topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Monday April 29, 2024, 12:08 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - nontroppo [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 26next
151
Second!!!!!!222222

Um, ahem...

I'm really sorry those ^%$£ hit the site as they did, and *thank you* mouser for your passion and sorry for your felt pain, no one could ever doubt your dedication to the site! Thank you gothic and wordzilla and anyone else for your work and support to DC and mouser.

:beer: all round!

152
General Software Discussion / Re: Opera Dragonfly
« on: February 25, 2008, 09:32 AM »
What intrigues me is why he has so many Internet Explorer 7 references in his desk...

Perhaps Opera Dragonfly will replace the fast, efficient Presto renderer with IE8's bloated core? ;)

153
General Software Discussion / Re: Opera Dragonfly
« on: February 25, 2008, 08:07 AM »
The URL for the Opera holding page:  http://www.opera.com/dragonfly/

154
General Software Discussion / Opera Dragonfly
« on: February 25, 2008, 07:55 AM »
obj.jpg

In a recent interview with Dave Storey (chief web-opener at Opera) in a Norwegian paper, some astute readers noticed a pamphlet on his desk for a new project from Opera, called Dragonfly (or the Dragonflyer). Dave is not leaking many more details, but we may see more info coming soonish:

http://my.opera.com/...2/24/opera-dragonfly

My money is on the set of web-developer tools they are developing. The interface is already set up in preferences:

opera:config#DeveloperTools|EnableDebugging

Another idea is of some kind of peer-2-peer interface hinted at in an older interview some months ago. Anyone care to guess what the Dragonflyer may be?

155
Update: here is a nice article from the chief QA tester at Opera for M2 on GMail's buggy IMAP support:

http://weblog.timalt...-imap-implementation

Tim also links to a wired article from the architect of IMAP on Gmails implementation:

http://www.wired.com...es/news/2007/10/imap

156
General Software Discussion / Re: IE8 Beta 1 coming soon
« on: February 25, 2008, 07:35 AM »
I'm a browser junky so +1 for testing IE8. But let me just say in advance:

"IE8 sucks. <del>Firefox</del>Opera rulez. I love my Mac."

 :P

157
That article talks about the file-copy engine improvements, not general processing benchmarks (i.e. there is no contradiction), where SP1 *is* better than RTM, but the SP1 Vs XP SP2 file-copy tests then show it still ain't XP yet...

158
For the millisecond fetishists, ZDNet have benchmarked Vista RTM and SP1:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1367

Conclusions: Vista RTM was faster in all tests than SP1.

The same writer also tested the file-copy engine in Vista SP1 and XP SP2:

http://blogs.zdnet.c...e/?p=1332&page=5

XP is faster than Vista in almost all tests. So whatever improvements are in the Vista SP1 copy engine, though a probable improvement over RTM, they are still overall slower than XP.

159
Mark of Sysinternals fame writes about the copy engine improvements here (link temporarily down when I tried though):

http://blogs.technet...ost-and-webcast.aspx

160
Mozilla ran a zillion dollar campaign spreading the (false) rumor that Firefox was safer, faster and all sorts of possitive words, than IE - allthough it never was or is.

As far as one can objectively measure it, IE's rendering engine is the slowest of the current engines available overall, that is no "propaganda" (it is also the most bug-ridden in HTML/CSS/JS by a large margin). Neither is IE's horrendous security record some sort of collective fanboy fantasy, irrespective of whatever reasons can be ascribed (or that savvy users can tweak it to fill its copious holes). As someone who has no affiliation to either, I would put money on saying Firefox *is* safer and faster than IE. This thread is about resource usage however, and in that neither of them are particularly svelte...

161
If you need Roboform, then Opera is out of the question. The Firefox users here will be able to give you clear alternatives.

As an aside, I just found a screenshot I made a couple of weeks ago of IE 7 compared to Kestrel (Opera 9.5) which gives you an idea of the CPU and efficiency discrenpancy between them. This was based on the new Sunspider javascript testing framework:

Picture 2.png

The CPU time used is 4mins36secs in IE 7 compared to just 49secs in Kestrel. There are far fewer page faults (122 times lower!), lower working set and private bytes...


162
I suspect the reason Maxthon has such a CPU hit is because as a shell, it cannot really do anything to change the browser core. So Advert blocking in Opera and Firefox works in the core (the network request is removed at source), whereas IE shells have to block the request only on the output, which is bound to be less efficient, and cause Trident to do more work overall (possibly general increase in reflows depending on the timing). But as with any weakness in software, you can just throw new hardware at it ;)

163
Lots of edge case issues to do with frames and positioned CSS AFAIK, basically it works on more elements on more pages. it also looks prettier ;)

164
I'm not really that concerned about RAM usage - it's the hit to my CPU that is frustrating me.

Well, I'd still say IE and its shells overall have poorer CPU utilization, and a move away from Trident (the old rendering engine of IE) will give you a net benefit in regards to CPU. Certainly for the samples of pages I tested for my performance tests:

http://nontroppo.org...rel_tests/#realworld

IE gave poor to middle performance and did not compensate with lower CPU time spent. Many other tests show similar results (again especially the more modern web technologies CSS, DOM javascript etc).

The current Safari 3.1 nightly is actually shockingly optimized. They have made a core javascript trick used by most javascript libraries nativised and the performance boost (23X less CPU used than Opera, 35X less than Firefox, ~50X less than IE) is revelatory. In general, browser engines than can run in a mobile device will have optimised CPU and memory requirements.

Firefox is a great browser, and V3 will be brilliant compared to V2, which is certainly not an efficient and resource friendly engine (better than Trident though). Overall Gecko (the rendering engine for Mozilla) will still take some more time to get up to the performance levels of Safari and Opera.

165
I am interested to hear from some of the longterm users of Dexpot how stable it has been for them. What's been your longterm usage of it like?

I still use it, but I wish deeply for bug fixes for key bindings and more consistent behaviour.

166
Thanks for this link! I love spatial navigation, and it is much improved in 9.5...

167
A few points:

a) It is not only what you use, but how you use it that counts ;-) IE (which Maxthon is a shell for), is pretty conservative in memory allocation. But its navigation performance is horrid. Opera uses memory for fast history navigation more efficiently than any other browser on the planet. Using 3 tabs of google images, I can instantly navigate through 600 images worth of data in Opera where IE fails after a few[1]. The raw memory numbers are not too different, but functionality certainly is!

b) Using memory can result in much better performance. Though sadly not available anymore, Mark Russinovitch's great article about hoax memory optimizers was scathing on the idea of free RAM. Modern OS's work better when memory that you paid for is actually used. Worrying about memory allocation is largely futile, as performance is much better overall. I know at least Opera has done extensive work on balancing this. If you have lots of free RAM they will use it because it results in better overall performance. Opera's core works on mobile phones, so it can render in extremely limited conditions. Every byte is tweaked and optimized. On desktop, they simply extend cacheing of data to drive up speed.

c) The OS and the machine, not only the app, is responsible for memory allocation. At least for Opera, it uses less memory when there is less available (I've done multi-tab browsing of modern web pages using a P166 w/ 128MB RAM)...

d) I'm not really sure what measuring VM is telling you? A combination of working set and private bytes are much more informative IINM (process explorer terminology).

The benefits from moving away from IE and its shells from a technical perspective are numerous. IE/Maxthons engine is ancient and showing its age. It renders slowly, has poor support for modern technology and innumerable bugs that are constantly worked around. Lots of modern pages add in additional hacks to get IE & shells working, which will add to its overhead. Performance of IE and Maxthon are poorer in many areas than modern engines (though tables in IE are fast (popular 5 years ago for web layouts), CSS is poor (popular for newer pages).

So I *do* think there are clear advantages with regards to "effective" resource utilization to move away from IE and its shells, and other advantages too.


----
[1]
I've done tests on history memory - using 10 pages of navigation through 3 google image searches in different pages for "picasso", "magritte" and "dali" (20 images per page = 600 images in 30 pages total). IE fails on page switching after a few back navigations, forcing a redraw and uses more memory than opera. Firefox has a 5 page limit (thus fails half of the instant-back operations) and uses the most memory. Opera allows instant-back for ALL pages using ~25MB less private bytes than IE and ~35MB less private bytes than Firefox. I find that pretty impressive...
http://my.opera.com/...ndpost.pl?id=1789849


168
General Software Discussion / Re: Firefox 3 beta 3 expected today
« on: February 12, 2008, 10:17 AM »
urlwolf: Webkit is just the rendering engine that powers Safari, so the UI is not what is being tested (it will use the Safari UI you have installed and just swap the engine out). The rendering engine itself works fine on Windows (it doesn't suck, but remember it is a nightly, so every day may give you a new surprise!), slightly slower on the same machine than the OS X version, but still much faster than firefox for just about every rendering test you can imagine, sometimes by an order of magnitude. If you hate Safari for Windows period, then Webkit will look *idential*, it will just offer you all the new rendering goodies they are introducing...

Gecko is showing its age, and I'm hugely skeptical that Mozilla can get its performance anywhere near Webkit and Presto for their mobile project. But as embedded processors get faster, they can hopefull stay still long enough to let the hardware catch up (as happened when Mozilla first emerged all those years ago).

169
Find And Run Robot / Re: Enso 2 redesign...
« on: February 12, 2008, 07:51 AM »
just a heads up, the Enso 2 prototype went live a few days ago:

http://humanized.com...5/enso-20-prototype/
http://humanized.com...2/08/bugs-and-stubs/

The prototype is pretty limited (numerous planned features are yet to be implemented), but its a clear step in the right direction (the prototype is better than Enso 1)...

As an aside, I love their platform architecture. The web interface, and the way they can plug-in core changes modularly is neat.

171
General Software Discussion / Re: Firefox 3 beta 3 expected today
« on: February 12, 2008, 07:44 AM »
I really like what they are doing with Firefox 3 UI wise. Places is simply one of the best treatments of the horrible legacy UI mess of bookmarks/history of any browser period. This is exactly where I think the browser UI should be heading! I would be very happy for Opera to "borrow" as much of this as possible.

The new location bar UI is a step forward, but Opera's in-page indexing inclusions has it beat.

Site preferences are very welcome addition, they make a significant improvement to browser usage.

Lashiec: what performance benchmarks? I've tested the most recent nightly and it is still significantly behind Webkit and Kestrel on most benchmarks. The latest Webkit, at least on some benchmarks is shockingly fast. Its inclusion of the W3C Selectors API makes it 24X faster than Kestrels fastest library performance and 35X faster than Firefox 3's on the Slickspeed benchmark!!!


172
General Software Discussion / Re: Opera Browser Power-User Mods
« on: February 12, 2008, 07:24 AM »
Lashiec: indeed I wish Opera made my.opera.com more focussed on bringing together a unified resource, making the wiki obsolete, and hosting peoples projects for userjs / menus etc. I don't think they deliberately obfuscate this stuff, they just haven't prioritised a unified resource centre (to their own loss)...

General new tweak: The latest weekly snapshot has added a new tab closing preference which is IMO better than Opera's previous behaviour or the standard "move to rightward tab" behaviour:

http://my.opera.com/...tab-activation-modes

173
-- but I've never seen so much false positive action in my life.

As I've been suffering from ghost mails in the 9.5beta, I thought I'd hose my mail folder and start again, using IMAP for two (non-gmail) servers. Almost all my mail ended up in spam. Opera has a very questionable policy, which will tag spam from known contacts. They do this because viruses can propagate, and contacts email addresses can be compromised etc. But this increases the quantity of false positives, which for me is a cardinal sin, false negatives are much less destructive... I've submitted bugs on that, and also the fact it can flag replies to mail *I* sent (you can analyse headers to know it is a reply). Allen did you use 9.2x or 9.5beta?

174
General Software Discussion / Re: Is the Windows start menu dead?
« on: February 08, 2008, 05:43 PM »
Yeah, the items in the menu look small and uniform, not so identifiable and not really structured (visuo-spatial memory could be enhanced by category regions, a sort of way-point navigation).

One idea I love from sapiens is contextuality. What I may be looking for in the menu  may depend on what I've just been doing. So if I've just downloaded an image I may want to edit it. Image editors should be emphasised. etc. There are lots of cool innovations to make in this field...

175
General Software Discussion / Re: Is the Windows start menu dead?
« on: February 08, 2008, 03:47 PM »
Yikes, I just watched the Vista start menu demo. Lots of pseudo-cognitive psychology put me off this app for life...

Is the start menu dead? For me it mostly died in Windows 98 when I started using Litestep. Litestep of course required lots of tweaking, so the gains in productivity over the clumsy start menu were offset by writing config files to hone your interface ;) Though I oscillated between explorer and alternative shells for app launching (and also task management where the start bar sucks) I was never quite satisfied. Until I found FARR. This was a Tarantino moment for the start menu, a complete gruesome yet swift death. As a mouse/keyboard flip-flopper I still can't get anything close to the power of find-as-you-type launchers mouse-wise.

I do like the concept of radial menus however; sapiens is a mac launcher that uses them (quicksilver also can use radial menus for key/mouse hybrid interface):

http://www.donellesc...m/sapiens/design.php
http://www.donelleschi.com/sapiens/

I don't know if there are app launchers in windows that use radial menus for launching (mozilla had a radial menus extension IIRC), but they offer several ergonomic benefits over the more common linear menus... Maybe a future Windows start menu will be round?  8)

Pages: prev1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 26next