Re: Vista Myths
- From: foo@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:20:20 GMT
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:14:23 -0500, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In article <0hmbr1dq77q7mcs315o9ojb8mb9lfkj7kd@xxxxxxx>, foo@xxxxxxx
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:44:05 -0500, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <fYMsf.38338$dO2.18268@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > "ed" <news_test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In news:mr-7409A0.08565529122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>> >> Sandman <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
>> >> > In article <UlMsf.42013$q%.33010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> > "ed" <news_test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/52d69b57ae273b01>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm not sure how you got the results you claim, or what you did,
>> >> >>> but I stand by my comments, as I have in the past when you've
>> >> >>> brought this
>> >> >>> up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> it's pretty clear that you were right in the OG thread- the images
>> >> >> on the mac are most likely cached.
>> >> >
>> >> > And Internet Explorer on PC doesn't use cache?
>> >>
>> >> you pretty clearly cleared the cache on the pc or have it set to not cache.
>> >> look at how INSTANTANEOUSLY a cached version of your web page loads up on a
>> >> lowly 1ghz athlon laptop (don't blink, you'll miss it):
>> >> http://www.atwistedweb.com/images/sandman_0002.AVI
>> >
>> >Seriously, these details aren't so important. Foo's claim that a Mac in
>> >the 400 MHz range was too slow for web browsing was completely
>> >destroyed. As I pointed out in a related thread, Safari on a G3/400 will
>> >render over 300K of HTML, containing dozens or possibly hundreds of
>> >tables, in 4-5 seconds. Note that this is about 10 times as complex as
>> >your average web page. And that was two years ago; newer versions of
>> >Safari are significantly faster.
>>
>> I stand by my comments. Safari, particularly on some pages, was (as I
>> don't have a 450 G4 anymore) very slow. I recall a discussion we had
^G3, not G4
>> on forum threads, and how long web pages were slow as well.
>
>Reposting:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I just did tests loading local and remote copies of a bunch of pages
>using the "Page Load Test" feature available in Safari's Debug menu. The
>cache was cleared before every load. Here are my results:
>
> Local Remote
>Amazon: 1.794 6.206
>MacNN: 1.246 3.576
>NY Times: 1.685 3.876
>Slashdot: 1.543 3.655
>Yahoo: 0.935 2.343
>
>I'm on a pretty quick connection (1.6 Mb), but you'll notice that in all
>cases, remote time is more than twice as large as local time. This means
>that time taken up by network activity is more than half of total time.
>In other words, a hypothetical system that was could render pages
>infinitely fast would only display remote pages somewhat less than 50%
>faster, and the average difference between its times an my G3/400's
>times would be 1.44 seconds.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest Mac browsers haven't gotten better, and Mac CPUs
certainly have gotten faster. If you'll compare with the Safari from
2.5 years ago, that would be more interesting; I'm fully aware that
Safari 2 and the later builds of Safari 1 were faster.
If I recall correctly, my comparison was with tabs - multiple loads of
websites at the same time. My typical setup of tabs on Mac & PC is
about 12 sites; for simplicity I combined them to 18 (some were on one
machine and not the other; I combined them) and tested how long it
took to load the frontmost site (I didn't check how fast the others
loaded) and compared responsiveness of the application while the
others loaded (ie can you browse around the first page while the
others load, and how fast is it?)
Cache/Private Data cleared on both machines prior to each test
Firefox 1.5 on PC (AMD Athlon XP @ 2.3 ghz) : 11s-12s to load the
first site, xlr8yourmac; browser window works quickly and fluidly
while other sites load - any window could be chosen for browsing
quickly and immediately, making for a pleasant browsing experience
Firefox 1.5 on Alu 12" PB (G4 @ 1.33, 10.4.3, all updates) : 24-26s
to load the first site, xlr8yourmac; browser window, while not useless
while other sites loaded, was very slow and stuttered, making usage
very unpleasant while the other sites loaded. In general, browser
wasn't pleasant to use while sites loaded.
(Fasterfox was installed for page stats and was installed with default
settings - TurboCharged, by default, is selected on both machines)
In a stopwatch test, Safari took about 9.62s to do the same, but was
skippy while the other pages loaded, at times 'hanging' and not
allowing one to browse the first page that loaded. It wasn't as fast
to move between the tabs. Overall, unpleasant with lots of pages
loading/rendering, but better than FireFox on the Mac.
Maxthon on the PC took the same to load the page, but was completely
usable and fast while doing so - no skippyness, no hangs. The most
pleasant browsing experience.
If I still had the G3/450 machine, I'd try it on that. As I said 2.5
years ago when this came up, though, I don't.
.
- References:
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: Sandman
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: Peter Hayes
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: Sandman
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: foo
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: ed
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: Sandman
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: ed
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: ZnU
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: foo
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: ZnU
- Re: Vista Myths
- Prev by Date: Re: Words For The Mac Advocates Around Here:
- Next by Date: Re: What's the battery lifetime for a Mac laptop?
- Previous by thread: Re: Vista Myths
- Next by thread: Re: Vista Myths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
