Slashdot Mirror


Freeciv As Benchmark of HTML5 Canvas Javascript Performance

Andreas(R) writes "The Freeciv.net crew has benchmarked their web client, which is a rich web application using the HTML5 canvas element. This shows how fast Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer perform using the latest HTML5 web standards."

5 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Re:That's hardly a benchmark by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  2. Re:Drop IE8 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

  3. Re:Opera? by BigDXLT · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Re:Not fast by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  5. Coherence? by renoX · · Score: 3, Insightful

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