Re: Vista Myths
- From: ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:15:03 -0500
In article <2fodr15rrvbhc6abeeasifeniotd88193b@xxxxxxx>, foo@xxxxxxx
wrote:
> 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/52d69b57ae273b
> >> >> 01>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> 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.
No, you started off just declaring that it required "The patience of
Job" to browse the web on a Mac in the 400 MHz range. With a 1.44 second
average page render time, that's clearly an absurd claim. The rest was
all obfuscation.
The multi-tab thing is typical Wintroll nonsense. How often do you load
18 tabs at once? Maybe once, when you launch the browser, if you happen
to have use a certain style of browsing which, in my experience, is very
uncommon. Such multi-loads probably account for a tenth of a percent of
all page loads, but you focus on those, and pretend a few seconds there
actually makes a difference in browser usability, because it's the only
way to support your whacky claims.
> 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
Thanks for the unreplicatable test, but given your record posting about
Mac performance, I don't think I'll just take your word for it.
[snip]
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Vista Myths
- From: foo
- Re: Vista Myths
- Next by Date: Re: Not a single taker?
- Next by thread: Re: Vista Myths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
