IE9 Throws Down the Hardware Acceleration Gauntlet 601
An anonymous reader writes "Over on Microsoft's IE blog they have an interesting comparison of browsers with regard to hardware accelerated page rendering. They write, 'One of our objectives with Internet Explorer 9 is taking full advantage of modern PC hardware to make the browser faster. We're excited about hardware acceleration because it fundamentally improves the performance of websites. The websites that you use every day become faster and more responsive, and developers can create new classes of web applications through standards based markup that were previously not possible. In this post, we take a closer look at how hardware acceleration improves the performance of the Flying Images sample on the IE9 test drive site. When you run Flying Images across different browsers you'll see that Internet Explorer 9 can handle hundreds of images at full speed while other browsers, including Internet Explorer 8, quickly come to a crawl.' Absent from the comparison is a nightly build of Firefox with Mozilla's forthcoming Direct2D acceleration enabled."
Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of reducing the amount of computation we do in IE to make it faster, let's just look for more processing power instead!
I feel sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel sad about it when hardware acceleration is needed for rendering, what, websites.
We live in interesting times indeed. I want my Web back.
What'll you bet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I feel sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank God! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm often left sitting there for microseconds while the page is rendered in software. I'm sure having hardware accelerated rendering of web pages would change my life immeasurably.
BTW Microsoft, if hardware acceleration is so important why is the GDI not hardware accelerated in Vista and only partially accelerated in Windows 7 (about nine functions) even though it was fully accelerated in XP? Can we get some consistency here?
Re:I feel sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why bother ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood this 'my browser is faster than your browser' attention. Most people use their browser over the Internet, with download speeds that make any computer wait.
So you've completely missed the advent of Web applications? Little Web based games, chat, e-mail, social networking, word processing, image editing, and hundreds of other incredibly popular Web technologies are currently limited by the rendering speed as often as by bandwidth. People will wait for a Web app to load, but that doesn't mean they're okay with waiting for it to respond when they do something in it.
If you just use your computer to edit text, then the same could probably be said about OS's and computer hardware. Why bother improving their graphics capabilities? Of course to do so you have to willfully ignore how they are used by normal people today and the direction they have been developing. They don't develop things just for you.
Re:throw hardware at the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The hardware is already there, what's the point of NOT using it? If I have a gtx285 or something ridicilous and it's sitting there not being used that is WASTED. It's Win/Win for everyone.
Re:Who understands "throws down Gauntlet"? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, you're a dolt.
Re:Standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they're using completely standard HTML, CSS and Javascript for this demo. The only difference is that the scripting they've created consumes a lot of CPU cycles, which makes the animation it produces choppy. In IE9 they've added hardware accelleration, which makes it less apparent you're running a really hefty Javascript, because both your CPU and GPU kick in to do the processing.
Re:I feel sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Start with Slashdot. Of all the sites I visit (not all that many really, only about 30 or 40) Slashdot is the one that makes me wish I had a faster CPU. Clicking into an article with lots of contents on Slashdot will sometimes lock my browser entirely for many seconds, sometimes up to 30 seconds or so.
I'd be a lot happier with the old pre-AJAX version.
Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! (Score:4, Insightful)
not only that, but it's also proprietary, aka directX. So they're paving the way for, well, nothing.
Re:throw hardware at the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The "throw hardware at it" does make sense for business applications. However, that model fails at system hardware and mass production. If you manage to make a mainstream OS 1% faster, with the use of 1 coder working one year, 10 Million PC will get 1% faster. If you produce 100.000 washing machines, you cannot afford to put a 10 dollar CPU in each of them , you will have to optimize to run the OS on a 1 $ CPU.
Re:I feel sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Start with Slashdot. Of all the sites I visit (not all that many really, only about 30 or 40) Slashdot is the one that makes me wish I had a faster CPU. Clicking into an article with lots of contents on Slashdot will sometimes lock my browser entirely for many seconds, sometimes up to 30 seconds or so.
I'd be a lot happier with the old pre-AJAX version.
Fully quoted so I can agree strongly. Only a few add laden websites choke my system more than slashdot!
It's About Freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about those of us who don't want to see flying-rotating-3d-semitransparent-glowing-shaded adverts flying across our web pages. I want fast clean loads of information. Not bloated pages full of shiny dodads designed to divert my attention from the information I am looking for.
The Interwebs are about freedom, and you are free not to view any site you feel is offensive in some way. Interweb freedom is about the freedom to choose. IE9 chooses certain voluntary standards, and not other voluntary standards, and even creates some of its own voluntary standards. All of which you are free not to use because of the freedom to choose a different browser. It's about freedom. Freedom to choose, not freedom to be restricted to RMS' view of how the Interweb should be.
Re:I don't want flying images in my browser (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the decade of ignoring the majority and jamming what a few people want down the throats of the rest.
Since when did Slashdotters become the majority of internet users?
Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of reducing the amount of computation we do in IE to make it faster, let's just look for more processing power instead!
Did you look at the CPU graphs at the end of the article? If you look at the graphs for IE8 [winisp.net] and IE9 [winisp.net], it shows the CPU usage has been greatly reduced by offloading the tasks to the GPU. It went from 50% CPU usage to an average of 12%.
This is just a better use of the processing power available in the modern computer.
Re:why flamebait (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:why flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
you must be crazy or something. You really think people need to be re-explained why relying on proprietary software is bad, especially when it comes to DirectX? I thought it was a given that people were smart enough to understand that proprietary = bad.
Why don't you take a look at how many other platforms support DirectX?
See, now I have to provide reasoning for things that are blatantly obvious, just because of your asinine comment.
Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in gods name should a web browser be using 50% of your CPU in the first place?
Re:why flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to make a case for why proprietary could be bad.
You do need to make a case for why in a given case you think "better than the competition, but proprietary" is inferior to "inferior, but free", since it's blatantly obvious that it isn't true in all cases.
Re:Why bother ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is filled with Tech luddites. Kinda odd.
Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey everyone, this is Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, someone is doing this right. I don't know how many times I've wished for hundreds of flying images obscuring the web page content. I was getting bored of just one or two constantly distracting me every time I scrolled or did anything, since they didn't always make me leave the page in disgust. But hundreds, shit yeah. I feel like the time I got one of those five-blade razors. This is one big step to the day they finally bring the Web up to television standards, so that I can confidently avoid it just like I've avoided TV for the last decade. Here's to progress.
Re:why flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Your reasoning is based on one quasi-statistic "Look at how many other platforms support DirectX."
How about a more relevant statistic: Look at the installed base of directX compared to other technologies on other platforms. Also, consider driver stability and hardware support from vendors.
You lose.
Re:I feel sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
I concur with your opinion that websites need to be made smaller for those with slow connections (dialup, cellphone) or slow computers. HOWEVER I got into an interesting debate with a libertarian who said all websites should include flash or otherwise be video-oriented.
I commented that's not fair to, for example, my friend's father who is stuck with dialup with no other options, and flash/videos should not autoload until the user gives permission (i.e. click "play"). The libertarian commented, "Let him buy satellite then. Yeah it's expensive, but why should *I* have to have a boring web experience due to his cheapness?" - Next I said flash-heavy websites like virginmobileusa.com could simply offer low-bandwidth, non-flash versions for those with dailup. He commented, "If people can't get to Virgin's website, too bad. Dialup users probably can't afford a cellphone anyway."
Needless to say I was flabbergasted. Slashdot offers a low bandwidth version. What's so damn troublesome about offering the same on other sites? Mr. Libertarian would not be denied his video jollies, while my friend's father could choose the non-video versions for his slow 50k connection. His whole attitude seemed cold and uncaring.
Anyway not everyone agrees with our opinion that websites should be optimized.
Some think the web needs to be bigger with high-def gigabyte videos or flash.
Re:I feel sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel sad about it when hardware acceleration is needed for rendering, what, websites.
Boo hoo. Have you seen what's capable with HTML5, Javscript and canvas? It's downright stupid to have certain things done using a general purpose processor when a GPU is sitting there unused. Why do I get the impression that a subset of slashdot users wished things would remain unchanged from 1998, back when hate for Microsoft was warranted and their ability to hand code crappy html was relevant??
Unfair comparison with other browsers (Score:3, Insightful)
bullcrap (Score:1, Insightful)
your posts equates proprietary software with 'better than the competition', and free software with 'inferior'.
no such delusion exists.
im going to assume that you havent formulated your argument wrong, and you dont have misconceptions, and give a proper answer :
because it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 50 ever-changing group of developers in a closed company that can change its priorities at any given point :
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but those 50-100
- priorities of the company matter. if company thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until company decides otherwise.
- the company decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how microsoft tries to push stuff in windows oses, like the lock-down dx10 to vista trick, despite xp was well capable of running its home-user relevant components. the ones that couldnt, were related to people who were doing extreme end 3d animation, and those people dont use windows to do that, they use purpose built servers.
- if the company decides to write off the framework, everybody gets fucked. even though i am a small size developer, i had a few clients who were fucked up by microsoft deciding something wasnt worth it, like the bcentral ecommerce service. they just came up one day and announced their clients that their stores were going to be deleted in a month, and they should take care of themselves. bcentral was incompatible with everything else, and you had to manually import your inventory to any other ecommerce platform. my client had to recreate an inventory of 2000 products, with their options, prices, and images manually.
- noone but the company knows whats in that proprietary software. you cant go in and vet it. its a BIG security risk. it is stupid to use them in sensitive places.
man. the list is endless and i dont have time to list many more.
if, as someone in i.t., you are not aware of these issues, and STILL ask 'why proprietary software is bad', and ask everyone to justify themselves when they say so, you are either really, really young and new in this business, or you really really should get out of I.t. sector.
Um, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure he was equating "hardware-accelerated" with "better than the competition" and "purely software-rendered" with "inferior."
Disclaimer before I get flamed for being a Microsoft shill: Hardware acceleration still isn't enough for me to switch from Firefox to IE. YMMV.
Re:I don't want flying images in my browser (Score:3, Insightful)
Then don't visit those sites. Why is this hard for you?
More importantly, why are so many Slashdotters Luddites? It's just weird-- this is a tech site, why are you even reading it if you hate advances in technology so much?
Re:bullcrap (Score:3, Insightful)
microsoft will give you binary compatibility for a decade ?
you mean they 'gave' you backwards compatibility. not any more. and probably they wont give it out any more either.
moreover, if your issue is more or less a common one, (and sometimes even if its an uncommon one) someone in an open source community will issue a mod/patch for it to make it backwards compatible.
Re:bullcrap (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say you are very very young, and blinded by your faith in open source. 90% of the arguments you gave are true of open source as well.
because it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 5 ever-changing group of developers from the internet that can change its priorities at any given point :
- noone fixes any issues with the framework but 1-2 of the core group
- priorities of the core group matter. if the core group thinks issues with that product/framework are lower priority, they wont get fixed until you sit down and fix it yourself. The make sure you roll those changes into every new patched version as it's released.
- the core group decides whether something needs upgrading or not, noone else. it may decide to push an upgrade despite it is not necessary, and therefore cause a lot of hassle and expenses to everyone, both clients and developers. just like how the php group no longer supports the 3.x branch with new features anymore, or the PEAR group has under gone so many incompatible releases, and then stopped.
As someone who is currently working for the largest advertising/marketing company in North America, I can say your guess is incorrect about who uses what for extreme end 3d animation.
- noone but the core group knows why half the code is doing what it is doing. For most businesses, having an expert at the source of every application isn't feasible, and companies can't hold open source groups legally responsible, nor can they realistically sue to get damages if something malicious is purposefully added to the code. Its a BIG security risk. it is stupid to use them in sensitive places.
if, as someone in i.t., you are not aware of these issues, you are either really, really young and new in this business, or you really really should get out of I.t. sector.
I can't believe all the negative posts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bullcrap (Score:3, Insightful)
Even Office XP which ran on Windows 98 runs under Windows 7.
Given that they control the OS and API (Score:3, Insightful)