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.
However it seems like they only measured JavaScript engine, which by no means contribute everything to how fast browser or browsing feels. And everyone probably knew already that Google's JavaScript engine outperforms MS's (and being one of the main thing Google's thing use, they have a reason to optimize it till its dead)
This seems to be the usual thing with other browser benchmarks too, they only benchmark the javascript engines and similar under the hood things. Yeah it's easier, but it doesn't really tell the truth.
User interactions and GUI responsiveness contribute a lot, actually even more so, to how fast browsing feels. IE is horrible with this and has always been; everything lacks behind, scrolling is galaxies far from smooth and the general feeling is just bad. On that note, Firefox suffers a bit from the same things. I think only Opera and Chrome have done UI responsiveness good. Which also brings the question, does Chrome Frame improve it on IE too?
This seems to be the usual thing with other browser benchmarks too, they only benchmark the javascript engines and similar under the hood things.
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.
There are actually other points you can look at. Things like how fast the browser starts rendering the page while its loading makes a huge difference too. If you sit there waiting for the page to load and looking at white/previous page, its slow. If the browser starts immediately rendering the loading page, atleast something is happening. MS improved this a lot in Win7 too. Just if you see that something is happening or whats loading, it feels faster than just waiting. Of course feel is hard to benchmark, so they usually don't, but it counts a lot too.
Benchmarks aside, I feel like Chrome is the slowest thing on earth, because I see NOTHING until the page is finished loading. I try to be objective. I'll load the same page in Chrome and in FF. True, the page FINISHES about the same time, but with FF, I can see bits and pieces as they become available. Since I am interested in the text most of the time, it doesn't matter how long it takes for some other element to load - I'm never going to look at it. I WANT MY TEXT NOW!!
That said - I agree with those who say web pages are to complicated today. Add in useless bloat like flash, advertising, etc. I can't browse any faster today with DSL than I did a few years ago with dial up! Something is badly wrong here.
Correct - BUT, I am trying to consider the "average user". Like my wife, for instance. I finally weaned her from Microsoft, and she's perfectly happy on Ubuntu. But, HER Ubuntu looks nothing like MY version Ubuntu. If her flash don't flash, she'll throw a fit. She's not a fashion nut, but she still wants to see what's "hot" - meaning she READS those stupid advertisements! Did I mention that on a shared connection, her flash games and adverts slow down MY connection?
Doesn't flash slow down everyone's connection? That's why I hate it as a video player, as opposed to quicktime. Navigating away from a youtube, vimeo, or gametrailers page with a flash player takes about 10-12 seconds. Navigating away from a quicktime video takes perhaps 0.25 seconds.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday September 24, @10:32AM (#29529365)
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.
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.
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.
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.
But I'm sure the number of static non-javascript way-way-way-way-too-complicated pages is but a t
But I'm sure the number of static non-javascript way-way-way-way-too-complicated pages is but a tiny fraction of the number of pages with poorly coded Javascript that can lock up a browser for minutes while the Javascript runs in order to generate the page.
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, stopppi
quote>Looks like Google are going to try and beat Microsoft at their own game: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
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.
"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?"
To be fair, if compatibility with IE is broken (either by Google or by MS) then SOME people are going to realize they've lost something. I expect that IE would lose some measurable market share, in that case. Let's remember - there are two groups of browsers: standards compliant, and non-standards compliant. I
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 see
Google's (not too secret) goal is to effectively rule your internet experience. It makes no sense for them to dictate what browser they want you to use. All they really need, is for you to use a browser that can run their web apps sufficiently fast, without crashing or running into compliance issues. To that effect, they are releasing most of their non-web applications into open source. If they really wish to start "Extending" the features, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. As a hypothetical sit
Google doing this speaks a lot to the character and principles of their company...that is if you trust big companies. I'm not surprised to see that IE 8 is running faster on the Chrome framework. All my experience with IE 8 confirms why I don't use IE. It has been very unresponsive for me in multiple situations. I'm sure this is one of many steps Google is pushing for to "speed up the web".
But the rendering is off a bit in the upper right corner. I just tested native Chrome - 3.0.195.21, I haven't updated it in a good while - and it has the same problem.
IE8 still fails the Acid3 test even with Google Chrome Frame installed. I was curious and tested it out. Chrome Frame doesn't take over full rendering from IE8 unless the site includes a meta tag to use the Chrome Frame. Here is a link to the Chrome Frame page [google.com] [code.google.com] (chocked full of good info).
PROTIP: Prepend "cf:" to any URL in IE to load it in Chrome Frame. I tried to make an anchor but/. eats it. Here's what to slap into the address bar: "cf:http://acid3.acidtests.org".
It's no wonder Microsoft is claiming that Chrome makes IE less secure. If it lets IE run eight times faster that means that there will be eight times the rate of security breaches. Oh Noes!
You must be new here; we only read the comments. Obviously the submitter merely used his time machine to see the comments made on his article in the future, saw yours answering the question, and realized he'd need to ask it in the summary to ensure you would answer it in a reply. Simple, really.
Microsoft has issued the following PSA: 'Some users have been found to experience sides effects from a sort of 'digital whiplash' after installing the new Chrome Frame plugin for IE8. This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.'
I'm going to go out on a limb here by/. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers.
The problem with Chrome is twofold :
1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers.
2. It's very difficult (and expensive) to get people to change browser. Microsoft wins by default most of the time.
This browser plug-in solves both problems. Now, only websites that the developer knows will render properly in chrome will call on the plug-in. Users will continue to use IE8, oblivious to the fact that some websites are actually being displayed using the chrome browser engine. Google applications will of course all properly render in chrome, and they will be set up to encourage you to download the plugin if you're running internet explorer. Some google apps may even require it, much like you need flash to see youtube videos.
The only problem with the approach is overhead : obviously keeping multiple browser rendering engines running at the same time will eat up a hundred extra megabytes of memory or so. You know, about $3 worth of DRAM.
From the sounds of it Chrome Frame is just a web browser wrapped as an ActiveX control which can be hosted inside IE. In other words, you aren't using IE in the content area. While this is cool and all, the reality is that IE is just transformed into a dumb container for somebody else's browser so you're incurring the memory footprint and instability of two browsers, plus all the quirks that come from running two browsers, one inside the other. For example you probably can't use it in a whole raft of situat
It's not a full browser. It's just WebKit and V8. All of your network calls and any other related system functions are all passed back to IE to do the heavy lifting.
From an instability and memory footprint point of view, it's really no different than hosting, say, Flash inside IE. Flash essentially is it's own "web browser".
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
You're wrong there mate. On our corporate intranet there's a section of javascript that's 256k in size. IE6 (corporate standard) takes about 20 seconds to load that while Firefox loads it instantly. It's not about how fast the Javascript is received, it's about how fast it's rendered.
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.
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.
In the real world its never the browser we're waiting on anyway. it's the connection or server on the other end that we're always waiting on.
I've seen Slashdot's home page freeze for a minute on Internet Channel on my Wii. I don't know whether it was a reflow or a JavaScript, but it was frozen.
It only uses the Chrome engines for pages that ask for it, or that the user chooses to use it for, the rest get handled by the host IE.
The situation where a corp forces you to use IE because of crap intranet apps, but can't be bothered managing two browsers is exactly one of the prime use cases for this. Particularly if they then buy a brand spanking new application which would run 8 times faster in any browser other than IE.
So now with Chrome infecting my IE, I have no way to access vital corporate apps.
But you have: The Chrome-frame mode is activated only if one either prefixes URLs with cf: (which your corp. apps will not do), or if one includes a
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1"> header in the HTML (or HTTP), which your corp. apps will not do either.
Only websites specifically designed to use the Chrome frame could force IE into Chrome-frame mode.
Had he read the article he'd have realised how fucking pointless it was: "Benchmark shows Chrome JS engine as fast as Chrome JS engine". I bought a new keyboard recently; should I submit a story benchmarking Google Chrome using the old and new?
benchmarks always forget the user experience (Score:5, Interesting)
However it seems like they only measured JavaScript engine, which by no means contribute everything to how fast browser or browsing feels. And everyone probably knew already that Google's JavaScript engine outperforms MS's (and being one of the main thing Google's thing use, they have a reason to optimize it till its dead)
This seems to be the usual thing with other browser benchmarks too, they only benchmark the javascript engines and similar under the hood things. Yeah it's easier, but it doesn't really tell the truth.
User interactions and GUI responsiveness contribute a lot, actually even more so, to how fast browsing feels. IE is horrible with this and has always been; everything lacks behind, scrolling is galaxies far from smooth and the general feeling is just bad. On that note, Firefox suffers a bit from the same things. I think only Opera and Chrome have done UI responsiveness good. Which also brings the question, does Chrome Frame improve it on IE too?
Re: (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:benchmarks always forget the user experience (Score:5, Interesting)
There are actually other points you can look at. Things like how fast the browser starts rendering the page while its loading makes a huge difference too. If you sit there waiting for the page to load and looking at white/previous page, its slow. If the browser starts immediately rendering the loading page, atleast something is happening. MS improved this a lot in Win7 too. Just if you see that something is happening or whats loading, it feels faster than just waiting. Of course feel is hard to benchmark, so they usually don't, but it counts a lot too.
Parent
Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (Score:5, Interesting)
This! ^
Benchmarks aside, I feel like Chrome is the slowest thing on earth, because I see NOTHING until the page is finished loading. I try to be objective. I'll load the same page in Chrome and in FF. True, the page FINISHES about the same time, but with FF, I can see bits and pieces as they become available. Since I am interested in the text most of the time, it doesn't matter how long it takes for some other element to load - I'm never going to look at it. I WANT MY TEXT NOW!!
That said - I agree with those who say web pages are to complicated today. Add in useless bloat like flash, advertising, etc. I can't browse any faster today with DSL than I did a few years ago with dial up! Something is badly wrong here.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Don't install flash, install AdBlock. Problems solved.
Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience (Score:4, Funny)
Correct - BUT, I am trying to consider the "average user". Like my wife, for instance. I finally weaned her from Microsoft, and she's perfectly happy on Ubuntu. But, HER Ubuntu looks nothing like MY version Ubuntu. If her flash don't flash, she'll throw a fit. She's not a fashion nut, but she still wants to see what's "hot" - meaning she READS those stupid advertisements! Did I mention that on a shared connection, her flash games and adverts slow down MY connection?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't flash slow down everyone's connection? That's why I hate it as a video player, as opposed to quicktime. Navigating away from a youtube, vimeo, or gametrailers page with a flash player takes about 10-12 seconds. Navigating away from a quicktime video takes perhaps 0.25 seconds.
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm sure the number of static non-javascript way-way-way-way-too-complicated pages is but a t
Re: (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, stopppi
Re: (Score:2)
However it seems like they only measured JavaScript engine, which by no means contribute everything to how fast browser or browsing feels.
Yeah, we should include Average Time To Root in the benchmarks, too. Google wouldn't stand a chance.
EEE (Score:4, Interesting)
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Re: (Score:2)
that's an interesting perspective. It will create quite a stir if MS finds a way to degrade the google frame performance or outright refuse it.
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but,
"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?"
To be fair, if compatibility with IE is broken (either by Google or by MS) then SOME people are going to realize they've lost something. I expect that IE would lose some measurable market share, in that case. Let's remember - there are two groups of browsers: standards compliant, and non-standards compliant. I
Re: (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 see
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really wish to start "Extending" the features, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. As a hypothetical sit
The real question... (Score:5, Funny)
So, Google Frame upgrades the engines...on the Titanic?
Re:The real question... (Score:5, Funny)
So, Google Frame upgrades the engines...on the Titanic?
I'm the Bing of the world!
Parent
This speaks a lot for Google (Score:2, Interesting)
So just for giggles... (Score:5, Interesting)
...what's the ACID3 results for such a combo?
Re:So just for giggles... (Score:5, Interesting)
100%, Fool!
Proof : http://static.macgeneration.com/img/2009/07/googlexhrometestacid-20090922-225255.jpg
Parent
Re:So just for giggles... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IE8 still fails the Acid3 test even with Google Chrome Frame installed. I was curious and tested it out. Chrome Frame doesn't take over full rendering from IE8 unless the site includes a meta tag to use the Chrome Frame. Here is a link to the Chrome Frame page [google.com] [code.google.com] (chocked full of good info).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PROTIP: Prepend "cf:" to any URL in IE to load it in Chrome Frame. I tried to make an anchor but /. eats it. Here's what to slap into the address bar: "cf:http://acid3.acidtests.org".
No Wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
FFS read the articles you post! (Score:3, Informative)
The other question is what is the performance hit of using the frame plug-in instead of running the browser natively.
FTFA: "Notably, IE8's SunSpider scores with Chrome Frame running equaled Google's Chrome browser"
Re:FFS read the articles you post! (Score:5, Funny)
Greetings and welcome to Slashdot.
Parent
Re:FFS read the articles you post! (Score:5, Funny)
Take me to your leader.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here; we only read the comments. Obviously the submitter merely used his time machine to see the comments made on his article in the future, saw yours answering the question, and realized he'd need to ask it in the summary to ensure you would answer it in a reply. Simple, really.
Safety Warning. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, just use Google Chrome itself. That way you do not have to worry about the additional IE vulnerabilities.
A good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
What does this benchmark even mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a full browser. It's just WebKit and V8. All of your network calls and any other related system functions are all passed back to IE to do the heavy lifting.
From an instability and memory footprint point of view, it's really no different than hosting, say, Flash inside IE. Flash essentially is it's own "web browser".
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IE is just transformed into a dumb container for somebody else's browser
IE is already a dumb container for the MSHTML control.
Ok 9x, but are you willing to pay the price? (Score:2)
Don't forget, installing satan's chrome frame means your children and all their family will suffer for all eternity, in HELL!
For some reason yet undisclosed by MS.
Re:Whats the point... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world its never the browser we're waiting on anyway. it's the connection or server on the other end that we're always waiting on.
I've seen Slashdot's home page freeze for a minute on Internet Channel on my Wii. I don't know whether it was a reflow or a JavaScript, but it was frozen.
Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (Score:4, Informative)
you have to add meta tag to make chrome frame work, otherwise it uses slow ie engine
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It only uses the Chrome engines for pages that ask for it, or that the user chooses to use it for, the rest get handled by the host IE.
The situation where a corp forces you to use IE because of crap intranet apps, but can't be bothered managing two browsers is exactly one of the prime use cases for this. Particularly if they then buy a brand spanking new application which would run 8 times faster in any browser other than IE.
Re:Defeats the purpose of IE (Score:4, Informative)
So now with Chrome infecting my IE, I have no way to access vital corporate apps.
But you have: The Chrome-frame mode is activated only if one either prefixes URLs with cf: (which your corp. apps will not do), or if one includes a <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1"> header in the HTML (or HTTP), which your corp. apps will not do either.
Only websites specifically designed to use the Chrome frame could force IE into Chrome-frame mode.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The website has to explicitly ask IE to use WebKit/V8. Your cooperate intranets certainly won't be doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
3. ???