Of course, I'll be sure to send you an email and call you to let you know. In the meantime, I'll continue using Firebug for development, and other browsers for actual browsing. On the one computer I've installed it on, IE9 was in fact performing better than Firefox in my Javascript applications. There aren't many benchmarks for rendering speed, and that is the main area where IE has always been pretty good compared to others, oddly enough. Firefox is making improvements in rendering speed but it still has a way to go. Similar, in fact, to aspects in IE like HTML 5 support. Each browser has its strengths and weaknesses. Firefox has a great debugging extension, for example, and IE has excellent rendering speed.
I'll also just point out that, since everyone who loves Firefox always calls out extensions as the main reason, any performance benchmark with Firefox that does not have the top 5 extensions installed and enabled is not accurate in terms of how people actually use it. Show me someone who uses vanilla Firefox with no extensions, and I'll show you someone who would be better served with a different browser.
You'll have to point me out to where they're catching up with the other browsers.
How about any test where they include the 32-bit version of IE9 instead of only 64-bit? Like this one.
Some relevant quotes from the conclusion:
OK, so what conclusions can we draw? Well, let’s begin with the obvious and say that Internet Explorer 9 64-bit is an absolute dog when it comes to JavaScript performance. This is to be expected given that IE 9 64-bit is using an older, slower JavaScript engine, while IE 9 32-bit was using the newer, more efficient Chakra JIT....
So, what’s the conclusion? Simple, IE9 64-bit is shockingly bad, and all the other browsers are, on the whole, pretty evenly matched.
Of course IE still has work to do with regard to things like HTML 5, as do all browsers, but it's pretty disingenuous to claim that they aren't catching up, or that they haven't already caught up in various respects. Look at the HTML 5 support tables, for example, to see how HTML 5 support in previous versions and current versions compare, and how each vendor has been increasing support. IE has increased there more than some. It's no surprise that Chrome focuses on HTML 5 support due to the fact that it's built by an internet services company.
Yeah, right. I'm sure the vast majority of people downloading torrents have no clue what Firefox is and go about using IE6 all day. Clearly, the best way to target IE users is to target people downloading torrents. Brilliant idea.
I emailed Taco about that, he said that the 15 points are given to the top percentage of moderators whose mods are generally "accurate", I guess meaning that other mods typically agree with them.
I think that Ireland owes its greenness to moderate temperatures and moist air. The Atlantic Ocean, particularly the warm currents in the North Atlantic Drift, gives the country a more temperate climate than most others at the same latitude. Also, Ireland owes its greenness to moderate temperatures and moist air. The Atlantic Ocean, particularly the warm currents in the North Atlantic Drift, gives the country a more temperate climate than most others at the same latitude.
Pretty much every browser these days is customizable, with Chrome being an obvious exception. You can change virtually everything about Opera, for example, but you're apparently myopic regarding Firefox if you think it's "the only browser" you can do that with.
That's definitely worse, but not a whole lot worse than $($.$).$
Which itself is only marginally worse than jQuery(jQuery.jQuery).jQuery
Not exactly the most welcoming type of thing for a new user. Is it a function? Is it an object? Is it a property? Yes!
It's like they only did it for the novelty of the thing, not because it's useful in any way. My CSE 100 classes taught the benefits of meaningful variable names. These guys must have skipped the intro classes.
The $ and css-based selector syntax of jQuery makes it highly welcoming for devs that have to learn Yet Another Library.
God, really? The worst decision the designers of jQuery, Mootools, etc made was to all decide to use $ as their base object. There's no reason why the couldn't just call it jQuery instead, but they had to go and use one character that everyone else also decided was so cool that they would use that for everything they did too, and now everything either overwrites each other or you need to use alternative methods to access it. They should have just named their objects in a meaningful way in the first place. jQuery is the worst offender, because they made $ a function object, so you can either call it like a function or access a property or method of it. I don't think that's very intuitive at all to developers trying to make sense of the code. Nothing I saw in jQuery made any sense until I realized that "$" alone was a valid identifier. I didn't realize that was a valid identifier, I thought I was looking at some weird Javascript syntactic sugar I hadn't seen before. I thought it was an operator, not an identifier.
Also, the CSS selector-based way to access elements is actually now native to browsers, that's not jQuery-specific. As always, older versions of IE still in use don't support it, but that's why things like jQuery exist (to make the browser abstract).
Sales went up because the market perceived it to be a good bang for the buck.
Do you have a citation for that? Did you interview "the market", or are you just assuming? Doesn't this make just as much sense:
Sales went up because the price reached a level that people were willing to pay.
It has nothing to do with perception of a good deal. I have friends still playing Oblivion and Dragon Age because they don't have the money to spend on Dragon Age 2. If Dragon Age 2 was $20 or $30 instead of $60 they would buy it. It's not because they see something which they value at $60 that they can get for less, it's because the price is within their means to buy the thing. They want it, they just can't justify spending the current price for it regardless of what they think the intrinsic value of the thing is.
You are ignoring the fact that if Valve were to lower prices across the board these increases in sales would be unlikely.
First, that's not a fact, that's your opinion. I can tell because you use the term "unlikely". There's no evidence to suggest this. The evidence I see suggests that the price point is currently too high, and that more people will buy if the price is lower. As a gamer with gamer friends, I hear a lot of people say "I'll pick that game up in a few months when the price drops." From Gabe Newell's keynote from DICE 2009, he said that a 75% price reduction for Left 4 Dead led to 15% higher revenue then when the game was at full price.
These increases sales are not due to reduced prices , they are due to discounts.
Also opinion, not fact. Valve hired a psychologist to look at trends regarding pricing vs. sales, and he didn't seem to think that this was some sort of discount impulse kicking in.
Yeah and the only reason why Valve could afford to do such a discount
"Afford" a discount? Did you miss the point that when they lowered prices, profit and revenue went up? It sounds like they can't afford not to do a discount.
Regardless, your post about whether or not they would do that for a new game is not relevant when we're talking about the relationship between price and revenue. The conclusion still shows that lower prices translate to higher revenue, regardless of what you think Valve may or may not do.
It seems like, with regard to dead code elimination, that the major problem was that it failed to remove the code in certain circumstances. It looks like the removal is correct, but the cases where the code changed and it was not removed are not correct. In other words, the bug is the case where the code was not removed. The test definitely needs to be changed to somehow use the results that it's calculating, but it's not fair to say that IE is cheating on it. It is correctly removing the unnecessary code. You know what they say about synthetic benchmarks.
Regardless, I'm always impressed with optimizations like that, where they can take interpreted code and determine which parts are not used, remove those parts, compile and run and gain a time savings. I don't know what the algorithm for detecting dead code would look like, but it's pretty impressive they can do that so quickly. I know other compilers for C and whatnot have been doing that for a while, but with those it doesn't really matter how long the compilation takes.
note that IE9 cheats on Sunspider with faulty dead code removal
So, ignore the result where IE wins because you claim it cheats.
ignore Peacekeeper because it's flawed in many ways and also tests more than Javascript...
And ignore Peacekeeper, because you claim it's flawed (note: I, too, use more than just Javascript).
The release candidate for Firefox 4 is definitely better than the previous 12 or so betas, but I'm still not ready to claim that IE9 is anything other than what it appears to be: really fast, and at times faster then all or most.
I've had several betas installed but got bored with upgrading those months ago and I haven't installed the RC. The list of betas got too ridiculous for me to continue upgrading when the only thing I use Firefox for is development and debugging, not normal browsing. If you have any links to benchmarks which show that the RC beats IE9 and Opera in Javascript speed I would be interested to see those. Everything I've seen shows that IE9, Opera, and Chrome are fighting for the top spots and Firefox and Safari are a little behind.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I'll be sure to send you an email and call you to let you know. In the meantime, I'll continue using Firebug for development, and other browsers for actual browsing. On the one computer I've installed it on, IE9 was in fact performing better than Firefox in my Javascript applications. There aren't many benchmarks for rendering speed, and that is the main area where IE has always been pretty good compared to others, oddly enough. Firefox is making improvements in rendering speed but it still has a way to go. Similar, in fact, to aspects in IE like HTML 5 support. Each browser has its strengths and weaknesses. Firefox has a great debugging extension, for example, and IE has excellent rendering speed.
I'll also just point out that, since everyone who loves Firefox always calls out extensions as the main reason, any performance benchmark with Firefox that does not have the top 5 extensions installed and enabled is not accurate in terms of how people actually use it. Show me someone who uses vanilla Firefox with no extensions, and I'll show you someone who would be better served with a different browser.
You'll have to point me out to where they're catching up with the other browsers.
How about any test where they include the 32-bit version of IE9 instead of only 64-bit? Like this one.
Some relevant quotes from the conclusion:
OK, so what conclusions can we draw? Well, let’s begin with the obvious and say that Internet Explorer 9 64-bit is an absolute dog when it comes to JavaScript performance. This is to be expected given that IE 9 64-bit is using an older, slower JavaScript engine, while IE 9 32-bit was using the newer, more efficient Chakra JIT. ...
So, what’s the conclusion? Simple, IE9 64-bit is shockingly bad, and all the other browsers are, on the whole, pretty evenly matched.
Of course IE still has work to do with regard to things like HTML 5, as do all browsers, but it's pretty disingenuous to claim that they aren't catching up, or that they haven't already caught up in various respects. Look at the HTML 5 support tables, for example, to see how HTML 5 support in previous versions and current versions compare, and how each vendor has been increasing support. IE has increased there more than some. It's no surprise that Chrome focuses on HTML 5 support due to the fact that it's built by an internet services company.
Yeah totally, and the performance really drags while I'm behind seven proxies.
IE needs to fix their problems so that they're caught up with other browsers, not improving more than other browsers relative to the last version.
I'm pretty sure they just did both.
Firefox is currently at about 42% among web developers visiting w3schools.com
Yeah, right. I'm sure the vast majority of people downloading torrents have no clue what Firefox is and go about using IE6 all day. Clearly, the best way to target IE users is to target people downloading torrents. Brilliant idea.
Call down Mr. Waddams, hopefully you'll get some next year. Now back to Storage B with you.
So when they say they "built" a UAV, what they mean is that they ordered one from Canada, got the kit, and assembled it?
I emailed Taco about that, he said that the 15 points are given to the top percentage of moderators whose mods are generally "accurate", I guess meaning that other mods typically agree with them.
According to the download page, the new version includes "even more awesomeness". No word on whether or not the level of suck has decreased.
I think that Ireland owes its greenness to moderate temperatures and moist air. The Atlantic Ocean, particularly the warm currents in the North Atlantic Drift, gives the country a more temperate climate than most others at the same latitude. Also, Ireland owes its greenness to moderate temperatures and moist air. The Atlantic Ocean, particularly the warm currents in the North Atlantic Drift, gives the country a more temperate climate than most others at the same latitude.
At least, according to NASA.
Not sure about IE9, but I set Opera to load all plugins on-demand. That's Preferences -> Advanced -> Content -> Enable plugins only on-demand
Pretty much every browser these days is customizable, with Chrome being an obvious exception. You can change virtually everything about Opera, for example, but you're apparently myopic regarding Firefox if you think it's "the only browser" you can do that with.
That's definitely worse, but not a whole lot worse than $($.$).$
Which itself is only marginally worse than jQuery(jQuery.jQuery).jQuery
Not exactly the most welcoming type of thing for a new user. Is it a function? Is it an object? Is it a property? Yes!
It's like they only did it for the novelty of the thing, not because it's useful in any way. My CSE 100 classes taught the benefits of meaningful variable names. These guys must have skipped the intro classes.
The $ and css-based selector syntax of jQuery makes it highly welcoming for devs that have to learn Yet Another Library.
God, really? The worst decision the designers of jQuery, Mootools, etc made was to all decide to use $ as their base object. There's no reason why the couldn't just call it jQuery instead, but they had to go and use one character that everyone else also decided was so cool that they would use that for everything they did too, and now everything either overwrites each other or you need to use alternative methods to access it. They should have just named their objects in a meaningful way in the first place. jQuery is the worst offender, because they made $ a function object, so you can either call it like a function or access a property or method of it. I don't think that's very intuitive at all to developers trying to make sense of the code. Nothing I saw in jQuery made any sense until I realized that "$" alone was a valid identifier. I didn't realize that was a valid identifier, I thought I was looking at some weird Javascript syntactic sugar I hadn't seen before. I thought it was an operator, not an identifier.
Also, the CSS selector-based way to access elements is actually now native to browsers, that's not jQuery-specific. As always, older versions of IE still in use don't support it, but that's why things like jQuery exist (to make the browser abstract).
Sales went up because the market perceived it to be a good bang for the buck.
Do you have a citation for that? Did you interview "the market", or are you just assuming? Doesn't this make just as much sense:
Sales went up because the price reached a level that people were willing to pay.
It has nothing to do with perception of a good deal. I have friends still playing Oblivion and Dragon Age because they don't have the money to spend on Dragon Age 2. If Dragon Age 2 was $20 or $30 instead of $60 they would buy it. It's not because they see something which they value at $60 that they can get for less, it's because the price is within their means to buy the thing. They want it, they just can't justify spending the current price for it regardless of what they think the intrinsic value of the thing is.
Here is an account of Gabe's talk:
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/693342/live-blog-dice-2009-keynote-gabe-newell-valve-software/
You are ignoring the fact that if Valve were to lower prices across the board these increases in sales would be unlikely.
First, that's not a fact, that's your opinion. I can tell because you use the term "unlikely". There's no evidence to suggest this. The evidence I see suggests that the price point is currently too high, and that more people will buy if the price is lower. As a gamer with gamer friends, I hear a lot of people say "I'll pick that game up in a few months when the price drops." From Gabe Newell's keynote from DICE 2009, he said that a 75% price reduction for Left 4 Dead led to 15% higher revenue then when the game was at full price.
These increases sales are not due to reduced prices , they are due to discounts.
Also opinion, not fact. Valve hired a psychologist to look at trends regarding pricing vs. sales, and he didn't seem to think that this was some sort of discount impulse kicking in.
Apple didin't even like DRM... they had to do it.
Yeah. If there's one thing Apple hates, it's controlling the user's experience.
Sorry, I meant "managing their rights".
Yeah and the only reason why Valve could afford to do such a discount
"Afford" a discount? Did you miss the point that when they lowered prices, profit and revenue went up? It sounds like they can't afford not to do a discount.
Regardless, your post about whether or not they would do that for a new game is not relevant when we're talking about the relationship between price and revenue. The conclusion still shows that lower prices translate to higher revenue, regardless of what you think Valve may or may not do.
It seems like, with regard to dead code elimination, that the major problem was that it failed to remove the code in certain circumstances. It looks like the removal is correct, but the cases where the code changed and it was not removed are not correct. In other words, the bug is the case where the code was not removed. The test definitely needs to be changed to somehow use the results that it's calculating, but it's not fair to say that IE is cheating on it. It is correctly removing the unnecessary code. You know what they say about synthetic benchmarks.
Regardless, I'm always impressed with optimizations like that, where they can take interpreted code and determine which parts are not used, remove those parts, compile and run and gain a time savings. I don't know what the algorithm for detecting dead code would look like, but it's pretty impressive they can do that so quickly. I know other compilers for C and whatnot have been doing that for a while, but with those it doesn't really matter how long the compilation takes.
note that IE9 cheats on Sunspider with faulty dead code removal
So, ignore the result where IE wins because you claim it cheats.
ignore Peacekeeper because it's flawed in many ways and also tests more than Javascript...
And ignore Peacekeeper, because you claim it's flawed (note: I, too, use more than just Javascript).
The release candidate for Firefox 4 is definitely better than the previous 12 or so betas, but I'm still not ready to claim that IE9 is anything other than what it appears to be: really fast, and at times faster then all or most.
"Everything you know" is limited to apt-get, huh?
B. take advice from a lawyer specializing in disability discrimination law.
I'm pretty sure that people using any particular keyboard layout do not constitute a protected class of people. Much less "disabled".
I've had several betas installed but got bored with upgrading those months ago and I haven't installed the RC. The list of betas got too ridiculous for me to continue upgrading when the only thing I use Firefox for is development and debugging, not normal browsing. If you have any links to benchmarks which show that the RC beats IE9 and Opera in Javascript speed I would be interested to see those. Everything I've seen shows that IE9, Opera, and Chrome are fighting for the top spots and Firefox and Safari are a little behind.