I posted this already just below this but here it is again: http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2010/11/17/dead-code-elimination-for-beginners/ I admit that I do not know whether IE9 fixed all the flaws in their dead code elimination but it used to be incredibly flawed and dead code elimination only works for poorly written code that you would typically only find in badly written benchmarks anyways. However, the real problem is the test itself and so Sunspider should be updated so that IE9 actually does the math that Sunspider is trying to test the performance of.
I said to ignore Peacekeeper because my original post was about JAVASCRIPT and HARDWARE ACCELERATION but Peacekeeper tries to test overall browser performance. I can't find any links for you but the major problem with Peacekeeper's Javascript benchmarks is that they call getTime() from within loops instead of outside of the loop which makes the tests mostly about how fast they can call getTime() instead of running the actual code that they're trying to test.
For Javascript performance you can see the SS/V8/Kraken results from this comparison but note that IE9 cheats on Sunspider with faulty dead code removal that is removing code that needs to be executed and ignore Peacekeeper because it's flawed in many ways and also tests more than Javascript...
You must not have even tried Firefox 4 RC. Firefox will soon be on par with IE9's hardware acceleration for vista/win7 while also supporting HW acceleration on other platforms including XP which Microsoft won't do, and Firefox 4 has the second fastest javascript engine next to Chrome's.
What they're saying is that the benchmark is badly designed and is testing the javascript minimum timeout more than anything else. Properly designed hardware acceleration tests try to render more and more stuff until the framerate goes below 60 instead of rendering hardly anything and seeing how high the framerate goes.
Yep, FyRE666's "benchmark" is another bad benchmark that depends on the javascript timeout value. I get 95fps on the current nightly with mintimeout=10 (current default that will be changed soon) but 190fps if I set dom.min_timeout_value=4 (IE9's timeout value and what the HTML5 draft spec now requires).
There's actually been multiple blog posts by Microsoft and one by Opera too about how other browsers don't have "full hardware acceleration" but Mozilla has been open, honest, and accurate when they describe what acceleration API's FF4 uses on each platform.
Technology that can be used to fly should not count for LAND-speed records. Strapping freaking jet engines and rockets onto a car and keeping it from lifting off just makes it a jet-rocket that never lifts off.
Firefox has many subtle little features that make it indispensable to me:
1 - It has a customizable UI so that I can make it look exactly how I want. Other browsers may have some slight customization but Firefox lets you rearrange everything easily. 2 - The 'Awesome Bar' (URL bar) really is awesome. Instead of listing the last visited or most visited sites, it lists the sites that are most often clicked on from within the bar. This is great to easily get to the sites that you have typed in frequently but don't want to bookmark. It also does keyword searches of your entire history when you type in it which makes finding sites you visited easily. 3 - It remembers form information even if you navigate to a new page. This is incredibly helpful on many forums. Often times forums and such will have a session timeout when you write a long post and in other browsers your entire post will be forgotten but with Firefox you can just hit the back button and it's all still there for you to resubmit. 4 - It allows you to resize textarea input fields. Often times sites hard code a small size for textarea input which can make writing a big post hard to see while you write it but in firefox you can just drag it to whatever size you want. 5 - Adblock Plus. Some other browsers have Adblock but it works best in Firefox and can even block ads within Flash so that I don't have to watch ads on video sites like ustream/livestream/etc. 6 - Extensions in general. Firefox has the most robust browser extensions and you can find extensions to do practically anything you can imagine. 7 - FF4 has a much faster javascript engine that uses two types of JIT compiling whereas other browsers are only doing one kind. They recently passed Chrome's V8 engine's Sunspider performance on their test machine at www.arewefastyet.com and have the potential to become the fastest for javascript by borrowing all the method JIT work competitors do while maintaining their lead with trace JIT. 8 - FF4 has the most robust hardware acceleration support. On Linux and OSX it uses OpenGL, on XP it uses D3D9, on Vista and Win7 it uses D3D9/10+Direct2D+DirectWrite. MS isn't even going to support XP for IE9 because they only wanted it to do D3D10+D2D+DW.
No, I wasn't seriously trying to compare the timings as denoted by the prefix; 'I can't compare machines etc'.
It was simply an observation that there has been work on the Opera engine subsequent to 10.60, and that your prior statement regarding performance improvements might have been erroneous.
I didn't make any statement about Opera's performance, check the usernames...
I can't compare machines etc, but at least on my copy of Opera 10.70 the execution time is: 15145.0ms A touch faster than Firefox Nightly no?
You say you can't compare, yet you still do! You give your Opera 10.70 result and then imply that it is faster than Firefox nightly somehow without ever giving any FF nightly result from your system.
Are you seriously trying to compare a single test on your system to a test run on completely different hardware? You can't say anything about Opera 10.70 vs FF nightly with your single result.
Install FF4 nightly and test it yourself... Why even mention a number if you're not going to compare it to anything. This doesn't have the latest Opera but it compares a wider variety of prerelease browsers.
Actually FF4 nightlies beat IE9 in many of the IE9 testdrive tests. FF4 has the same Direct2D, Direct Write, and DirectX 9 hardware acceleration that IE9 does but FF4's javascript engine is better which gives it better FPS in those tests. FF4's javascript engine is a lot faster and there's still lots of room for improvement. FF4 Beta 7 will have the new javascript engine but it's already been merged to the nightly trunk branch so you can try it now if you want. Firefox had hardware acceleration first (in nightlies) and it's on track to be the first to have it in a major release (FF4).
Actually Tomato does release kernel 2.6 based builds but only for the newer N spec models that need it. FYI the WRT54GL's CFE (boot loader) doesn't allocate enough space for kernel 2.6 and Broadcom's 2.6 compatible driver blob to load, you can read more about it on the DD-WRT forums.
We should all start writing nonsense and see how much of it we can get kdawson to approve. Those sites have pretty simple and straight forward layouts and the only problem I see is the 2nd one has too many colors with those buttons in the middle.
Nope. According the article, OpenDNS doesn't make a difference and DD-WRT v24 was one of the router firmwares that was successfully exploited.
They don't make it clear what exact build of DD-WRT they tested but it seems that it was v24 final which is 3 years old. v24 SP1 is likely also affected, but about 2 year ago in the early v24 pre-SP2 builds (ie. betas) DD-WRT started making you set a username/password when you first configure it which likely prevents this attack. We won't know for sure until the attack is actually explained rather than sensationalized with no real info.
DD-WRT releases beta builds at least once a month. Look on their forums for links, don't just look at the router database which they don't update often. Build 14815 was just released yesterday.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted this already just below this but here it is again: http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2010/11/17/dead-code-elimination-for-beginners/
I admit that I do not know whether IE9 fixed all the flaws in their dead code elimination but it used to be incredibly flawed and dead code elimination only works for poorly written code that you would typically only find in badly written benchmarks anyways. However, the real problem is the test itself and so Sunspider should be updated so that IE9 actually does the math that Sunspider is trying to test the performance of.
I said to ignore Peacekeeper because my original post was about JAVASCRIPT and HARDWARE ACCELERATION but Peacekeeper tries to test overall browser performance. I can't find any links for you but the major problem with Peacekeeper's Javascript benchmarks is that they call getTime() from within loops instead of outside of the loop which makes the tests mostly about how fast they can call getTime() instead of running the actual code that they're trying to test.
Since you can't be bothered to google:
http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2010/11/17/dead-code-elimination-for-beginners/
For Javascript performance you can see the SS/V8/Kraken results from this comparison but note that IE9 cheats on Sunspider with faulty dead code removal that is removing code that needs to be executed and ignore Peacekeeper because it's flawed in many ways and also tests more than Javascript...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/ie9-vs-chrome-10-vs-firefox-4-rc-vs-opera-1101-vs-safari-5-the-big-browser-benchmark/11890
For info about why FF4 RC is slower than IE9 in some hardware acceleration tests which they will be fixing soon (probably after FF4 release) see this:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2011/03/investigating_p.html
You must not have even tried Firefox 4 RC. Firefox will soon be on par with IE9's hardware acceleration for vista/win7 while also supporting HW acceleration on other platforms including XP which Microsoft won't do, and Firefox 4 has the second fastest javascript engine next to Chrome's.
What they're saying is that the benchmark is badly designed and is testing the javascript minimum timeout more than anything else. Properly designed hardware acceleration tests try to render more and more stuff until the framerate goes below 60 instead of rendering hardly anything and seeing how high the framerate goes.
Yep, FyRE666's "benchmark" is another bad benchmark that depends on the javascript timeout value. I get 95fps on the current nightly with mintimeout=10 (current default that will be changed soon) but 190fps if I set dom.min_timeout_value=4 (IE9's timeout value and what the HTML5 draft spec now requires).
There's actually been multiple blog posts by Microsoft and one by Opera too about how other browsers don't have "full hardware acceleration" but Mozilla has been open, honest, and accurate when they describe what acceleration API's FF4 uses on each platform.
Technology that can be used to fly should not count for LAND-speed records. Strapping freaking jet engines and rockets onto a car and keeping it from lifting off just makes it a jet-rocket that never lifts off.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/175227/Microsoft-Makes-Chrome-Play-H264-Video
You know there's a list of which versions have which features. There are some 4MB versions that have IPv6 support.
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/What_is_DD-WRT%3F#File_Versions
We're talking about Microsoft's plugins that enable h.264 in HTML5 video tags for other browsers. It has nothing to do with Flash.
It also causes Firefox to ask if you want to save tabs every time you close a window (like popups) which is incredibly annoying.
http://support.mozilla.com/ak/questions/669132
I agree, I like the shadows but there's way too much white!
Firefox has many subtle little features that make it indispensable to me:
1 - It has a customizable UI so that I can make it look exactly how I want. Other browsers may have some slight customization but Firefox lets you rearrange everything easily.
2 - The 'Awesome Bar' (URL bar) really is awesome. Instead of listing the last visited or most visited sites, it lists the sites that are most often clicked on from within the bar. This is great to easily get to the sites that you have typed in frequently but don't want to bookmark. It also does keyword searches of your entire history when you type in it which makes finding sites you visited easily.
3 - It remembers form information even if you navigate to a new page. This is incredibly helpful on many forums. Often times forums and such will have a session timeout when you write a long post and in other browsers your entire post will be forgotten but with Firefox you can just hit the back button and it's all still there for you to resubmit.
4 - It allows you to resize textarea input fields. Often times sites hard code a small size for textarea input which can make writing a big post hard to see while you write it but in firefox you can just drag it to whatever size you want.
5 - Adblock Plus. Some other browsers have Adblock but it works best in Firefox and can even block ads within Flash so that I don't have to watch ads on video sites like ustream/livestream/etc.
6 - Extensions in general. Firefox has the most robust browser extensions and you can find extensions to do practically anything you can imagine.
7 - FF4 has a much faster javascript engine that uses two types of JIT compiling whereas other browsers are only doing one kind. They recently passed Chrome's V8 engine's Sunspider performance on their test machine at www.arewefastyet.com and have the potential to become the fastest for javascript by borrowing all the method JIT work competitors do while maintaining their lead with trace JIT.
8 - FF4 has the most robust hardware acceleration support. On Linux and OSX it uses OpenGL, on XP it uses D3D9, on Vista and Win7 it uses D3D9/10+Direct2D+DirectWrite. MS isn't even going to support XP for IE9 because they only wanted it to do D3D10+D2D+DW.
It's bad enough that Adobe bloated Macromedia's products after the merger. MS would turn Dreamweaver into a 20GB version of FrontPage 97.
The micro and macro cancel each other out so the merged company will call themselves Softmediadobe.
No, I wasn't seriously trying to compare the timings as denoted by the prefix; 'I can't compare machines etc'.
It was simply an observation that there has been work on the Opera engine subsequent to 10.60, and that your prior statement regarding performance improvements might have been erroneous.
I didn't make any statement about Opera's performance, check the usernames...
I can't compare machines etc, but at least on my copy of Opera 10.70 the execution time is: 15145.0ms
A touch faster than Firefox Nightly no?
You say you can't compare, yet you still do! You give your Opera 10.70 result and then imply that it is faster than Firefox nightly somehow without ever giving any FF nightly result from your system.
Are you seriously trying to compare a single test on your system to a test run on completely different hardware? You can't say anything about Opera 10.70 vs FF nightly with your single result.
Install FF4 nightly and test it yourself... Why even mention a number if you're not going to compare it to anything. This doesn't have the latest Opera but it compares a wider variety of prerelease browsers.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=9891857#p9891857
You tested a single browser on faster hardware and magically you got a much better result... Here's a wider variety of browsers tested.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=9891857#p9891857
Actually FF4 nightlies beat IE9 in many of the IE9 testdrive tests. FF4 has the same Direct2D, Direct Write, and DirectX 9 hardware acceleration that IE9 does but FF4's javascript engine is better which gives it better FPS in those tests. FF4's javascript engine is a lot faster and there's still lots of room for improvement. FF4 Beta 7 will have the new javascript engine but it's already been merged to the nightly trunk branch so you can try it now if you want. Firefox had hardware acceleration first (in nightlies) and it's on track to be the first to have it in a major release (FF4).
Actually Tomato does release kernel 2.6 based builds but only for the newer N spec models that need it. FYI the WRT54GL's CFE (boot loader) doesn't allocate enough space for kernel 2.6 and Broadcom's 2.6 compatible driver blob to load, you can read more about it on the DD-WRT forums.
We should all start writing nonsense and see how much of it we can get kdawson to approve. Those sites have pretty simple and straight forward layouts and the only problem I see is the 2nd one has too many colors with those buttons in the middle.
Nope. According the article, OpenDNS doesn't make a difference and DD-WRT v24 was one of the router firmwares that was successfully exploited.
They don't make it clear what exact build of DD-WRT they tested but it seems that it was v24 final which is 3 years old. v24 SP1 is likely also affected, but about 2 year ago in the early v24 pre-SP2 builds (ie. betas) DD-WRT started making you set a username/password when you first configure it which likely prevents this attack. We won't know for sure until the attack is actually explained rather than sensationalized with no real info.
DD-WRT releases beta builds at least once a month. Look on their forums for links, don't just look at the router database which they don't update often. Build 14815 was just released yesterday.