8 Sep 2010 09:37
MISS PIGGY
Cheryl BOSTON <yqemyhukad <at> gmail.com>
2010-09-08 07:37:23 GMT
2010-09-08 07:37:23 GMT
Click Here to Enter Site: >>> http://netresults-online.com/1/miss-piggy <<< . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Continue reading)
8 Sep 2010 11:13
ADULT CHANNEL
Wallace Lacy <lacyrpbmwallacesyl <at> gmail.com>
2010-09-08 09:13:43 GMT
2010-09-08 09:13:43 GMT
Click Here to Enter Site: >>> http://netresults-online.com/1/adult-channel <<< . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Continue reading)
8 Sep 2010 15:24
SPANISH PORN
Chance Cano <canoziffchancenwoz <at> gmail.com>
2010-09-08 13:24:15 GMT
2010-09-08 13:24:15 GMT
. . Click Here to Enter Site: >>> http://netresults-online.com/2/spanish-porn <<< . . . . . . . . . . .(Continue reading)
26 Sep 2010 03:00
JavaScript Benchmark and more
DQ <dqureshi79 <at> gmail.com>
2010-09-26 01:00:35 GMT
2010-09-26 01:00:35 GMT
Results were astonishing: latest Chrome (7.0.517.17) at 352ms, Opra 10.62 at 367ms, and latest Minefield 32bit [with hardware acceleration enabled] at 502ms, while the 64bit Minefield browser [with hardware acceleration enabled] (latest) measured 631.4ms! (link below), especially because my system is high-end (Quad core 2.66Ghz, 3MB cache, 4GB DDR3 RAM with Vista 6bit) and 4the MOZdev team boasts FF4b to be fast. http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider-results.html?%7B%223d-cube%22:%5B34,35,35,35,35%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B15,16,15,15,16%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B45,43,42,43,42%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B9,120,10,9,9%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B23,24,22,23,26%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B9,8,9,8,9%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B8,8,9,8,9%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B11,11,11,11,11%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B3,3,3,2,3%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B7,7,7,7,7%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B24,26,24,24,24%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B10,10,10,10,9%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B5,5,5,5,5%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B33,33,33,33,158%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B207,37,36,36,36%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B16,16,15,16,16%5D,%22 math-partial-sums%22:%5B13,14,13,13,14%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B11,12,12,11,12%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B42,45,46,42,46%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B22,22, 21,21,22%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B30,149,30,145,30%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B47,47,47,47,47%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B12,12,124,12,12%5D%7D its amazing really, how Opera, with LESS market share, is having Mozilla run for its life! Also, Opera has added numerous high-demand UI features, like consolidated menu, tabs in title bar, bookmarks/ downloads/history on toggle, and more. Even after SIX betas and nightly updates, MOZdev has barely shed any light on these issues. So, Mozilla, what gives?
26 Sep 2010 03:10
Re: JavaScript Benchmark and more
Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky <at> mit.edu>
2010-09-26 01:10:49 GMT
2010-09-26 01:10:49 GMT
On 9/25/10 9:00 PM, DQ wrote: > Results were astonishing They were? > latest Chrome (7.0.517.17) at 352ms, Opra 10.62 at 367ms, and latest Minefield 32bit [with hardware acceleration > enabled] at 502ms, while the 64bit Minefield browser [with hardware > acceleration enabled] (latest) measured 631.4ms! (link below), You're running sunspider. Hardware acceleration is irrelevant. Why is any of this astonishing? http://arewefastyet.com/ has all this data. > especially because my system is high-end (Quad core 2.66Ghz, 3MB > cache, 4GB DDR3 RAM with Vista 6bit) and 4the MOZdev team boasts FF4b > to be fast. You seem to think that "fast" is a one-dimensional absolute metric. The Fx4 betas are generally much faster than Fx 3.6. On some tasks, the Fx4 betas are much faster than Opera or Chrome. On some tasks, the Fx4 betas are much slower than Opera or Chrome. And in fact, the same will probably be true for the final release. Some things will be faster; some will be slower. It's up to you whether the things that matter to you personally are performance of web apps or execution time of a buggy benchmark that has code that's specifically designed to make some browsers run slower by executing different tasks(Continue reading)
26 Sep 2010 14:16
Re: JavaScript Benchmark and more
Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky <at> mit.edu>
2010-09-26 12:16:22 GMT
2010-09-26 12:16:22 GMT
On 9/25/10 9:00 PM, DQ wrote: > its amazing really, how Opera, with LESS market share, is having > Mozilla run for its life! One other note. It's amazing, really, how Opera, with more money and more employees last I checked, has less market share.... -Boris
28 Sep 2010 18:53
Re: JavaScript Benchmark and more
DQ <dqureshi79 <at> gmail.com>
2010-09-28 16:53:39 GMT
2010-09-28 16:53:39 GMT
<at> Boris minefield x64: http://dromaeo.com/?id=118624 chrome 7.0.5171.17dev: http://dromaeo.com/?id=118625 apart from js performance, there's several UI features ( tabs in titlebar, single menu pane, etc.) that need to addressed. stylish may have worked around some, but native implementation not only addresses overall browser performance, but also code-level is better, i think. i only wish ff4 to be superior.
28 Sep 2010 20:08
Re: JavaScript Benchmark and more
Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky <at> mit.edu>
2010-09-28 18:08:05 GMT
2010-09-28 18:08:05 GMT
On 9/28/10 12:53 PM, DQ wrote: > <at> Boris > > minefield x64: http://dromaeo.com/?id=118624 > chrome 7.0.5171.17dev: http://dromaeo.com/?id=118625 You're not telling me anything I don't know here.... ;) -Boris
RSS Feed