Slashdot Mirror

They should add the "Virtual Memory Size" column in Task Manager and use that for comparison. It better reflects actual memory consumption.

The "regular" "Memory Size" column is the "working set" - so its possible that IE or FF 2/3 took more during page loads that hasn't been reclaimed by the OS because no one neededed it.

To see how this can be bogus, try minimizing all the windows for an app and watch "Memory Size" shrink as the working set is paged to disk. "Virtual Memory Size" won't change. See here for more info.

Additionally, one (probably) should disable toolbars/extensions - depends on what you're trying to test, of course, but IE's more likely to have some bogus BHO or toolbar installed by third parties (like Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc.) that are actively sucking RAM; which affects the steady state.

One could argue that's just the real world - but the intent is to compare *browser* efficiency?
----
graphically speaking

Makes sense. Brendan invented the language, so his changes must be in the right? ...Sounds suspiciously like one of the "elephant in the room" undertones on the Mozilla mailing list...
---------
graphically speaking

Its not a technical battle, exactly - ES4 takes a lot of what's good about JS, from an advanced lanaguage perspective, but loses a lot of some of what makes it good as a lightweight language (IMHO). Which is fine - its increasingly not used as simple glue...

I say not a "technical battle" though, in that Yahoo and MS (or at least their reps on the working group) just seem to believe its not Javascript anymore: The analogy here would be if the there was an attempt in Java's early life to call it "C++ Edition 2". I kind of agree on the merits of that argument, but (though I might change some of the, well, changes in ES4) think that the "open web standards" coalition really needs to go this way *directionally* to compete... more thoughts on this in my JS flame war blog post from a few days ago.

Uh Oh... too bad

In theory a problem for all the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (*ahem* confuse 'em?)" school of search destinations, but.. Google will never enforce the patent, so its probably moot...
----
graphically speaking

On the desktop - sure, non-existent - but on the server side, I see more and more developers building, from large scale application deployments to startups, doing their apps with .NET - productivity out-weighing other factors (in their opinion, which they back up with their work :)).
---
graphically speaking

Despite all the harping, .NET has been a huge success for Microsoft in Corporate/Server development. On the desktop, just as MS is afraid of Flash and Firefox (not coincidental or surprising they linked up) obviating the need for , I think Adobe, et al have been concerned about the potential impact of WPF, etc. for what they call the RIA space.

Some early benchmarks comparing SpiderMonkey, what would become Tamarin, and JScript.NET. are on my site... interesting is that neither CLR, nor Tamarin provide a big boost when you use the features of JavaScript that make it more interesting than just plain old C. Wonder how much a real world boost this will be for the integration complexity? (i.e. is this another Netscape 6? Perhaps buckling down and fixing SpiderMonkey might serve better...)
--
graphically speaking

Despite all the harping, .NET has been a huge success for Microsoft in Corporate/Server development. On the desktop, just as MS is afraid of Flash and Firefox (not coincidental or surprising they linked up) obviating the need for , I think Adobe, et al have been concerned about the potential impact of WPF, etc. for what they call the RIA space.

Some early benchmarks comparing SpiderMonkey, what would become Tamarin, and JScript.NET. are on my site... interesting is that neither CLR, nor Tamarin provide a big boost when you use the features of JavaScript that make it more interesting than just plain old C. Wonder how much a real world boost this will be for the integration complexity? (i.e. is this another Netscape 6? Perhaps buckling down and fixing SpiderMonkey might serve better...)
--
graphically speaking

Despite all the harping, .NET has been a huge success for Microsoft in Corporate/Server development. On the desktop, just as MS is afraid of Flash and Firefox (not coincidental or surprising they linked up) obviating the need for , I think Adobe, et al have been concerned about the potential impact of WPF, etc. for what they call the RIA space.

Some early benchmarks comparing SpiderMonkey, what would become Tamarin, and JScript.NET. are on my site... interesting is that neither CLR, nor Tamarin provide a big boost when you use the features of JavaScript that make it more interesting than just plain old C. Wonder how much a real world boost this will be for the integration complexity? (i.e. is this another Netscape 6? Perhaps buckling down and fixing SpiderMonkey might serve better...)
--
graphically speaking

Despite all the harping, .NET has been a huge success for Microsoft in Corporate/Server development. On the desktop, just as MS is afraid of Flash and Firefox (not coincidental or surprising they linked up) obviating the need for , I think Adobe, et al have been concerned about the potential impact of WPF, etc. for what they call the RIA space.

Some early benchmarks comparing SpiderMonkey, what would become Tamarin, and JScript.NET. are on my site... interesting is that neither CLR, nor Tamarin provide a big boost when you use the features of JavaScript that make it more interesting than just plain old C. Wonder how much a real world boost this will be for the integration complexity? (i.e. is this another Netscape 6? Perhaps buckling down and fixing SpiderMonkey might serve better...)
--
graphically speaking

I think this really boils down to an application distribution question, not a "client/server" vs. "Web app" vs. "desktop app" discussion. Most apps are really all 3 these days (even those "web apps" are running local "code" with Javascript in a browser). There are some nice qualities to "content" and I think the toolset for development and distribution, as well as the context for execution of the next gen of apps is what the discussion is about in the article...
---
graphically speaking

I think this really boils down to an application distribution question, not a "client/server" vs. "Web app" vs. "desktop app" discussion. Most apps are really all 3 these days (even those "web apps" are running local "code" with Javascript in a browser). There are some nice qualities to "content" and I think the toolset for development and distribution, as well as the context for execution of the next gen of apps is what the discussion is about in the article...
---
graphically speaking

I think this really boils down to an application distribution question, not a "client/server" vs. "Web app" vs. "desktop app" discussion. Most apps are really all 3 these days (even those "web apps" are running local "code" with Javascript in a browser). There are some nice qualities to "content" and I think the toolset for development and distribution, as well as the context for execution of the next gen of apps is what the discussion is about in the article...
---
graphically speaking

Desktop power is still scaling faster than network speed, but I think the approaces Microsoft, Adobe, and Mozilla are all pursuing are of "content runtime" approach - where quite a bit of the work really does happen on the desktop. That's (more or less) the specific "convergence" the author is referring to...
--
graphicallyspeaking

Not sure its so much confirmation bias (alone at least), as it is that the odds of NOT playing a song from the same artists over the next X songs shrinks more rapidly than intuition suggests. That is, for example the odds of NOT having a run of X heads or Y tails when flipping Z coins is very, very small.

The article mentions the "how many people does it take to get to a shared birthday thing" - and the point there is that its not that it takes 40 people to get to one with a SPECIFIC birthday but only 40 or so to find two that SHARE a birthday.
-----
graphically speaking

Mixing presentation and data - good... bad... good. But it gets better a little, each time (maybe more of a spiral than a wheel).

We're using them on aim pages for module development (I cover it a bit here). Its a nice simple standard, and the idea needed SOME name - don't make more of it than it its.
-----
graphically speaking

Mixing presentation and data - good... bad... good. But it gets better a little, each time (maybe more of a spiral than a wheel).

We're using them on aim pages for module development (I cover it a bit here). Its a nice simple standard, and the idea needed SOME name - don't make more of it than it its.
-----
graphically speaking

Space.com and LiveScience found out that 40% of their test population likes SCIENCE and SPACE related stuff?

That *is* curious.

Thank you, that is brand new, surprising information.
--
graphicallyspeaking

The idea is basically a way to continue to extend Moore's Law with current Comp Sci paradigms. Multi-core (and multi-CPUs generally) is the same idea, but requires software re-thinking to really be advantaged.

More units don't help things go much faster unless you can figure out how to feed them.

Like multi-CPU tech, there's probably a big diminishing return, so this seems like a 2 to 4-ish X multiplier - or about 18 to 36 months more of Moore.
--
graphicallyspeaking

I think the secret sauce is still that if you build the OS, you can build the best apps for that OS (where best is certainly subjective - but let's drive it by "most used"). Microsoft->Office, Apple->iLife.

In other words, he who smelt it, dealt it.
--
graphicallyspeaking

No, this is exactly the problem with the system being date and prior art obsessed - patents are supposed to be about INNOVATION, not discovery (i.e. Einstein, not Columbus).

Burst may have been the first to suggest those ideas, but mostly because they were (among) the first to LOOK at those problems - that does NOT make it novel Intellectual Property. When *everyone* else looked at the same problems, they arrive at (basically) the same solutions.
--
graphicallyspeaking

I blame Microsoft. They invented Open Source - and GPL v3 is the Rootkit of OSS IP Viruses. Thanks A LOT billg.
--
graphicallyspeaking

lol - uh, yeah, don't get TOO serious about slashdot etiquette or anything... perhaps you could translate my offense into bandwidth wasted X degrees of separation?

(I didn't realize where my first post went - my bad - patience isn't a virtue I've mastered - apologies)
--
graphicallyspeaking

Perhaps its the old "wisdom of croweds" thing, ala Google's "Did you mean ____?"

That almost always crushes standard spell checker results (pretty sure its heavily augmented with some kind of distance metric thing based on LOTS of mistyped input and follow-up for real users) - don't see a reason why that couldn't apply to voice search...

(non-trivially, probably, but still)
--
graphicallyspeaking

My first read (after reading the ARTICLE :P) is that this isn't voice recognition - its the old "wisdom of croweds" thing.

I always found Google's "Did you mean ____?" to be better than any spell checker (pretty sure its a distance metric thing based on LOTS of mistyped input and follow-up for real users) - don't see a reason why that couldn't apply to voice...

(non-trivially, probably, but still)
--
graphicallyspeaking

I think we will (are) seeing a move to more "content runtime" systems like the Browser, Flash, Avalon/XAML, XULRunner, etc. Even virtualization solutions (VMWare, et al) are in that category - Not only is this about sandboxing and security, I think its about deployment, maintenance and "everywhere" access.

An unanswered question is what form that will take: RISC-like (content-driven: browsers, markup, scripting, et. al.) or CISC-like (application-driven: VMWare, J2ME, dot NET), to use an old analogy. Likely, it'll be somewhere in the middle, but I expect the bias will be toward a content model (as opposed to an application one) - which will blur the line about what concepts like "installation" mean anymore (which in turn I think will upend some DRM models).
--
graphicallyspeaking

I think we will (are) seeing a move to more "content runtime" systems like the Browser, Flash, Avalon/XAML, XULRunner, etc. Even virtualization solutions (VMWare, et al) are in that category - Not only is this about sandboxing and security, I think its about deployment, maintenance and "everywhere" access.

An unanswered question is what form that will take: RISC-like (content-driven: browsers, markup, scripting, et. al.) or CISC-like (application-driven: VMWare, J2ME, dot NET), to use an old analogy. Likely, it'll be somewhere in the middle, but I expect the bias will be toward a content model (as opposed to an application one) - which will blur the line about what concepts like "installation" mean anymore (which in turn I think will upend some DRM models).
--
graphicallyspeaking

I think we will (are) seeing a move to more "content runtime" systems like the Browser, Flash, Avalon/XAML, XULRunner, etc. Even virtualization solutions (VMWare, et al) are in that category - Not only is this about sandboxing and security, I think its about deployment, maintenance and "everywhere" access.

An unanswered question is what form that will take: RISC-like (content-driven: browsers, markup, scripting, et. al.) or CISC-like (application-driven: VMWare, J2ME, dot NET), to use an old analogy. Likely, it'll be somewhere in the middle, but I expect the bias will be toward a content model (as opposed to an application one) - which will blur the line about what concepts like "installation" mean anymore (which in turn I think will upend some DRM models).
--
graphicallyspeaking

Its not clear that creating new destinations is the right way to enable new behaviours like collaboration. There is a large momentum behind core online activities (e-mail, browse, IM, etc.) that might be better served by redirection, especially when the new behaviours are incrementally accretive to previous ones.

It was interesting to see Apple expand a new behaviour (with iTunes and music purchase) into media playback generally.
--
graphicallyspeaking

oops. Didn't realize the # of posts (was, ironically, having some browser issues :))

I got a bit carried away trying to get people to click-thru to an April Fool's bit (that's be the B3! bit, so thanks for mentioning it! :P).

The rest of the post, and point, is legit though :)
--
graphicallyspeaking

oops. Didn't realize the # of posts (was, ironically, having some browser issues :))

I got a bit carried away trying to get people to click-thru to an April Fool's bit (that's be the B3! bit, so thanks for mentioning it! :P).

The rest of the post, and point, is legit though :)
--
graphicallyspeaking

Best way to learn about something is try and break it :)

Fortunately (for them), they weren't attempting to crack B3, AOL's new portable browsing technology. They'd have been out'o'luck.
--
graphicallyspeaking

Best way to learn about something is try and break it :)

Fortunately (for them), they weren't attempting to crack B3, AOL's new portable browsing technology. They'd have been out'o'luck.
--
graphicallyspeaking

We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.

HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.

Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking

We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.

HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.

Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking

We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.

HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.

Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking

We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.

HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.

Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking

We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.

HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.

Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking

We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.

HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.

Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking

Funny... I don't think they're even trying to target people.
--
graphicallyspeaking

Funny... I don't think they're even trying to target people.
--
graphicallyspeaking

VOIP + WiMax (or some such) will up end destroying core Cel and Hardline businesses, unless they are successful in tiering Internet access (i.e. charging or prioritzing certain content-providers/websites) - which would be a BAD thing.

Barring that, it'll become about triple or quadruple pay (voice, IP, cable, etc.) bundles of access, as it has in Europe.

I think the latter scenario is good for consumers, the former, well not so much.

What's not clear to me is how, even with open web services (ala Web 2.0 hype) how any company but the big players profit. Unless, I guess, "getting bought" maybe counts?
--
graphicallyspeaking

VOIP + WiMax (or some such) will up end destroying core Cel and Hardline businesses, unless they are successful in tiering Internet access (i.e. charging or prioritzing certain content-providers/websites) - which would be a BAD thing.

Barring that, it'll become about triple or quadruple pay (voice, IP, cable, etc.) bundles of access, as it has in Europe.

I think the latter scenario is good for consumers, the former, well not so much.

What's not clear to me is how, even with open web services (ala Web 2.0 hype) how any company but the big players profit. Unless, I guess, "getting bought" maybe counts?
--
graphicallyspeaking

Hm - that's an interesting point: is the argument that on a level playing field, time to market matters, but backwards compat tips the scales? not sure I agree
--
graphicallyspeaking

Hunh - off topic, but makes me wonder. If Linux kernel doesn't adopt GPL 3, will any of the major vendors? *Can* they?

I think ideology and capitalism are about to meet again - mainly because of the server loopholes
--
graphicallyspeaking

Hunh - off topic, but makes me wonder. If Linux kernel doesn't adopt GPL 3, will any of the major vendors? *Can* they?

I think ideology and capitalism are about to meet again - mainly because of the server loopholes
--
graphicallyspeaking

Yep, that's what Nintendo thought. And Sega. And S- well, we'll see...
--
graphically speaking

Two sides to this: (1) conformance for developers (makes our lives easier) (2) compatibility for consumers (they don't care about making our lives easier)
--
graphicallyspeaking

From the article:

"In the last six months of 2005, Microsoft confirmed 12 vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, down slightly from the 14 in the first half of last year. Firefox, however, sported 13 vendor-confirmed flaws, one more than IE, but also down from the 27 in the previous period."

Even in the revised count it was 17 Firefox, 24 Internet Explorer...
And that doesn't account for the vulnerabilities within embedded tech like Java, Flash, Quictime, Windows Media, et al... that'll affect EVERY (modern) browser.

NONE of this is particularly great if you're a consumer. If you're Symantec of another Security vendor though - weel, life is OK. :P

From my blog

"Fundamentally, the newly announced (and extended) Open AIM SDK will enable developers to enhance the AIM network's reach and functionality.

What can you do with it: - Extend AIM Triton at a low level - Embed AIM functionality in your own applications - Create your own version of the AIM client - Embed presence functionality and communications touchpoints in web applications

To be clear: there are some restrictions and limitations on the ways in which you can leverage the AIM services we've made available, as we feel our way through the operational and business implications. But this should open up a broad set of possible applications on top of the AIM network and namespace immediately.

In particular, Open AIM does NOT provide IM network interop with other Instant Messaging networks, at this time."

I've always thought it VERY odd to think about "Open Source" as a thing.

It'd be like saying: We studied the quality of software compiled with the Watcom 10.0 C++ compiler. "Open source" cuts across so many levels of skill and projects. You can pretty find projects that support (or destroy) whatever thesis you'd like to put forward

Even more, somebody pays for the development of the software, one way or another.

This artlice (from ONLamp) http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/07/21/soft ware_pricing.html really puts into better perspective. Basically, it says ALL software can be deconstructed to being about the service (at least so long as the technology curve continues, in practice, to limit its lifespan).

--
graphicallyspeaking