Comments on: Around the Browsersphere #15 http://browsersphere.com/2010/01/07/around-the-browsersphere-15/ Tracking the continued evolution of web browsers. Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:12:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Bernie Zimmermann http://browsersphere.com/2010/01/07/around-the-browsersphere-15/comment-page-1/#comment-9386 Bernie Zimmermann Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:26:19 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=247#comment-9386 Thanks for the info, Paul. If you work out other arrangements with Microsoft, let me know and I'll post an update here. Thanks for the info, Paul. If you work out other arrangements with Microsoft, let me know and I’ll post an update here.

]]> By: Paul Scarpa http://browsersphere.com/2010/01/07/around-the-browsersphere-15/comment-page-1/#comment-9339 Paul Scarpa Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:08:30 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=247#comment-9339 Thanks for supporting Spry Hive's talk on "the next generation Web browser." We didn't manage to secure the votes to present, but we are talking to Microsoft about other options for doing so. Track us @spryhive for the DL on our upcoming beta. Thanks for supporting Spry Hive’s talk on “the next generation Web browser.” We didn’t manage to secure the votes to present, but we are talking to Microsoft about other options for doing so. Track us @spryhive for the DL on our upcoming beta.

]]> By: Chrom http://browsersphere.com/2010/01/07/around-the-browsersphere-15/comment-page-1/#comment-9125 Chrom Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:04:04 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=247#comment-9125 Seen this yet? http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=955 Seen this yet?
http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=955

]]> By: Bernie Zimmermann http://browsersphere.com/2010/01/07/around-the-browsersphere-15/comment-page-1/#comment-9121 Bernie Zimmermann Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:24:57 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=247#comment-9121 Thanks for the additional information, Mimas. I've seen quite a few people linking to that post, so it's a shame the information is misleading. Thanks for the additional information, Mimas. I’ve seen quite a few people linking to that post, so it’s a shame the information is misleading.

]]> By: Mimas http://browsersphere.com/2010/01/07/around-the-browsersphere-15/comment-page-1/#comment-9120 Mimas Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:36:15 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=247#comment-9120 The link "Initial tests show that forthcoming multi-processor support in Firefox leads to a 3x speedup in JavaScript performance, but even that is still 50% slower than Google Chrome’s performance using the same test." is bullshit. Electrolysis doesn't lead (in its current form) to any bettering in the Sunspider test. The reporter compares to Fx 3.5 and not to Fx 3.6. As he very likely use a Fx 3.5 on a 64-bit OS, JIT wasn't available on Fx 3.5, but is on its Electrolysis build, hence the bettering he sees. Minefield 3.7 is currently about 5% quicker on Sunspider than Fx 3.6 which itself is 10% quicker than Fx 3.5. But Fx 3.6 supports JIT for Intel x64, which wasn't the case on Fx 3.5. On such a build you see the same bettering as Fx 3.0 -> Fx 3.5 showed for other processors. The link “Initial tests show that forthcoming multi-processor support in Firefox leads to a 3x speedup in JavaScript performance, but even that is still 50% slower than Google Chrome’s performance using the same test.”

is bullshit. Electrolysis doesn’t lead (in its current form) to any bettering in the Sunspider test. The reporter compares to Fx 3.5 and not to Fx 3.6. As he very likely use a Fx 3.5 on a 64-bit OS, JIT wasn’t available on Fx 3.5, but is on its Electrolysis build, hence the bettering he sees.

Minefield 3.7 is currently about 5% quicker on Sunspider than Fx 3.6 which itself is 10% quicker than Fx 3.5. But Fx 3.6 supports JIT for Intel x64, which wasn’t the case on Fx 3.5. On such a build you see the same bettering as Fx 3.0 -> Fx 3.5 showed for other processors.

]]>