Slashdot Mirror


IE9 Throws Down the Hardware Acceleration Gauntlet

An anonymous reader writes "Over on Microsoft's IE blog they have an interesting comparison of browsers with regard to hardware accelerated page rendering. They write, 'One of our objectives with Internet Explorer 9 is taking full advantage of modern PC hardware to make the browser faster. We're excited about hardware acceleration because it fundamentally improves the performance of websites. The websites that you use every day become faster and more responsive, and developers can create new classes of web applications through standards based markup that were previously not possible. In this post, we take a closer look at how hardware acceleration improves the performance of the Flying Images sample on the IE9 test drive site. When you run Flying Images across different browsers you'll see that Internet Explorer 9 can handle hundreds of images at full speed while other browsers, including Internet Explorer 8, quickly come to a crawl.' Absent from the comparison is a nightly build of Firefox with Mozilla's forthcoming Direct2D acceleration enabled."

76 of 601 comments (clear)

  1. Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by V!NCENT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Instead of reducing the amount of computation we do in IE to make it faster, let's just look for more processing power instead!

    --
    Here be signatures
    1. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not only that, but it's also proprietary, aka directX. So they're paving the way for, well, nothing.

    2. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instead of reducing the amount of computation we do in IE to make it faster, let's just look for more processing power instead!

      Did you look at the CPU graphs at the end of the article? If you look at the graphs for IE8 and IE9, it shows the CPU usage has been greatly reduced by offloading the tasks to the GPU. It went from 50% CPU usage to an average of 12%.

      This is just a better use of the processing power available in the modern computer.

    3. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by jim_v2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >reducing the amount of computation we do in IE

      Apparently that's not working so hot for the other browsers in this case: "When you run Flying Images across different browsers you'll see that Internet Explorer 9 can handle hundreds of images at full speed while other browsers, including Internet Explorer 8, quickly come to a crawl."

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    4. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is of course if Mozilla does the same thing too.
      But really who cares... What people want is a fast browser. IE is now one of the older browsers out there, it has a lot of stuff that cannot be removed, a lot of backwards compatibility that other browsers just don't care about. IE is still used heavily in a lot on intranet based applications and you just can't really do a full clean house. But if IE 9 takes a lot of the overhead and has the hardware do some more of the work and things work faster it is just better for all of us... Still any web application needs to be tested to make sure it works with IE, and this will be the case for a long time. If IE runs too slow it stops us developers from putting new features and options that may take the load off the server, just because IE runs too slow. I remember back in the IE6 I had a search screen that I needed to redo because in Firefox the page loaded in 0.5 seconds (1 second on the iPhone Safari) and IE loaded it in 5 minutes... Taking way too long to process.

      So if IE can render faster all the better that means I can balance the work the server and client does, more efficiently.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by VolciMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IE is still used heavily in a lot on intranet based applications and you just can't really do a full clean house.

      And it's exactly those "intranet based applications" that won't see much (if any) of a boost from offloading rendering from the CPU to the GPU - when's the last time you saw a corporate desktop with anything other than an entry-level, integrated graphics chip?

    6. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why in gods name should a web browser be using 50% of your CPU in the first place?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by not+already+in+use · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should totally support the new hardware rendering in Firefox for this reason. Because... oh shit, they use DirectX too.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    8. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by noidentity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you run Flying Images across different browsers you'll see that Internet Explorer 9 can handle hundreds of images at full speed while other browsers, including Internet Explorer 8, quickly come to a crawl.

      Finally, someone is doing this right. I don't know how many times I've wished for hundreds of flying images obscuring the web page content. I was getting bored of just one or two constantly distracting me every time I scrolled or did anything, since they didn't always make me leave the page in disgust. But hundreds, shit yeah. I feel like the time I got one of those five-blade razors. This is one big step to the day they finally bring the Web up to television standards, so that I can confidently avoid it just like I've avoided TV for the last decade. Here's to progress.

    9. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by theaveng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      let's just look for more processing power instead!

      To be fair:

      - Microsoft did take time to optimize Windows Vista 6.1 (win7) so it can run on as little as 256 megabytes, where it previously needed 1024. It sounds like MS is making similar optimizations for Internet Explorer so it runs better and faster.

      - MS is not the only one with bloat. OS X used to run on only 128 (per system requirements) and now it requires 1 gigabyte. Ubuntu Linux used to run on my 96 MB laptop, and now the latest 2009.10 version won't boot at all. Even on my 512MB desktop it runs but sluggishly. - Point: All OSes tend towards requiring more-and-more RAM or megahertz. It's not just microsoft OSes.

      Aside -

      On the other hand there are OSes like KolibriOS which fit on a floppy and a mere 16 MB. Or Amiga OS at only 128MB and 400 megahertz. Of course neither of these are well supported.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    10. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if it will work with OpenGL on other platforms...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't have hyperthreading, this page can go to 100%.

    12. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by Skye16 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because of the complexity of pages now. If you want to stay with no-image, no-javascript, no-flash html, there are fantastic browsers out there that will support your every need. But if you want to do crazy things with your browser like: Ball Pool, then it's going to make that poor browser nom your clock cycles like a morbidly obese person at a buffet.

    13. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I certainly can't speak for the Firefox devs, but I know if I was going to do some accelerated drawing on Windows I wouldn't target OpenGL either right now. I understand the reasons why it is better to have a standard like OpenGL and use it - and in a perfect world I would choose it over DirectX. However, the situation today is that OpenGL drivers on Windows don't really work well. This is mostly a "catch-22" - not many people use them so the ATIs and nVidias of the world put very little work and effort into them. As a central desktop design person at a company with 90,000 machines I can tell you that when we do get apps in that use OpenGL we often have to open bugs with ATI or nVidia to try to get a driver that actually works. when we get a DirectX app, it just works. Again - not by choice, but that is the reality today on Windows. If I was part of the Firefox team I'd be targeting DirectX too because I wouldn't want to handle all the support issues of doing it with OpenGL. Again, not OpenGL's fault - it is clearly a failing of the video card manufacturers level of interest / support combined with Microsoft trying to kill off OpenGL (yes, they backed off from it, but folks still remember how they were going to disable it in Vista).

    14. Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! by theaveng · · Score: 3, Informative

      all versions of vista, including windows 7, will never be usable on 256MB.

      Oh really?

      - Win7 on 256 MB - http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=windows+7+on+256+MB
      - Win7 on 128 MB - http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=windows+7+on+128MB

      I agree it runs like crap on 128, about like using XP on 128MB, but WIN7 works fine on 256. Half the memory is used for the OS, and the other half is available for apps.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  2. I feel sad. by gzipped_tar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I feel sad about it when hardware acceleration is needed for rendering, what, websites.

    We live in interesting times indeed. I want my Web back.

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:I feel sad. by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No doubt... Lets not clean up those overly complex websites. Lets not clean up the MASSIVE adds with popup movies embedded. Lets toss more hardware at it...

    2. Re:I feel sad. by Pojut · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't see how anyone with a dial-up connection could do even casual browsing anymore...most websites nowadays push the 750k-1MB size, if not even bigger. (my own website linked in my sig is even guilty of this, despite my best efforts to keep things minimalistic)

    3. Re:I feel sad. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You want your web back? Here you go, enjoy.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:I feel sad. by sznupi · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can still encounter such speeds often, when using mobile access (3G not everywhere, overloaded network, EDGE not attaining it's max speed too, and so on)

      Yeah, it's a bit frustrating...though, luckily, there are ways to make it much more smooth; such as Opera Turbo with disabled plugins.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:I feel sad. by jridley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Start with Slashdot. Of all the sites I visit (not all that many really, only about 30 or 40) Slashdot is the one that makes me wish I had a faster CPU. Clicking into an article with lots of contents on Slashdot will sometimes lock my browser entirely for many seconds, sometimes up to 30 seconds or so.

      I'd be a lot happier with the old pre-AJAX version.

    6. Re:I feel sad. by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Start with Slashdot. Of all the sites I visit (not all that many really, only about 30 or 40) Slashdot is the one that makes me wish I had a faster CPU. Clicking into an article with lots of contents on Slashdot will sometimes lock my browser entirely for many seconds, sometimes up to 30 seconds or so.

      I'd be a lot happier with the old pre-AJAX version.

      Fully quoted so I can agree strongly. Only a few add laden websites choke my system more than slashdot!

    7. Re:I feel sad. by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Informative

      As someone with experience, a few years ago.

      I would say excessive use of ad-blocker, blocking all unnecessary pictures/multimedia, really helps.
      When a page is reduced to just its text, it might not look as good but it sure loads faster.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:I feel sad. by maxume · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are preferences to turn on the old version.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:I feel sad. by theaveng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I concur with your opinion that websites need to be made smaller for those with slow connections (dialup, cellphone) or slow computers. HOWEVER I got into an interesting debate with a libertarian who said all websites should include flash or otherwise be video-oriented.

      I commented that's not fair to, for example, my friend's father who is stuck with dialup with no other options, and flash/videos should not autoload until the user gives permission (i.e. click "play"). The libertarian commented, "Let him buy satellite then. Yeah it's expensive, but why should *I* have to have a boring web experience due to his cheapness?" - Next I said flash-heavy websites like virginmobileusa.com could simply offer low-bandwidth, non-flash versions for those with dailup. He commented, "If people can't get to Virgin's website, too bad. Dialup users probably can't afford a cellphone anyway."

      Needless to say I was flabbergasted. Slashdot offers a low bandwidth version. What's so damn troublesome about offering the same on other sites? Mr. Libertarian would not be denied his video jollies, while my friend's father could choose the non-video versions for his slow 50k connection. His whole attitude seemed cold and uncaring.

      Anyway not everyone agrees with our opinion that websites should be optimized.
      Some think the web needs to be bigger with high-def gigabyte videos or flash.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    10. Re:I feel sad. by not+already+in+use · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I feel sad about it when hardware acceleration is needed for rendering, what, websites.

      Boo hoo. Have you seen what's capable with HTML5, Javscript and canvas? It's downright stupid to have certain things done using a general purpose processor when a GPU is sitting there unused. Why do I get the impression that a subset of slashdot users wished things would remain unchanged from 1998, back when hate for Microsoft was warranted and their ability to hand code crappy html was relevant??

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    11. Re:I feel sad. by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Verily I hear you, English! You won't believe what a arduous chore it is to travel into town since they've removed the hitching posts and watering troughs. Bessie might wander off, along with my carriage, in search of water were I step into the general mercantile to buy a bolt of gingham for the Mrs.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  3. What'll you bet... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll bet that Chrome and Firefox will have this in production before IE9 is released.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    1. Re:What'll you bet... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      But why? So I can support more flash adds on a page? Please, no...

    2. Re:What'll you bet... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Funny

      Chrome is bitchin' fast. I know people complain about it being Google's evil eye of Sauron watching everything you do, but I don't care. It's bitchin' fast.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  4. I don't want flying images in my browser by RichMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about those of us who don't want to see flying-rotating-3d-semitransparent-glowing-shaded adverts flying across our web pages.

    I want fast clean loads of information. Not bloated pages full of shiny dodads designed to divert my attention from the information I am looking for.

    1. Re:I don't want flying images in my browser by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Funny

      What about those of us who don't want to see flying-rotating-3d-semitransparent-glowing-shaded adverts flying across our web pages.

      Just use Lynx.

    2. Re:I don't want flying images in my browser by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the decade of ignoring the majority and jamming what a few people want down the throats of the rest.

      Since when did Slashdotters become the majority of internet users?

    3. Re:I don't want flying images in my browser by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      He also forgot to tell us to get off his lawn. Or was that implied?

    4. Re:I don't want flying images in my browser by sweatyboatman · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the entire human history of ignoring the loud and obnoxious rabble and jamming what needs to be done down the throats of the scared, huddled masses

      fixed that for you. only half meant as a joke.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    5. Re:I don't want flying images in my browser by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then don't visit those sites. Why is this hard for you?

      More importantly, why are so many Slashdotters Luddites? It's just weird-- this is a tech site, why are you even reading it if you hate advances in technology so much?

  5. Why bother ... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've never understood this 'my browser is faster than your browser' attention. Most people use their browser over the Internet, with download speeds that make any computer wait. There is a ton of time processing 3 or 4 threads simultaneously to still draw page components. I see pages show up in a couple of seconds, it takes far more than that to read them.

    So a few web sites want to use some fancy graphics. I only see their fancy graphics ... once. When I first visit. Then they are discarded every time as I concentrate on the content of the web site.

    Just make the browser work...it's fast enough already.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:Why bother ... by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Informative

      YOu just need a little bit of imagination.

      -Playing Quake ET written in javascript in a browser at playable framerates.
      -Those VR implementation (think google streetview 360) are finally working without plugins.
      -Online games.
      -Everything in a browser. (silly but it happens).

      Forget those 1.0 websites with a little bit op powerpoint animation.

      And best of all: you need a good graphics card to do your work. wink wink.

    2. Re:Why bother ... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never understood this 'my browser is faster than your browser' attention. Most people use their browser over the Internet, with download speeds that make any computer wait.

      So you've completely missed the advent of Web applications? Little Web based games, chat, e-mail, social networking, word processing, image editing, and hundreds of other incredibly popular Web technologies are currently limited by the rendering speed as often as by bandwidth. People will wait for a Web app to load, but that doesn't mean they're okay with waiting for it to respond when they do something in it.

      If you just use your computer to edit text, then the same could probably be said about OS's and computer hardware. Why bother improving their graphics capabilities? Of course to do so you have to willfully ignore how they are used by normal people today and the direction they have been developing. They don't develop things just for you.

    3. Re:Why bother ... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot a functional x86 emulator written in javascript so you can run Linux in Firefox in Linux in Firefox in Linux...

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    4. Re:Why bother ... by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot is filled with Tech luddites. Kinda odd.

  6. Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm often left sitting there for microseconds while the page is rendered in software. I'm sure having hardware accelerated rendering of web pages would change my life immeasurably.

    BTW Microsoft, if hardware acceleration is so important why is the GDI not hardware accelerated in Vista and only partially accelerated in Windows 7 (about nine functions) even though it was fully accelerated in XP? Can we get some consistency here?

    1. Re:Thank God! by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 3, Informative

      "BTW Microsoft, if hardware acceleration is so important why is the GDI not hardware accelerated in Vista and only partially accelerated in Windows 7 (about nine functions) even though it was fully accelerated in XP? Can we get some consistency here?" How about no? ...and for good reason. GDI is supposed to use CPU, not GPU...for systems that do not have the GPU horsepower to accelerate *everything*. WPF/Aero is GPU, not CPU...for systems with the GPU horsepower to spare. Frankly, I'm amazed they accelerated *any* of GDI. I was under the hopeful illusion they were depreciating GDI entirely...

  7. Shouldn't the OS handle this? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really shouldn't the Operating System be using hardware rendering for graphics calls?
    Yes I know that they are probably using D2D or DirectX to handle this but don't the hardware graphics calls in Windows use hardware acceleration already?
    I hope that Xwindows does I know that OpenGL does but over all an application shouldn't have to care about "hardware" at all! That is why we have Operating Systems.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Shouldn't the OS handle this? by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the problem is that most applications use older APIs that aren't compatible with a hardware-accelerated rendering pipeline. They don't double buffer, they update parts of the screen at random, and they may even use controls that plot individual pixels. Those things are nearly impossible to accelerate.

      WPF applications (and GDI+?) applications get acceleration provided by the OS. I suspect that IE uses good old Windows GDI, which has some bottlenecks on Vista and Windows 7 since it has to go through an extra layer now that the OS isn't using GDI under the hood.

  8. Re:Who understands "throws down Gauntlet"? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why do people keep using idioms which don't mean anything in the modern language any more?

    By definition, no idiom's meaning is apparent in modern language. Unless you don't know what a gauntlet is, this idiom is no different than any other. They are used because they are colorful and make our language more interesting.

  9. Re:Who understands "throws down Gauntlet"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why do people keep using idioms which don't mean anything in the modern language any more?

    On naive reading it would sound like IE9 is giving up.

    Right, they're quitting because that stupid Elf keeps shooting all the food.

  10. Re:The slowest part of my browser... by ShadyG · · Score: 3, Funny

    You could upgrade your connection. That's hardware acceleration right there.

  11. Re:throw hardware at the problem by js3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The hardware is already there, what's the point of NOT using it? If I have a gtx285 or something ridicilous and it's sitting there not being used that is WASTED. It's Win/Win for everyone.

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  12. Re:Who understands "throws down Gauntlet"? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idioms do mean things in modern language, that's why they're used. What you're trying to say is that the actual practice from which the idiom is derived is no longer in use outside of Ren Fairs. That doesn't matter, because meaning is independent of literal reading, which is the whole foundation of idioms in the first place. An idiom is literally some word or phrase that cannot be understood by literal translation. The end. So basically you're asking why do we use idioms at all, as though you want a bland, flavorless, mechanistic language with no depth, no humor, no layers, etc. etc.

    In short, you're a dolt.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  13. Re:Standards? by dingen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, they're using completely standard HTML, CSS and Javascript for this demo. The only difference is that the scripting they've created consumes a lot of CPU cycles, which makes the animation it produces choppy. In IE9 they've added hardware accelleration, which makes it less apparent you're running a really hefty Javascript, because both your CPU and GPU kick in to do the processing.

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  14. Re:throw hardware at the problem by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "throw hardware at it" does make sense for business applications. However, that model fails at system hardware and mass production. If you manage to make a mainstream OS 1% faster, with the use of 1 coder working one year, 10 Million PC will get 1% faster. If you produce 100.000 washing machines, you cannot afford to put a 10 dollar CPU in each of them , you will have to optimize to run the OS on a 1 $ CPU.

  15. flying images on mac by sandhitsu · · Score: 2, Informative

    On my macbook pro, Safaris is the winner! 60 fps consistently. Firefox reached 45 fps. Sadly, Chrome is is my default browser now could only go upto 6 fps!
    Who cares about IE9 anyway ?

    1. Re:flying images on mac by dingen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, seriously? I just ran the demo on my iMac and couldn't get above 10 fps.

      Maybe you're running Snow Leopard? I'm still on 10.5, which has no OpenCL on board. Could it be that the latest versions of Safari and Firefox use OpenCL to accelerate these sort of things already?

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  16. It's About Freedom. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about those of us who don't want to see flying-rotating-3d-semitransparent-glowing-shaded adverts flying across our web pages. I want fast clean loads of information. Not bloated pages full of shiny dodads designed to divert my attention from the information I am looking for.

    The Interwebs are about freedom, and you are free not to view any site you feel is offensive in some way. Interweb freedom is about the freedom to choose. IE9 chooses certain voluntary standards, and not other voluntary standards, and even creates some of its own voluntary standards. All of which you are free not to use because of the freedom to choose a different browser. It's about freedom. Freedom to choose, not freedom to be restricted to RMS' view of how the Interweb should be.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  17. They should fix their rendering code first by unity100 · · Score: 3, Funny

    for their shitty ie8 treats tag as a block level element. which means, you cant format or distribute long, populated forms properly with the use of divs, tables or any other form of structured output tag. adding "display : inline;" to a separate style declaration into the form tag doesnt fix it either. so, if you have any nested structure coexisting with the form, the tag acts like a or a

    in regard to that structure in ie8. no other browser has this issue, not even ie6 has this issue.

    this is a current hell, that i am in precisely at this second in time, and i have to fix their incompetence for my client.

    so my advice to them is ; fix your browser before doing any 'acceleration'.

  18. why flamebait by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i would like to call the idiot who modded the above flamebait to come and fix the tag block level interpretation issue in ie8. their rendering engine is screwing up, and since it is proprietary, it cant be fixed by community. so we have to wait microsoft to get its ass up and fix their incompetence themselves in some far away point in future.

    adding a proprietary directx to the mix will just increase these kind of hellholes, due to adding another dimension to watch out for. and since its proprietary, someone somewhere wont be able to produce a fix and publish it to relieve everyone.

    so, the fool that modded the above flamebait, please, come and fix this rendering failure today.

    1. Re:why flamebait by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you must be crazy or something. You really think people need to be re-explained why relying on proprietary software is bad, especially when it comes to DirectX? I thought it was a given that people were smart enough to understand that proprietary = bad.

      Why don't you take a look at how many other platforms support DirectX?

      See, now I have to provide reasoning for things that are blatantly obvious, just because of your asinine comment.

    2. Re:why flamebait by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to make a case for why proprietary could be bad.

      You do need to make a case for why in a given case you think "better than the competition, but proprietary" is inferior to "inferior, but free", since it's blatantly obvious that it isn't true in all cases.

    3. Re:why flamebait by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Informative

      well that's a lot of interpretation off of a phrase that I never said.

      Hardware acceleration is also not new to browsers at all. I welcome competition, but changing things from cpu reliance on acceleration to graphics card is really just trying to make things sound interesting, and it's barely even a niche.

      a: it only works in windows, due to the proprietary nature.
      b: it only works on computers with actual graphics cards and not embedded hardware.
      c: it only works in IE9, and specifically with SVG, if I recall correctly.

      Combine all that and you have a small amount of even the windows market that would take advantage of this. Make this real world scenarios and you have another even smaller amount of people who would ever see a use.

      Meanwhile, how is this significantly different than any of IE's competition in the browser market? I fail to see how you think this equates to actual performance changes or anything. Methinks if you read the article carefully you'll see how there actually isn't a performance increase resultant from what they're doing.

      All they did is said "firefox gets 64FPS, and we get 60, but you have to divide their scores by 4". So they claim firefox gets 16.4 FPS, while stating that IE gets 60FPS. Nice spin, isn't it.

    4. Re:why flamebait by not+already+in+use · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You didn't provide any reasoning at all. All you said is proprietary = bad.

      Your reasoning is based on one quasi-statistic "Look at how many other platforms support DirectX."

      How about a more relevant statistic: Look at the installed base of directX compared to other technologies on other platforms. Also, consider driver stability and hardware support from vendors.

      You lose.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    5. Re:why flamebait by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Honestly, I'm not nearly as concerned about proprietary solutions, as long as they work, and/or there are open-source alternatives that do near as well or better. Opera seems to be doing a pretty good job at implementing HTML5, CSS3 and ES5 as it stands, and they aren't open-source either. I'm pretty happy that it appears MS is moving away from it's COM based rendering and scripting environment that are separated from each-other as much as they were (which affected garbage collection on event attached items). I've come across a couple of bugs in IE8, one that's particularly annoying (extend array and/or object or function, then pass a helper method to JSON.parse and watch an exception you can't f-ing catch blow up on you, at least the rendering is much more consistent with other browsers.

      It's still far better than the browsers in the 1997-2002 timeframe, I got so sick of DHTML hackery between NN and IE that I pretty much avoided any client-side coding from 2001 to early 2003. I'm eagerly awaiting the day that IE6 finally dies at the company I'm working at. Our apps are being tested for IE8 compatability (as well as FF3.6), so that maybe in the next year, they can mass-migrate everyone and pull the plug on IE6 (finally). Too many internal sites/apps out there are/were targeting the broken rendering in IE6.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    6. Re:why flamebait by plague3106 · · Score: 2

      Yes, other platforms that don't use DirectX won't render as quickly as MS + IE. Its called "competition." Its not abusing the standards to get a leg up, its simply MS' products working together to provide a better experience. FF could bundle OpenGL if they wanted to do something similar on all platforms, or use DirectX on Windows to only compete with IE on Windows.

      But there's nothing evil about this. And the fact that some piece of software is OSS is irrelevent to 99% of users. Sorry, but just because you think ANYBODY can fix a bug doesn't make it so. Why do you think FF includes an updater program? Oh ya, because most FF users are still relying on a third party to fix rendering (and other) issues!

    7. Re:why flamebait by lowlymarine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Starfleet's new proprietary warp 3 drives far outshine the open-source models. The teracochrane output isn't even comparable! You're barely going to get warp 2, 2.1 at best out of those F/OSS things.

  19. Re:Who understands "throws down Gauntlet"? by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 5, Funny

    I goodthink his assertion. Goodspeak clear. Unreal wordpics doubleunclear. Unreal wordpics make badthought. Unmodern peoplegroups had unhealth from doubleplusungoodthinking wordpics.

    --

    This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Unfair comparison with other browsers by Flammon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft is at it again. Comparing their alpha software to released software all the while forgetting to mention that the competitors are implementing the kind of thing. Hey Microsoft, you're not the innovation leaders here so stop pretending that you are. http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2009/11/22/direct2d-hardware-rendering-a-browser

  22. Firefox 3.6 on linux works like a dream with demo by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Their flying images demo just kept on rolling when I tried it with firefox 3.6 on my slackware linux box. I jacked the number of images up as high as it would go and it was still doing something like 50fps. So looks like firefox got their first.

  23. Um, no. by jwietelmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    your posts equates proprietary software with 'better than the competition', and free software with 'inferior'.

    I'm pretty sure he was equating "hardware-accelerated" with "better than the competition" and "purely software-rendered" with "inferior."

    Disclaimer before I get flamed for being a Microsoft shill: Hardware acceleration still isn't enough for me to switch from Firefox to IE. YMMV.

  24. Re:Who understands "throws down Gauntlet"? by archangel9 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This discussion of idioms is just badong.

  25. Re:bullcrap by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    microsoft will give you binary compatibility for a decade ?

    you mean they 'gave' you backwards compatibility. not any more. and probably they wont give it out any more either.

    moreover, if your issue is more or less a common one, (and sometimes even if its an uncommon one) someone in an open source community will issue a mod/patch for it to make it backwards compatible.

  26. Re:bullcrap by KingMotley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would say you are very very young, and blinded by your faith in open source. 90% of the arguments you gave are true of open source as well.

    because it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 5 ever-changing group of developers from the internet that can change its priorities at any given point :

    - noone fixes any issues with the framework but 1-2 of the core group

    - priorities of the core group matter. if the core group thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until you sit down and fix it yourself. The make sure you roll those changes into every new patched version as it's released.

    - the core group decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how the php group no longer supports the 3.x branch with new features anymore, or the PEAR group has under gone so many incompatible releases, and then stopped.

    As someone who is currently working for the largest advertising/marketing company in North America, I can say your guess is incorrect about who uses what for extreme end 3d animation.

    - noone but the core group knows why half the code is doing what it is doing. For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk. it is stupid to use them in sensitive places.

    if, as someone in i.t., you are not aware of these issues, you are either really, really young and new in this business, or you really really should get out of I.t. sector.

  27. I can't believe all the negative posts... by xavierpayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the owner of a quad core with an Nvidia 8800 I am constantly underwhelmed by applications (3D, Video Editing, power point... basically everything that's not a game) performing absolutely mediocre because they don't take advantage of even basic acceleration capabilities of my sound and graphics hardware. What the hell is the point of having built in mpeg or dolby 5.1 enc/dec if nothing uses it? I might as well still be using my SB16. My video card is supposed to be able to decompress avc natively but my NLE stupidly throws it at the cpu making my 512mb 8800 no more effective than a 16mb Voodoo Banshee. I don't care if it's office, my web browser, or Adobe Premiere. I bought a bangin GPU because I wanted my apps to use it. Microsoft can't clean up the millions of crappy web pages out there by releasing a new browser. They can however make those millions of crappy web pages hog less of the CPU.

  28. Re:bullcrap by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Binary compatibility isn’t the problem on Windows. It’s usually undocumented API use, reliance on API bugs and security model changes that cause applications to not work.

    Even Office XP which ran on Windows 98 runs under Windows 7.

  29. Given that they control the OS and API by Trelane · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd expect them to always have a way to "win" these contests.

    --

    --
    Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  30. Re:Firefox 3.6 on linux works like a dream with de by Solandri · · Score: 2, Informative

    The point of their test isn't achieving high FPS. It's achieving high FPS with low CPU utilization. My crummy laptop gets about 40 FPS with Firefox 3.6.3, but the CPU meter is pegged at 50% (one core fully utilized).