Google Frame Benchmarks 9x Faster than IE8 152
ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Early tests with Google's Chrome Frame found IE8 runs 9.6 times faster than usual. The testers ran the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark suite." The other question is what is the performance hit of using the Frame plug-in instead of running the browser natively.
Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense. Aside from the retrieval of a page, rendering said (static) page will be instant in almost all cases, regardless the browser. If it doesn't, either the page is way way way too complicated or you are using an antiquated machine.
So... when benchmarking a web browser, the only real target to measure is javascript performance.
Re:Whats the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, I've seen javascript which manipulates large datasets, which takes the lion share of time to run; somewhere in the 30-60 second range. Recent javascript performance boosts have allows such manipulation of large datasets to become feasible and even practical.
The truth is, more and more people are attempting to use a browser as a general purpose user interface for many applications which were previously considered unattainable with older browser technology and I only see additional momentum building in this direction.
Fast rendering and javascript is a make or break for most of these types of applications.
Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the world wide web, TheRealMindChild. Out here pages are "way way way too complicated". You can close your eyes and go "lalalala" but that doesn't mean those pages aren't there.
Re:EEE (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen several people mention this in the last mention of Google's plug-in as well. I don't understand and I have to wonder if the people saying this know what the strategy they're referring to is. The concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" is to comply with a standard interoperably until you are popular. Then extend the standard in a non-interoperable way, counting on your popularity and the new functionality to drive adoption. Then, extinguish the competition by utilizing the standard ubiquitously and in a non-interoperable fashion so that anyone who does not have access to the proprietary extensions you added, is removed from the market.
So for IE the strategy was to implement HTML and other technologies interoperably until IE was very popular, then extend HTML with nonstandard elements and rendering and add ActiveX for more functionality no one else could use. Then extinguish competition by building lots of tools and that rely upon the proprietary version and relying on Web developers to target IE's broken version of HTML instead of the actual standard.
So I'm trying to understand how people think Google is employing this strategy. They are embracing IE, sort of by implementing Web standards within it. How do people think Google is going to extend those Web standards in a proprietary way? Do they mean by building proprietary Web applications that use the standards? Do people actually think Google's strategy is to make Google apps really popular and then break compatibility with non-chrome browsers by making them no longer use Web standards? Won't that be hard while maintaining backwards compatibility especially since they're using an OSS browser? I suppose this is possible, but I don't see why people would assume it is Google's strategy.
So basically, while I see that Google is extending IE to use Web standards, I don't see this as a likely part of an "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. Nothing stops Microsoft from creating a better implementation of Web standards in IE's rendering engine and out competing Google's plug-in and they have a lot of advantages if they do decide to compete. Rather, this is Google managing to chip away at MS's anti-competitive use of IE and make MS actually compete fairly a little more, pretty much the opposite of Google trying to kill fair competition which is what the EEE strategy is all about.
Re:What does this benchmark even mean (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about creating a good Browser design. It's about creating a technological work around to a human engineering problem, working around MS's anticompetitive bundling and intentional noncompliance and poor performance with IE. This lets Google create standards compliant Web applications that need new standards and good performance, while at the same time supporting those users still using the broken IE browser. Getting people to switch browsers when MS is leveraging their desktop OS monopoly is very hard. Getting people to install a plug-in is a lot less so. They're not trying to create the best browser here, they're trying to enable and motivate the creation of the best Web. They're not making IE the best browser, just a less significant roadblock to progress.
Yes but ... (Score:1, Insightful)
... does it have adblock yet?
Re:EEE (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, there are no signs yet. Which doesn't mean there isn't a threat. We can't say for sure at this point, but this doesn't feel like it to me, either.
If (and it's a pretty big IF) Google is going for "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" then they are still only in the "Embrace" phase. The "Embrace" phase is the most innocuous of all, and is impossible to differentiate from actually putting good product out in the marketplace for fun and commercial gain, in a very much "do no evil" way. Unless you start seeing internal memos or learning about Google's secret lair with frikkin sharks with frikkin laser beams, the "Embrace" phase is all goodness and light and fluffy bunnies and purring kittens all singing 'kumbaya' and giving warm fuzzies.
If they start adding Google-specific stuff to their Javascript engine (say, a fast and easy API to access Google Apps implemented directly in the engine) and encouraging people to use it, then I'll start to be suspicious. Because that's sneaking into the "Extend" part, and the next phase would be to drop support in other browsers for their plugin and only offer the "special sauce 2.0" in Chrome.
But, at the moment, they are making a standards-compliant Javascript engine and offering versions of it for various web browsers, yes?
Crucially, they don't have a development toolkit that builds Javascript that can ONLY be run on "Frame", right? If you see that, then it's the First Sign. Then, and only then, would it be time to start stockpiling food and ammo to survive the potential upcoming Javascript Apocalypse. :)
Re:Whats the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is, more and more people are attempting to use a browser as a general purpose user interface for many applications which were previously considered unattainable with older browser technology and I only see additional momentum building in this direction.
We are doing *exactly* this. We provide a hosted, vertical software system, and for years we've done everything in our servers.
However, recent builds of the FireFox JS engine are fast enough that we can start moving the processing out from our hosted application server cluster into the user's browser. The users love the results - applications that load in a few seconds, and run from their computer at near-native speeds, accessible anywhere.
But, rather than spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get stuff to work in IE, we simply require Firefox. That way, we can support Windows, Macintosh, Linux, and any other platform that runs FF 3.0+. It's not been hard for us to make this requirement, basically only minor complaining from techs.
Our customers are more interested in "Cross Platform" meaning "Can I get it to run on MY computer" than "Can I get it to run in MY browser".
The evolution of javascript performance is an industry changer - it's what makes hosted applications actually WORK, despite all its warts.
Re:EEE (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really wish to start "Extending" the features, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. As a hypothetical situation: say 50% of the market uses Chrome, and 50% uses something else. Further, let's say 50% of the "something else" crowd would convert to get these new features. So, Google can capture 100% of the market by supporting standards, or 75% of the market share by trying to lock people in.
Above all, Google is still a company, and there would be absolutely no reason to accept a smaller market share of your primary market. It's basic math at this point.
Re:No Wonder (Score:1, Insightful)
It's no wonder Microsoft is claiming that Chrome [plug-in] makes IE less secure.
Sounds like pure empty rhetoric from the MS spin-machine. It's hard to imagine what a "less secure" IE could be.
One thing is certain, though - this move by Google makes Microsoft far less secure.
Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's just it: the browser shouldn't lock up just because a page is running Javascript. It should still respond to user commands, allow scrolling around pages, opening other pages in other windows/tabs, clicking on elements that are visible, stoppping page load, going to another URL, etc.
Today's browsers are basically special-purpose operating systems, but the joys of pre-emptive multitasking hasn't spread to them yet. It's like a return to Windows 3.1.