Microsoft Aims To Close Performance Gap With Internet Explorer 9 477
Barence writes "Microsoft has unveiled the first details of Internet Explorer 9, promising that it will close the performance gap on rival browsers. The major newcomer is a revamped rendering engine that will tap the power of the PC's graphics card to accelerate text and graphics performance. 'We're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for web developers,' explains Internet Explorer's general manager, Dean Hachamovitch. As well as improving performance, Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces."
Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:4, Interesting)
The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30% compared to 90% of chrome, Safari and Opera.
The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the Microsoft world and the Real, Normal world.
Shame, really. So many years, and the leopard has yet to change its spots.
Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's more because people just don't care.
You're right. (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as web developers will keep supporting non-standards-compliant garbage like IE the users won't care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you dont work as a web developer for a living? If you did, you would know that nearly every client you have uses IE and will wonder why their site viewing and their customer's site viewing shows the site looking like a mess in their browser. Telling them they need to switch is generally not the option they want to hear.
Further: (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as IE has a majority of the market, whatever IE does is the effective web standard, regardless of what any standards body has to say.
(Note, I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, but I'm pragmatic.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because the real world is a line from (-INF,0) to (+INF,0). The imaginary world is the entire complex plane EXCEPT that line where y=0i.
Because given a bounded area containing a road and a chicken, according to Brownian motion the probability of the chicken crossing the road rises to exactly 1.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/infapp.htm [earlham.edu]
The cardinality of a finite line segment, a line, and a plane are all the same.
Theorem 21. The set of all points in an infinite plane has the same cardinality as the set of all points in a finite line segment, namely, c.
# Proof. Think of the plane as marked off into an infinite number of square cells, like graph paper. First we show that there will be denumerably many, or À0, such square cells. Pick one cell arbitrarily, and number it 0. G
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Neat.
- My Firefox 3.0 passed all except ACID3 (stopped at 73).
- K-MELEON - Major fail on Acid2 and 3. I'm deleting this off my hard drive.
-
- Opera 10 passed 100% with only a slight error on ACID1 (bar maids was off by 1 pixel). Yay Opera!
- Links - uh - no
-
- Cingular (C64) - failed ACID3
- iBrowse (Amiga) - ditto
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IE8 has pushed to a number of boxes where I hid the update and said, don't show again. Microsoft keeps pushing it over and over again as an automatic update. IE8 defaults to Bing. Many users don't know how to, nor care to change defaults.
Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:5, Funny)
The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30% compared to 90% of chrome, Safari and Opera.
The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the Microsoft world and the Real, Normal world.
Shame, really. So many years, and the leopard has yet to change its spots.
So buy a snow leopard instead....
Help with history (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong standards are important and MS needs to get in line with them; I just don't understand why the standards are what they are
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The standards were an attempt to provide a clear sensible path going forward, not to codify the garbage as it was.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nonsense. Standards bodies can codify existing practice as standards or for reference, but can equally define good practice by creating standards based on some specific, well-defined notions of what "good" is, which more often than not do not match existing practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the standards were written with comprehensibility in mind: that HTML, CSS and so on would be easy to write and interpret.
Re:Help with history (Score:4, Informative)
Because Microsoft didn't invent the Internet. As a matter of fact they were very late to the game.
MOSAIC was first, then Mozilla/Netscape. Microsoft realized very late that the Internet was going to be important and threw something together.
The standards had already been well under way by the time Microsoft got into the game.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Technically they did what they always do. Microsoft bought out another company's browser (spyglass I think it was) and redbadged as their own.
[John]
Re:Help with history (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft licensed the NCSA/spyglass MOSAIC which was the dominant browser at that time (1993-94).
Then Microsoft got sued for giving-away the browser for free and thus not making royalty payments to NCSA/Spyglass (no sales==no profit sharing). Microsoft used its economic muscle to force Spyglass to accept 8 million dollars in one-time payment, and kept the code for themselves.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. "Business is war." - Jack Tramel
Re:Help with history (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong. When web standards started, MS had 0% of the market share. Internet Explorer did not yet exist. The standards were there first; MS decided not to support them.
Re:Help with history (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the W3C and IE appeared almost contemporeously with each other, so there wasn't much in the way of actual web (as opposed to network) standardisation at the time. In fact, the W3C was created to combat the existing standards-free mess. Microsoft's disregard for the growing standardisation of the web over the coming years was a serious issue, and a disincentive for other browsers to standardise, but it's not like they blundered into a divine and well-defined web and made a mess of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>Actually, the W3C and IE appeared almost contemporaneously with each other
False. W3C == 1994. IE == 1995. There were standards put forth by the W3C, but both Microsoft and Netscape were ignoring them (and being criticized as well). I remember it well.
Re:Help with history (Score:4, Interesting)
The W3C was almost irrelevant in the period when Netscape was the dominant browser. Netscape did whatever the hell it wanted (tables, frames), and the W3C was constantly playing catchup with them.
The major break was when Netscape pushed "JavaScript Style Sheets" over CSS and "Layers" over the W3C DOM.
Internet Explorer 4 contained preliminary versions of the W3C CSS and DOM standards. Yes they were incomplete and buggy and extended, but without them the W3C probably would have faded away completely.
When Mozilla came out, it was far more compatible with IE than it was with previous versions of Netscape.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
+1 insightful. I went and looked it up on wikipedia.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was founded in 1994. Microsoft's Internet Exploder was not released until a year later, and then it went hog-wild to ignore the W3C standards. (In fairness, so too did Netscape Navigator with adding new extensions to HTML.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if web standards came along later, it still wouldn't be a good reason to ignore them. The standard electrical outlet was designed after someone discovered how to harness electricity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them.
Standards are good. If someone wants to argue that IE's version of HTML is better than W3C's and we should be using it as our standard instead, I'm all ears. Of course, for that to be a reasonable idea, we'd have to have a well documented explanation of what IE's "standard" i
Here's an abbreviated history (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong. MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser. They were extremely active in the development of XML, HTML4, DOM, and CSS. They proposed and implemented VML, which was combined with PGML to produce SVG. They were the first to begin implementations of numerous standards, including DOM, CSS and SMIL. That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.
In 1997 Netscape started development on Gecko, in an attempt to leapfrog Microsoft's Trident engine. The problem is that Netscape couldn't get a product to market in a reasonable amount of time. Without a competitor, Microsoft took over the market, peaking at 95% share in 2003. The die was cast in 2000, however, when Microsoft saw that they'd won browser war. That's when they started moving IE into maintenance, and migrating the top developers over to .NET. This left the web stagnating for years with partially implemented standards and no viable competitor to IE.
Fast forward to late 2004, and Mozilla finally had a polished product built on Netscape's Gecko engine. Firefox emerged as a genuinely superior product to IE, and Mozilla relentlessly proclaimed the web standards mantra. They chipped away at Microsoft's market share until Firefox reached around 10% at the end of 2005. Meanwhile, companies like Google provided really compelling services based on the web standards supported by Firefox, and eventually other browsers. And of course, there were all the security fumbles with IE, while the competing browsers were (mostly undeservedly) considered safer. At that point, Microsoft finally got worried and pulled IE out of maintenance in early 2006.
So, now IE is back in active development, and MS is returning to the features they started roughly a decade ago, which places them well behind competitors like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. And Microsoft still doesn't consider IE to be a very important product, because the team today is just a shadow of what they were at their peak in the nineties. That's why the improvements are progressing so slowly, and they're continuing to lag even farther behind the competition. Meanwhile they're hemorrhaging market share at a rate of about 7% per year.
TL;DR: MS cared about standards until they were on top; once they owned the browser market, they did nothing to improve it. Now that they're losing the market, they're making a half-hearted attempt to compete again.
Re:Here's an abbreviated history (Score:4, Informative)
>>>MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser.
Not true. W3C has been criticizing Microsoft since day 1 for not following their recommendations. (They also criticized Netscape.)
.
>>>That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.
I don't agree, but even if we assume IE was better, the MAIN reason it "won" was because IE was free and Netscape cost $30 at the time (I remember; I paid to get the shiny new Navigator 3 in a box). Free almost always wins in a battle.
Re: (Score:2)
Real? They are still in business?
I think I'd rather have MS based stuff than their garbage. *blech*
Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are, yet parrot on about ACID all day?
Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:5, Informative)
"Acid3 [acidtests.org] is the third in a series of test pages written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.
Acid3 is primarily testing specifications for “Web 2.0 dynamic Web applications. Also there
are some visual rendering tests, including webfonts. Here is the list of specifications tested:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think 100% is necessary mind you. I do think a passing grade is a good thing.
Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap (Score:5, Funny)
Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are, yet parrot on about ACID all day?
I don't like tomatoes, but I like unit testing. I thought I'd mention that as long as we're tossing out non-sequiturs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Drunk, with no helmet, crashed?
Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet! I can't wait to replace Firefox on my MacBook Pro and my desktop Ubuntu box with this, it will run awesome on those! I wonder when I'll be able to get AdBlock for it?
JS performance (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware acceleration of text and pictures is one thing. Javascript performance is quite another. What with all this AJAX and Javascript stuff out on the web these days, what IE badly needs is a really good Javascript engine. Two school computers, one running Chrome (out of my home directory - bad sysadmin!) and the other running IE8, have very obvious differences in their Javascript speed on a benchmarking test (Sunspider, FYI). (They're school computers, their hardware should be exactly the same, their uptime should be exactly the same, etc. etc.)
So, where is Microsoft going in this category?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These are the sunspider results. Link [winisp.net]
Re:JS performance (Score:5, Informative)
> Two things surprised me here. One is that Chrome and Safari are 3x faster than FF
There are a few things going on here:
1) The public sunspider benchmark has a bug in that it uses a Spidermonkey-specific
extension in one of the tests that slows it down in Firefox only. Apple has fixes the
bug in their revision control system but is refusing to push the fix out to the public
site.
2) Chrome and Safari are in fact faster on sunspider than Firefox. Firefox is up to 5x
faster on other JS benchmarks. Depending on exactly what you're doing, you might have
better performance with one or the other.
With a fast CPU and a dual GPU setup... (Score:4, Funny)
...users will finally be able to browse the Crysis website with acceptable framerates.
Add-On System (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah I also want working keyboard shortcuts.
Re:Add-On System (Score:5, Funny)
IE also has a lot of add ons. Browse the web with it for a while and you will effortlessly collect lots of them.
"will tap the power of the PC's graphics card..." (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it.
Better performance == bloated?
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsetter.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Now it will incorrectly render my pages twice as fast!
Seriously, IE has become a verb with me and my web developer friends. We even use it in general conversation: "That guy cut me off and I told him to go IE himself."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, now I'm a database developer.
IE is also an injection (Score:5, Funny)
More Exploits (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote correction (Score:2, Insightful)
'We're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for Windows-only web developers,' explains Internet Explorer's general manager, Dean Hachamovitch.
Welcome to the new IE. Same as the old IE.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an excellent point. I'm assuming the web developer, however, would not have access to the API directly.
If they do, then, damn, talk about vendor lock-in. IE9 would become the new IE6, with anyone stupid enough to deploy its full feature set locked to only having customers who have IE9.
But I have to assume that Redmond learned their lesson on this one, and has insulated the DirectX API calls to "stuff that happens in rendering standard HTML", and not "web developer can send DirectX commands straight
Resolution independence (Score:5, Insightful)
I look forward more to resolution independence [wikipedia.org]. It would REALLY nice to express a picture or font's width in terms of screen (or table) proportion, instead of pixels (ugh).
It would save everyone so much time. Let's hope super-super high resolution monitors (OLED anyone?) come shortly to make this more of a reality.
Sorry I was about to post, (Score:2)
How about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity
For those who can't spell.
I wil tell you "I told you so". (Score:2)
If using direct-x, mean more direct access to the privileged code, for CSS/javascript bugs It looks like a good idea. A better javascript engine, or a better architecture, is a good idea, but giving more direct access to the hardware to something as "external" as third party javascript/css, seems a bad idea. Microsoft, don't do that, is a bad idea.
IE is already very fast, faster than Firefox. Fix all the CSS bugs, make it a better supporting the standards browse, or start another browser from scratch if t
Why do I get the visual (Score:2)
When I read the post the first image I got was John Hodgman [wikipedia.org] saying 'Trust me, this time it's going to be different'.
font anti-aliasing?!? (Score:2)
In addition to better performance, this technology shift also increases font quality and readability with sub-pixel positioning:
they say "sub-pixel positioning", but the example shows aliased vs. anti-aliased font rendering.... *really*? that's their "closing the gap w/ rivals" strategy? WOW.
Vice ... ? (Score:2)
Reminds me of sales people who being their spiel with "Can I be honest with you?" I've always wondered what they were being before if they feel they need to ask permission to be honest.
progress (Score:2)
DirectX it is then? (Score:2)
I find the choice of DirectX quite interesting, I've been looking recently at doing some basic game programming again just for a bit of fun and was rather shocked to find what an utter mess graphics programming has become on the Windows platform.
Many years ago, when I last played around with graphics programming it was pretty straightforward, you used DirectX or OpenGL. For your game editors you'd use MFC or the Win32 API (or something 3rd party like SDL). It didn't really matter which you chose, but if you
Just wait, you'll see... (Score:2)
.
Why does Microsoft think the rest of the software world will remain stationary while Microsoft lumbers forwards at its own bloated pace.
Please, Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
As a developer of web-based applications, I beg you to quit making new browsers. I am right now dealing with three of your browsers - one a complete nightmare and the others merely "bad". It's really obvious to even the casual observer that your company does not have the capability to make a decent web browser. You'll always be playing a really bad game of catch-up. You'll never be as good as Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Chrome. I can get *all* of those at no charge, same price as yours. But - and this is key here - those browsers work.
I have begun showing my customers just how much money they're paying to make their applications work with IE after I write them. People are getting pissed, and rightly so. You're putting money in my pocket, but frankly I have better, much more fun ways to make money.
Just. Give. It. Up. For the sake of all of us.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But hey, that's a view that's not rabidly anti-Microsoft...
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, that's a view that's not rabidly anti-Microsoft...
You must be new here! ;-)
Re:Sub Pixel rendering, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
I read that as him saying that the Direct2D sub-pixel rendering is more accurate (more aesthetic?) than the current GDI implementation.
Me too. But what does this tell you about the priorities at the IE team when this is something worth bragging about?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Subpixel rendering (turning on or off R,G,B elements) is a cool concept. It almost makes me want to give-up my CRT for an LCD. Almost. In reality my eyes can't see those pixels smaller than 1024x800 resolution, so it makes no difference anyway. And I can't believe we're now on IE9. I just upgraded to version 7 last month! Next you're going to tell me XP-SP2 is not the latest OS. ;-)
Aside -
I just tried the K-MELEON web browser for a few weeks. I don't recommend it. Despite claims that it's
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah after XP there was a huge gap and then Windows 7 came out with NOTHING INBETWEEN.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can understand that. Why would business want to deal with the mess that is Vista? Most likely they'll just hop directly to Win 7.
If corporate america was smart they'd also get rid of IE. I just ran Spybot Search & Destroy yesterday. Every piece of malware it found was connected to Internet Explorer. Nothing was tied to Firefox or Opera. IE is like an open door.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The speed problem with IE is NOT rendering! The issue is with the kludge design for multiple-tabbed browsing - which does the equivalent of starting an entire, new environment and plug-in set, etc for every tab!
This may be the best trade-off for the 3-4 tab user. Beyond this? Awful. More than 10 seconds to switch between tabs, when - as I often do - there are 12 - 20 opened.
Don't talk to me about the brain-dead session @restore@ feature.
Re:IE (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this the price you pay for having each tab run in a separate process? Part of my frustration with firefox is that a crash in one tab brings the whole thing down. I use IE for a handful of sites that won't run in firefox, so I don't have first-hand experience. Is IE 8 able handle crashes in one tab without the rest crashing as well?
Re:IE (Score:5, Informative)
> Is this the price you pay for having each tab run in a separate process?
That depends on the OS. On some the price of creating a new process is very high. On others a process costs only a little more than a thread.
Re:IE (Score:4, Funny)
That depends on the OS.
You do have a point there. But I can count on 1 finger how many OS's Microsoft is targeting with IE.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Chrome doesn't seem to have a problem doing this (on Windows).
Re:IE (Score:5, Informative)
When we talk about process creation being expensive, as opposed to thread creation, we're usually talking about it taking milliseconds rather than microseconds. From the perspective of the computer, process creation is expensive, and that means we can't use software design which relies on rapidly creating new processes, but if we're talking about the creation of a SINGLE process to service a new tab, it's absofuckinglutely irrelevant. From a user perspective, 1ms might as well be 1us. They both fall into the 'imperceptibly short' bin.
Re:IE (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends on the OS. On some the price of creating a new process is very high. On others a process costs only a little more than a thread.
Please, when you get into the multiple seconds range, you are WELL beyond any OS process creation overhead...
Re:IE (Score:4, Informative)
The performance really depends on the browser's architecture, which is comprised of a lot of parts and potential bottlenecks.
Chrome and Chromium, for example, are heavily multi-processed and handle large amounts of tabs\plugins very nicely. It certainly doesn't hurt that they were designed from the ground up for this kind of behavior.
Re:IE (Score:5, Informative)
> The issue is with the kludge design for multiple-tabbed browsing - which does the equivalent of starting an entire, new environment and plug-in
You mean like Chrome does? That's the BEST feature of IE8 - no more one-tab crashing taking down all yoru other tabs with more basic browsers like IE7 and Firefox.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I use Chrome. It's an excellent browser that managed to easily sway me away from Firefox despite the fact that I use some FF extensions on a regular basis.
I have read all about the process per tab design of chrome but I must say that 95% of the times when Chrome crushes, it takes down the whole browser.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IE will suck less? (Score:3, Funny)
how many times will it need to suck less before it reaches the non-suckiness of Firefox and Chrome? 42?
IE42, still IE, but doesn't suck this time! Really!
Re:god help us all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Try Google Chrome or any other WebKit-based browser
Re: (Score:2)
Does Google Chrome do a better job with memory handling?
I use Firefox with NoScript and AdBlockPlus, which really makes my browsing excellent! Chrome doesn't have these addons/features
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow I didn't know this. Thank you very much!
Re:Forget performance (Score:4, Interesting)
Chrome does a much, much better job with memory handling, and Chrome does in fact have addons that are equivalent to NoScript and AdBlockPlus.
I agree that Chrome does a better memory handling, but its CPU usage (100% of a dual core) is prohibitive when you are running other applications. This is why I continue to use Firefox.
My problem with Chrome and other webkit browsers in Windows is that their non-javascript rendering is much slower than Opera, FF, and IE. Scrolling a long page in a forum drives me crazy with Chrome/Safari. Opera, surprisingly (to me), won my last rendering comparison by a significant margin, followed by the acceptable FF and IE (well, IE was acceptable in terms of rendering speed, not overall). With an i7 system, 8 gigs of RAM, and a high end gaming video card I shouldn't feel like running webkit is like running Quake at 1280x1024 on my 486 without a 3d accelerator. However, I recognize that I'm a lot more sensitive to that sort of performance issue than are most.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care how much memory Chrome allocates as long as it doesn't page to disk, which is the slow part. For ad removal I just use privoxy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Webkit has some leaks too. Not to the extent that Firefox seems to, but they do add up over a few weeks. Chrome may be able to get around this by killing off a process (and releasing leaked memory) when you close a tab so you just have to close tabs instead of the whole browser.
Still, it's an issue that can be improved upon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, why does Explorer (not IE, just basic file list explorer) take up 40 Meg? What on earth is it doing with all that memory just to display a list of files?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are there particular sites that trigger this? If so, can you please file a bug and cc ":bz" on it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Forget performance (Score:4, Interesting)
I was gonna call bullshit but I opened Chrome here and Firefox with the same pages loaded. Firefox actually used less memory. Now that's not a scientific test or anything but it's enough for me.
I'm gonna mark this day on a calendar because this is fucking incredible.
Re:Forget performance (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... you're in the wrong place. This is where we bitch about IE, not Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Incessantly annoying, and one of the prime reasons I'm still an Opera
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered adding a small laptop to your setup to help allieveate having so many sites open on a single computer? Or do you already have multiple systems on your desk?
Re:Forget performance (Score:4, Informative)
Most Firefox memory issues since 3.x are due to bad extensions, not the core browser. Firefox is doing well with memory nowadays. I've had 2 windows, one of which has anywhere from 2 to 20 tabs in it, running all week on XP SP3, and haven't noticed any slowdowns.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Irony of you using a memory hungry OS and complaining about an application that diplays MEDIA is clearly lost on you.
Personally I want to access my information as quickly as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> it seems to me that the actual rendering of the browser window isn't the bottleneck
It really depends. It's a bottleneck for scrolling. It's a bottleneck any time interesting graphical effects (transforms, opacity, svg, etc) are being used. In Gecko's case, it's not uncommon to have the actual painting taking 30+% of the user-perceived time. From my profiling of webkit nightlies, the numbers are similar there. Things are even worse for video (e.g. for full-screen video color-space conversion is one