up talking about the next version which will focus on that previously unimportant feature. "Priorities, as simple as that." No-one is claiming otherwise - and you cannot achieve everything in one hit, it's an evolutionary process. "As for the Acid3, I don't think they even aim to score 100% on it with IE9" And they don't need to - but don't claim to be some better browser when tested against a common set of web standards that have been finalized for some time your browser comes out at the bottom or very close to the bottom of the list. Beating NetFront (PSP and PS3 browser engine) doesn't make you better than anyone but NetFront. "show me any important SVG-rich web sites" There you have the classic chicken-egg problem now don't you. There's plenty of examples of things in the past which you could not live without today that at the time you could make the same argument. And SVG only counts for 4 of the tests...meaning that you can skip SVG and still get 96/100. "HTML5, CSS3" Oh don't worry - Lloyd has already dismissed HTML5 in the past when the topic came up. Things will change once Microsoft start adopting it though... which is what I was saying to begin with. |
| #11 By 12071 (124.171.4.239) at Monday, November 23, 2009 08:24:46 AM |
|
#8 "subjective JS benchmarks tell only a small part of the story"
We'll see how that opinion changes once IE's JS stops sucking. "In the browser, and at the desk, or lap, IE 8 delivers a smoother experience" - in your opinion. #9 FireFox has some brilliant addons - not just for end users but also for developers. |
| #12 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at Monday, November 23, 2009 08:49:53 AM |
|
Chris, I don't think anybody is saying JS isn't important. I do think that some of the advantages are overrated but I've had a problem with IE's JS engine for a while.
They are putting significant engineering resources behind it in IE9. Ketchum is right, they have been prioritizing their development teams to fight the closest fires. The changes in security, isolation, rendering, etc. over their past two versions, while mainly transparent to users, has required a significant amount o resources. They've just started working on IE 9 and already what they've thrown together so far seems promising: http://channel9.msdn.com/tags/IE-9/ I use both Firefox and IE8 atm. IMO Both are steaming piles of crap. However, I expect what makes them trash is Flash not their underlying code. Having written some really JS heavy code it's obvious FF handles large amounts of data stored in JS much faster than IE. I'd like to see that change. But, as someone who writes web apps that's probably 5% of the pages I put out (where it's noticable). I am happy to have that 5% of my code run a little slower on IE to see the changes they've pushed out lately. |
| #13 By 23275 (172.16.10.199) at Monday, November 23, 2009 03:46:45 PM |
|
#11, "HTML5, CSS3"
Oh don't worry - Lloyd has already dismissed HTML5 in the past when the topic came up. Things will change once Microsoft start adopting it though... which is what I was saying to begin with. No, that is not the case. What I have said that there is no spec for HTML 5 (yet) and that it is really big and that Microsoft is on record saying they want to advance specific portions of the spec forward now - as opposed to waiting for the entire spec to be finalized. In this context, MS, along with others, is pushing ahead with HTML 5 faster and harder than is reported. You know this to be what I have written. Why represent it differently? |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 09:51:11 AM |
|
#13: Until FF/Moz leverage Microsoft's securable objects and UIPI, as both IE 7/8 do (protected mode) and Google does (their sand box), it will be less secure and less safe to use than IE 7/8, or Chrome.
You keep saying that as if it were true. Meanwhile, MS is once again telling everyone to disable javascript in IE due to the latest driveby download exploit. You insist on spreading this fiction that FF is less secure because it doesn't use these spiffy MS technologies that don't even protect IE. Just like you used to preach about UAC and how it will save the world. Then, after UAC fails to stop most malware, MS starts saying it isn't a valid security mechanism and you start parroting the exact same line moments later. Like I've said before, you're a man of successive sincereties, each more sincere than the last. |
| #15 By 47914 (75.150.156.89) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:20:31 AM |
| #14, How about a comment about the topic? |
| #16 By 10557 (71.185.157.43) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:35:54 AM |
|
Latch and Chris_Kabuki, I hear lots of tears... but as mirt said, how about a comment about the topic (that Firefox has longstanding CPU over-utilization problems)?
Firefox has a long way to go; and beyond Latch's FUD (#14) about IE's Protected Mode capacities (which works best with UAC enabled and an Antivirus tool), Chrome is surprisingly most responsive in cranking out worthwhile version updates. I prefer IE8 (64-bit) cuz it LACKS Flash support but leverages more computer resources to drive a better user experience. Once Adobe releases a 64-bit Flash player, then everybody will cheer 64-bit flavors of their favorite browsers ... which Firefox officially lags behind, too. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:51:56 AM |
|
#15,16: How about a comment about the topic?
I'd rather follow ketchum's lead. He's OT by slagging Firefox's security and performance and going on about how IE is better, and not really talking about the topic at all. Strange how you would call me out for something he started in post #2. Why is it that you felt the need to say something to me, but not him? You know, because otherwise it makes you both look like ketchum's poodles. |
| #18 By 47914 (75.150.156.89) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:08:17 AM |
| #17 Funny, I thought CPU usage (overheating) was related to performance, as ketchum mentioned in his post. I read that as "on topic". Can you read? Still no comment about the topic? |
| #19 By 23275 (172.16.10.199) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:25:14 AM |
|
Look at this crap: Firefox hopes to one-up IE with fast graphics
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10403604-264.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1 The article goes on about new graphics acceleration technologies that will appear in IE 9 and FF/Moz and the guys claims that FF/Moz will get there first. Ok, fine. His opinion is fine. EXCEPT... The the FF/Moz evangelist and the author of the post, FAIL TO EMPHASIZE that the technologies behind this are all from MICROSOFT, REGARDLESS of which browser company enables them. Direct2D and DirectWrite movable, resizable graphics showed more than twice as fast, dropping from about 11 milliseconds to less than 4 milliseconds. (so SVG support in IE 9 will be killer!). It's this kind of nonsense that simply astounds. Most people won't read enough, or follow through and end up crediting FF/Moz and Chrome with capabilities that did not originate with them. |
| #20 By 2960 (68.100.201.101) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:02:33 PM |
|
I'm quite happy with FireFox and will continue to use it.
Phlllllltttttttt :) |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:09:56 PM |
|
#19: Funny, I thought CPU usage (overheating) was related to performance, as ketchum mentioned in his post. I read that as "on topic". Can you read? Still no comment about the topic?
LOL the use of the one word 'performance' means he was on topic about a CPU overheating issue? His usage was in the context of how FF supposedly has not very good performance. Your reply doesn't pass the smell test. Wait, I know! I used the word 'javascript' in my post. When running js in the browser, it reflects on the performance of the browser, and we all know that use of 'performance' relates directly with the heat coming from the CPU (according to you), so my post was just as on topic as ketchum's by your logic. #20: Are you blind? Did you miss this bit which seems to adequately address your concerns: The performance boost from Direct2D and DirectWrite was the centerpiece of Microsoft's demonstration of Internet Explorer 9 goodies shown last week. Online maps flashed on the screen quickly and tracked mouse movements responsively; text was clearer and changed sizes more gracefully. But the day of Microsoft's demo, Mozilla evangelist Chris Blizzard had this to tweet: "Interesting that we're doing Direct2D support in Firefox as well--I'll bet we'll ship it first." Unless you're a moron in a hurry, it's plain that this is Microsoft tech. Or is Microsoft usually in the habit of showing off competitor's tech at MS's own shows?? You're just pissed that, once again, FF will enable an MS technology before MS can. |
| #22 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 01:21:55 PM |
|
#22, No, I am not blind and as I pointed out, the fact that they are microsoft technologies is not addressed until much later and rather than focus on those techs, the read places the emphasis on and in favor FF.
It's subtle, but it's there and only after several paragraphs of fluff, does the article begin to introduce what is behind the capability. This is/was the point of my post. |
| #23 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 02:31:10 PM |
|
#23: It's subtle, but it's there and only after several paragraphs of fluff, does the article begin to introduce what is behind the capability.
Who cares? Using the GPU for 2D has been talked about for years and years. It's not like it's some stunning achievement that MS should be given a parade and a cookie for. MS supplies the infrastructure (being the OS and all), and everything on top uses those layers if they choose to. I don't stand up and salute MS every time I use the computer just because they implemented a mouse driver 25 years ago and a TCP/IP stack 15 years ago. |
| #24 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 04:48:05 PM |
|
#16 "I hear lots of tears..."
You hear lots of tears? As they're coming out of your eyes? As they're hitting a loud surface? Just how good is your hearing? I applaud you sir! "but as mirt said, how about a comment about the topic (that Firefox has longstanding CPU over-utilization problems)?" I did comment on topic champ (#2) - I even provided a link direct to the page describing all the known issues with CPU usage including the various scenarios in which they occur - as it only happens in certain scenarios. You on the other hand mentioned nothing about the heat or cpu usage issues and instead spend more time talking about Flash and 64-bit support so how about your take your own advice hypocrite? #20 "Most people won't read enough, or follow through and end up crediting FF/Moz and Chrome with capabilities that did not originate with them." It's amazing how you know what's going to happen in the future... you really should put that skill towards picking lottery numbers, stocks etc though. No-one has credited FireFox nor Chrome with anything yet... in fact you're the one bringing this up and bitching and moaning that FireFox is going to implement this... just after comment #8 where you were telling FireFox to leverage Microsoft's technology! So which is it? Should they leverage Microsoft's technology or not? Or does it depend on what technology they leverage? Or is it only ok to leverage it AFTER Microsoft has implemented it themselves in IE? Flip flop much? #23 "the fact that they are microsoft technologies is not addressed until much later" Are you kidding? Do you need the article that's targeted at mainstream pc users to specifically point out whose technology it fundamentally is? Paragraph 1 says "Microsoft showed off some browser technology", Paragraph 2 says "They're built into Windows 7, and Microsoft is bringing them to Windows Vista but not Windows XP" - sure they don't spell it out but they don't need to - it's clear as day... well to everyone but you! |
| #25 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 07:19:55 PM |
|
#1 "I strongly recommend to every customer that I have that uses a notebook computer to use a laptop cooler for longer life."
No... Here is the basic concept... Most Laptop Coolers use Fans to pull heat away from the bottom of the Laptop. The problem is that most of the laptops produced in the last 5 years have intake fans on the BOTTOM of the laptop. So when you place a cooler sucking air away from the laptop under a laptop that is trying to suck air from the bottom of the laptop, it basically starves the laptops built in fans and cooling system. As you might guess under 'non-load' circumstances this is not noticeable, as you may even see a few degress of temperature drop as the 'active' cooling of the fans is not tyring to shove a lot of air. However, under load, the temperatures rise significantly and will shutdown and fry the laptop as the cooler is starving the system's designed airflow. You can be smart about laptops and laptop coolers, like getting a cooler that can be flipped to 'blow' air under the laptop; but blanket statements telling users to just get laptop coolers is foolish. The majority of laptops are very well designed to keep themselves cool properly. The better 'recommendation' to users is to have their laptop cleaned at least once a year if not every six months and have the fans and the exhaust ducts cleaned, as this is the #1 cause of laptop overheating and failure. If you don't know how to clean your laptop's fans/vents properly or they are not easily accessible, find a dealer that does. |
| #26 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 08:35:42 PM |
|
#25, I think you're missing the point.
Take Google's sandbox. It's using technologies available to all devs that are nagtive to Windows Vista and Windows 7. For months it was held out as though Google had some super secret sauce that was unique to it. Respected magazines reviewing the various browsers, credited Chrome with having uber great security. In the same article, IE was critisized for the same thing. This latest round is the same sort of thing. Even the title credits FF/Moz and not until the end are the detail revealed and when MS as you state is said to have shown off some new technologies, it is presented in a general context. The author should have properly linked the two from the outset and made it clear that new technologies developed by Microsoft, were available for all devs (just as with the security). As I said, it is subtle, but the twist is there and it's sloppy at best. |
| #27 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 08:46:52 PM |
|
#26, Absolutely right, Net!
We preach this to all our customers with great regularity. All builds we put in where there is carpet on the floor, we offer and suggest risers to keep systems elevated. Where they do not opt for this, we are candid that if the systems are full of fiber and dirt and we have to service them, we will not warranty for the full four years (the normal period). If they are kept clean and off the floor, they'll last years longer than those that are not. |
| #28 By 9589 (75.183.116.232) at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:15:08 PM |
|
I can just see the Bing vs Firefox ads now, a la Microsoft vs Apple, "Firefox will cause your computer to catch on fire!" lol
You just can't make this stuff up - too funny . . . By the way, where is TL? Bing! This post was edited by jdhawk on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 23:15. |
| #29 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 04:29:21 AM |
|
#22 #24 Friend there is so much you 'know' but don't 'understand'...
"just pissed that, once again, FF will enable an MS technology before MS can. " Implement, not really, since IE9 has been geared for Direct2D and is running it internally for a while, yes even longer than the 'couple' of developers writing the rendering Direct2D portion for Firefox. As for a shipping product, again, don't be so sure on this, as the Direct2D work on Firefox is not currently part of the main product and is a side project by a couple of developers and are having trouble moving fully over to Direct2D because of inconsistencies with how Firefox renders content. Firefox SHOULD get to Direct2D, but even its first round won't be a complete implementation. As Firefox stands now, the Direct2D 'upgrade' to the rendering is only beating IE8 about 5%, and IE8 doesn't use Direct2D. (Also of note, this brings rendering back to the performance table for browsers and people are NOTICING that IE8 renders faster than Firefox most of the time. So if people are wanting pages to display 'fast', rather than run hyperbolic JavaScript calculations that are nonsense, IE8 is the faster browser.) "Using the GPU for 2D has been talked about for years and years" Um, the GPU has been used for 2D rendering since the 80s, and made a large shove into the PC world with the IBM 8514 with the first mainstream accelerated 2D GPU. It later was followed by ATI's Ultra and Vantage cards that were significantly cheaper and faster versions with 8514 compatibility but designed to be WINDOWS 2D GPU accelerated video cards. You could buy these around 1990-91... The whole industry of Video cards during the 90s was 2D GPU accelerated cards designed mainly for the Windows UI. Direct2D is not about 2D GPU, it is about using 3D GPU concepts and rendering concepts for basic 2D UI elements. |
| #30 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 09:29:00 AM |
|
#30: Implement, not really, since IE9 has been geared for Direct2D and is running it internally for a while, yes even longer than the 'couple' of developers writing the rendering Direct2D portion for Firefox.
How do you know this? You seem to possess the same magical ability that Ketchum has, where he appears to have knowledge of internal MS plans & processes. He either has hooks deep within MS (which wouldn't surprise me considering his cheerleading), or he's just gassing. How do you know what you just claimed? Also of note, this brings rendering back to the performance table for browsers and people are NOTICING that IE8 renders faster than Firefox most of the time. What people? Where? Which sites? Not any that have javascript, surely. Direct2D is not about 2D GPU, it is about using 3D GPU concepts and rendering concepts for basic 2D UI elements. You know what I meant. Or was an opportunity to be pedantic too good to pass up? |
| #31 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:30:13 AM |
|
The only thing this thread is missing is NotParker dumping a half-dozen links to QuickTime bugs from days gone by.
#30: "Also of note, this brings rendering back to the performance table for browsers and people are NOTICING that IE8 renders faster than Firefox most of the time. So if people are wanting pages to display 'fast', rather than run hyperbolic JavaScript calculations that are nonsense, IE8 is the faster browser." Do you have any references to any sources of proof for this statement? If so, please provide them so we can look at them for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. |
| #32 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:33:56 AM |
|
#31 "How do you know this? You seem to possess the same magical ability that Ketchum has, where he appears to have knowledge of internal MS plans & processes."
Magical ability to listen to the Microsoft developers or read what they have been writing about? There are even videos on IE9 on Channel9 and other sites that talk about this specifically. This isn't inside information, it is called paying attention or basic reading comprehension. "What people? Where? Which sites? Not any that have javascript, surely. " Go check out Betanews for one or any other site in the last few months that have measured actual USE of the freaking browser than esoteric scripting and other tests that have very little to do with the basic performance the end user sees. "You know what I meant. Or was an opportunity to be pedantic too good to pass up? " Whether you realized how stupid what you were saying really isn't the point in general public conversations as a lot of users 'will not' and it just confuses the conversation for people that are less tech minded, especially when what you said was really fatuous. |
| #33 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:48:41 AM |
|
#32 - "Do you have any references to any sources of proof for this statement"
There is even one on BetaNews (which usually is very unkind in performance reviews of IE). As I mention above, there are also a lot of non-mainstream benchmark tests out there that do measure actual speeds the end user sees by using the browser that encapsulates things like display and rendering speeds instead of running precision math scripts over and over that are basically worthless for 99.99% of all web sites and users. The trick is you have to notice/search for these type of benchmark reviews that don't just run the same SunSpider and other generic benchmarks that really have nothing to do with what the end user experiences. This is imporant when sadly most benchmark reviews put a lot of weight on these bad metrics even though there is often only a few milliseconds of difference between all browsers - and users don't perceive the world in a few milliseconds if the page drawing is taking seconds longer on their screen. |
| #34 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:30:43 PM |
|
"and users don't perceive the world in a few milliseconds "
On the contrary: All our senses, eyes in this case, record and the brain process time measured in milliseconds; the fact that these informations are not necessarily always transferred as a conscious input does not mean anything. Without getting in more complicate, specialistic and out of the context analysis let us just say that contrary to what people think the vast majority of the input we act upon is unconcious. |
| #35 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Thursday, November 26, 2009 01:20:52 AM |
|
Fritz, Microsoft did exactly this and for the most visited sites on the web, they shot in-browser films and used a stop-watch. The published results reflected that IE 8 was the better browser and offered a more consistent and faster experience on Windows.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/videos.aspx?mname=IE8_Perf_Test2 |
| #36 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Thursday, November 26, 2009 06:51:53 AM |
|
#35: Interesting video Iketchum, thanks.
My comment was not about which browser is faster but about what the body perceive and what does not. As far as what browser is better I believe that technicalities aside is just a matter of personal preferences. One thing is sure though: without Firefox MS would not have felt compelled to keep developing IE so for a person with an agnostic approach like me FF is extremely important. |
| #37 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Thursday, November 26, 2009 11:21:14 AM |
|
#36, I don't know that I agree with the popularly held belief that FF/Moz development is what compelled Microsoft to upgrade IE, or develop for it.
I think a lot of things drove this. As the demand for features, features, features became accompanied by demands for security, security, security... and the always on, wider band Internet connections exposed computers in new ways, browser and system security played a big role and COM/DCOM/RMI handling in SP2 was the result along with software DEP. All that security development in IE is ignored - where real security features were added, while user features took a back seat. In the same way Windows itself reflected this change in emphasis, until the secure development tools were brought online and procedures for using them evolved (The SDL that no one can argue has not produced results). OS development was delayed, too - or should we call it delayed at all - I mean, a more secure Windows was shipped and the basis for very secure future versions were set down. SMB over SSL, MAPI and RPC over HTTPS are other examples and all of these were developed during that time. All are examples of the emphasis. I think the next driver was in how the web was used and will evolve. Asynchronous web based technologies to reduce, or eliminate the flashing associated with post back events. Microsoft has been a real innovator here and provided(s) tools and examples around this. Their own OWA in front of Exchange is the first example of the use of the technologies they developed and it has continued. Parallel to this the LAMP evolved and a lot of scripting guys familiar with Action Script and JS quickly adapted PHP and because it was familiar and cheap, a lot of very script heavy sites began to pop up. The same guys, constrained by that very stack, slowly began to move to .NET and it worked well in both ways - .NET shops building business apps benefitted from JQuery and guys who knew JS and PHP well. An exchange took place and each side influenced the other. That process continues today and MVC for ASP.NET - example here, www.webeca.com reflect the teaming of these camps. There were a lot of influences and I think resource allocation and practical considerations also contributed to what appeared to be a slow down in IE dev. Since WFC/SL/WPFe have a browser engine, RIA's and Rich Media on those frameworks will be the result and a newer, richer web will come out of that. Since the browser is still there, parts of HTML 5 will move more quickly and perhaps a decent spec can be agreed to - likely no and the persistent and stupid arguments will continue. I do assess that only those companies that are open to all and blend both are going to succeed. As a business man, too, I see this and I know I can find top notch designers and JQuery fluent guys a lot more easily and for less cost than I can find classically trained method oriented engineers. |
