Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Visually Demonstrating Chrome's Rendering Speed

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the want-to-see-it-again dept.

Chrome 140

eldavojohn writes "Recent betas of Google's Chrome browser are getting seriously fast. Couple that with better hardware, on average, and it's getting down to speeds that are difficult to demonstrate in a way users can appreciate. Which is why Google felt that some Rube Goldberg-ish demonstrations with slo-mo are in order. Gone are the days of boring millisecond response time metrics."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thanks, Chrome! (5, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127490)

Your sub-millisecond rendering time enabled me to get FP!

Re:Thanks, Chrome! (3, Funny)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127538)

too bad you're the only post.... wait... DAMNIT!

Re:Thanks, Chrome! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32127598)

But how fast does it render the notoriously JavaScript intensive goatse [goatse.fr] site?

Making of Video (3, Informative)

Mr.Zuka (166632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127546)

If you are interested in the behind the scene info.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oarMXGq3gI [youtube.com]

Re:Making of Video (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131396)

I use it on my netbook and it's a huge speed improvement over IE or FF, but it still lacks RSS and that annoys me. I do love that it can kill the non-responsive Flash app without crashing, FF all it does is crash... a lot.

I think (3, Interesting)

zerospeaks (1467571) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127568)

I think that was the coolest commercial I have ever seen.

Re:I think (3, Informative)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128350)

Their previous chrome features ad [youtube.com] was also pretty awesome. And, of course, there's always Honda's Cog [youtube.com] .

Re:I think (1)

thepike (1781582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129314)

I agree. I've been using Firefox for a while, and didn't plan to switch over, but this commercial has changed that.

I am now officially a sheep. Touche, Google.

Re:I think (1)

zerospeaks (1467571) | more than 4 years ago | (#32130082)

NOO!! We can't switch over, we need to keep the market share low so that they will continue to make awesome commercials for our enjoyment.

You can bash Google all you want (4, Insightful)

acid06 (917409) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127588)

But this is seriously cool stuff.

This is marketing which probably only really appeals to geeks. Most companies these days are much more worries about the "casual" audience at large.
Google remains true to its origins and is proud of it.

So, yeah, you can say this is all a plan to become the big brother, bring profit to their shareholders or whatever. To me it's just plain neat and I'm glad we have Google around to make sure the other players are kept in check.

Re:You can bash Google all you want (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127738)

I'm glad we have Google around to make sure the other players are kept in check.

And vice versa.

Re:You can bash Google all you want (3, Interesting)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127752)

It's great marketing but I'd be interested to see a side-by-side comparison of Chrome and a few other browsers rendering in slow motion for comparison. Chrome is the fastest, but only by about 30% [arstechnica.com] . Still stands out as a great ad campaign though.

Re:You can bash Google all you want (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128014)

Notice how the benchmark you linked to tests only JS; not performance in actual usage, which "a side-by-side comparison of Chrome and a few other browsers rendering in slow motion for comparison" would be about. Also, that 30% number is in relation just to previous version of Chrome.

Re:You can bash Google all you want (1)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128762)

"Only by about 30%"?

That is in relation to the previous Chrome version but even still, 30% is a significant increase in speed over the competition. 30% increase in browsing speed is more than enough reason to change browsers.

Re:You can bash Google all you want (4, Insightful)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128980)

Set up 20 pages as your homepage in Firefox.

Now open those same 20 pages in chrome and set them as the pages shown when you open a new instance of Chome.

Now close both of them.
Now open Firefox. See how it lags your system and can only max out one of your processors?
Now open Chrome. See how it pegs all 4 of your cores to 100% for about 2 seconds, and then is done rendering?

Firefox is so slow at opening my homepages, that it hangs the Windows 7 UI. And before you ask, yes, I have about 20 pages set to my homepage and visit them all multiple times/day-- market news blogs, forums, websites, etc-- most of which an RSS feed is not sufficient.

Re:You can bash Google all you want (4, Funny)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127764)

I think anybody can appreciate the explosions in the potato and lightning tests. After all, Michael Bay is very popular for a reason.

Geeks likely understand it at a different level, but it's still entertaining for the layman.

slim edge of the wedge (4, Insightful)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127974)

how many of us here have installed for friends or family because of features that likely appeal mostly or only to geeks? The vast majority of my extended family uses firefox right now because I put in on there and hid IE on them until they got used to it.

Market to the geeks, and the plebs will follow. If for nothing else than they don't want to seem out of the loop

Re:slim edge of the wedge (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128992)

how many of us here have installed for friends or family because of features that likely appeal mostly or only to geeks? The vast majority of my extended family uses firefox right now because I put in on there and hid IE on them until they got used to it.

Market to the geeks, and the plebs will follow. If for nothing else than they don't want to seem out of the loop

That's a great point. Grandma texts me. Pretty cool.

Re:slim edge of the wedge (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129700)

Market to the geeks, and the plebs will follow. If for nothing else than they don't want to seem out of the loop

This explains why the iPad has been such a failure.

Why Linux owns the lion's share of the desktop.

Oh wait....

The vast majority of my extended family uses firefox right now because I put in on there and hid IE on them until they got used to it.

Tell me how this makes the geek any less arrogant and manipulative than Steve Jobs.

Re:You can bash Google all you want (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128826)

Actually, people don't really know what a millisecond is or how it involves their browsing experience. People that are stuck on IE are used to waiting multiple seconds to have pages load.

Show this ad on national television (not even the superbowl or so) and people will be downloading Chrome in bunches.

It's an awesome ad not just for geeks but for just about anybody. Being able to compare browsing speeds with 'natural' processes we would describe as instantaneous is just mindblowing.

Slashvertisement at it's best (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127612)

Masked under a cool CSI-like facade... Next....

And yet... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127702)

And yet the AJAX on Slashdot still makes Chrome chug.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32127814)

and FF 3.6.3 can't even show/hide the posts, the slider is broken..

I hate the new layout

Re:And yet... (1)

asukasoryu (1804858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127896)

I've got 3.6.3 and my slider works just fine. You must be special.

Re:And yet... (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128224)

Mine can ::shrug::

Re:And yet... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127846)

Not really. And it's actually much, much faster than it was with Konqueror.

Re:And yet... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128076)

Yes, really. A page with over 300 pages can make a core2quad chug even in chrome.

Re:And yet... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128092)

300+ replies, I mean.

Re:And yet... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129348)

Makes my Core2Duo chug for about 5 seconds. Then it's fine -- scrolling is fast, less than a second to bring up a reply box, etc.

That quad isn't going to help much, unless you've got other tabs that are using tons of CPU -- I doubt very much that Slashdot is multi-threaded.

Re:And yet... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129290)

Then don't use it. I've had slashdot blocked with noscript for at least a year and it's been performing quite nicely for me.

Good stuff! (1, Interesting)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127734)

Ok Google, I've resisted getting Chrome up until this point but you've sold me. Until it gets some form of Adblock Plus like functionality it likely will not replace Firefox as my general purpose browser but as a backup browser I am going to give it a try now.

Re:Good stuff! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32127828)

Ok Google, I've resisted getting Chrome up until this point but you've sold me. Until it gets some form of Adblock Plus like functionality it likely will not replace Firefox as my general purpose browser but as a backup browser I am going to give it a try now.

It already has that entension, and many others. It's also theme-able. You're behind the times! :P

Re:Good stuff! (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127894)

I am indeed! I just installed that extension in Chrome and thought to myself, I better let /. know that I'm not a total noob and missed it!

Re:Good stuff! (1)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128956)

The Adblock extension for Chrome only hides ads, it doesn't block them. Chrome does *NOT* have Adblock PLUS functionality.

Nevertheless, I still use it because, well, Chrome is awesome.

Re:Good stuff! (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129082)

Yep, I've been using Chrome now for a bit with it's Adblock and because of the way it just hides the ads rather than blocking them outright the overall speed of using Chrome vs my normal Firefox setup is about the same.

On pages where there are few ads to block I can defiantly see that Chrome is faster however, sadly, those pages are few on the modern web.

As an aside my OP got modded down to 0 as Troll?! Weird!

Re:Good stuff! (1)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131308)

Probably a mod-troll modding you down because this is a somewhat common topic here. The mods assume that if it was posted once, somewhere, sometime, that it is now a stupid and/or redundant question.

Overall in general browsing I find Chrome to have an edge over FF right now, but I do a lot of manual ad blocking outside of my browser (hosts, corporate proxy & FW) so most ads never make it to me even if I open up IE *shudder*.

Re:Good stuff! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32127998)

knock yourself out

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?itemlang=&q=adblock

Cool, but... (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127760)

I'd like to see these tests run around 6pm, not at 3am, which is the typical time of day when a genius such as this would be performing such diabolical experiments.

Re:Cool, but... (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128904)

I'm a diabolical genius and 3am is my usual maintenance window, you insensitive clod!

Why does it render from bottom to top? (2, Interesting)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127778)

Anyone who can explain why the screen in the first example renders from bottom to top?

I would expect it to start rendering at the top.

Re:Why does it render from bottom to top? (1)

gotpoetry (1185519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127834)

For filiming purposes, the monitor was flipped on its side and the video card set to display at 180 degrees. It only appears to render bottom to top.

Re:Why does it render from bottom to top? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32127862)

See the video description for an FAQ (also n.b. this is measuring page rendering, not page downloading - 2 of the 3 sites were loaded locally):

"Why does allrecipes.com in the potato gun sequence appear at once, and not the text first and images second? And why does it appear to render from bottom of the screen to the top?"

Chrome sends the rendered page to the video card buffer all at once, which is why allrecipes.com appears at once, and not with the text first and images second. Chrome actually paints the page from top to bottom, but to eliminate a shadow from the driver board, we had to flip the monitor upside down and set the system preferences in Windows to rotate everything 180 degrees, resulting in the page appearing to render from bottom to top.

Equipment used:

- Computer: MacBook Pro laptop with Windows installed
- Monitor - 24" Asus: We had to replace the standard fluorescent backlight with very large tungsten fixtures to funnel in more light to capture the screen. In addition, we flipped the monitor 180 degrees to eliminate a shadow from the driver board and set the system preferences on the computer to rotate 180 degrees. No special software was used in this process.
- Camera: Phantom v640 High Speed Camera at 1920 x 1080, films up to 2700 fps

Re:Why does it render from bottom to top? (2, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127872)

According to the description, the monitor is actually flipped upside down in order to eliminate some shadow.

Re:Why does it render from bottom to top? (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127910)

Says in the video description, the mac is upside down and the screen rotated by the video driver.

Re:Why does it render from bottom to top? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128116)

explanation from the video description

Equipment used:

- Computer: MacBook Pro laptop with Windows installed
- Monitor - 24" Asus: We had to replace the standard fluorescent backlight with very large tungsten fixtures to funnel in more light to capture the screen. In addition, we flipped the monitor 180 degrees to eliminate a shadow from the driver board and set the system preferences on the computer to rotate 180 degrees. No special software was used in this process.
- Camera: Phantom v640 High Speed Camera at 1920 x 1080, films up to 2700 fps

"Why does allrecipes.com in the potato gun sequence appear at once, and not the text first and images second? And why does it appear to render from bottom of the screen to the top?"

Chrome sends the rendered page to the video card buffer all at once, which is why allrecipes.com appears at once, and not with the text first and images second. Chrome actually paints the page from top to bottom, but to eliminate a shadow from the driver board, we had to flip the monitor upside down and set the system preferences in Windows to rotate everything 180 degrees, resulting in the page appearing to render from bottom to top.

"Why does the top one third of the page appear first on the weather.com page load?"

Sometimes only half the buffer gets filled before the video card sends its buffer over to the LCD panel. This is because Chrome on Windows uses GDI to draw, which does not do v-sync.

"The screen wipes are so smooth - how was that achieved?"

The screen wipes up in a gradated wipe because LCD pixels take around 10ms to flip and gradually change color.

More filming details below:

Chrome Browser vs. Potato:
We used a version of the web page allrecipes.com that is accessible when logged in. About four hours into the Potato Gun shoot we decided to use a locally loaded version of the web page to enable more precise synchronization with the potato gun. We finally got the shot we were hoping for after 51 takes.

Chrome Browser vs. Sound:
We loaded an artist page from Pandora.com, a streaming internet radio service directly off the web on a 15Mbps internet connection.

Chrome Browser vs. Lightning:
We used a locally loaded version of weather.com that was legally approved for use in this video (and all the standard website permissions procedures that goes into making videos!)

While we had a super fast 15Mbps internet connection in the studio, any live internet connection introduces quite a bit of variability. To run speed tests on page rendering times, saving locally and loading from the local disk can help reduce this variability.

For behind-the-scenes footage of how this video was made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oarMX...

Re:Why does it render from bottom to top? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128234)

You obviously didn't RTFA, but the rendering scan is actually from the way the LCD pixels get drawn by the video driver.

file://... (1, Insightful)

Zarjazz (36278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127808)

Cool video but probably not as impressive when you don't load from the page cache and add network latency and overloaded webservers to the mix.

Re:file://... (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127856)

Yep, gotta read that fine print:
"While we had a super fast 15Mbps internet connection in the studio, any live internet connection introduces quite a bit of variability. To run speed tests on page rendering times, saving locally and loading from the local disk can help reduce this variability."

So all the examples are loading from the hard drive. While the commercial is cool, I still think they cheated.

Re:file://... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128098)

but this is about it's rendering speed only, not how fast it can download a page.

Re:file://... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128140)

But still the browser really dedicated [myopera.com] to overall snappiness (and for quite some time now) will yet again be forgotten.

Re:file://... (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129096)

Opera is dedicated to compliance to the fscking standards, secondly new innovative features and at third place is speed. Chrome is about minimalism and mostly speed. In-sane-speed.

Chrome is way faster from an end user perspective. Opera is kinda slow in that regard...

It's hazardously addicting. Once you're used to the speed of Chrome you cannot go back. I have a social networking page with embedded YouTube vids, 1024*768 res background, multiple levels of transparancy, images, java, a complete IM and whatever it does. It completely destroys IE performance in a way that it is unusable. Firefox can load it but it is extremely slow. Opera is better, but you'll still notice massive lag all the time. With Chrome it feels like it is an app running locally. This network site is not known outside of my country so no Facebook, MySpace or all that other crap...

Re:file://... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129408)

I have clocked months using Chrome as my main browser (also quite recently, around 2009/2010 date change)...a common thing for me really, I go through most browsers over the year and check their progress; in my case its performance was unbearable in the end. But then for me it's "overall snappiness", and also when generously using such features as...tabs.

Re:file://... (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128394)

Cheated? Chrome can't do anything about how crappy your Internet connection is. They're just showing off how fast it can be.

Re:file://... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131662)

    I'm amazed at how many people blame their computer for their Internet speeds. Several years ago, someone I knew had a good computer, but was on dialup. They brought the computer to me. I plugged it into my network, played with it a little, and then asked them to demonstrate the problem. "Oh, you fixed it!". I hadn't done anything. I tried to explain that their bottleneck was their dialup speeds. They didn't quite understand. They took it home, and called to say it's still slow.

    I finally got them to go buy connectivity from their cable company. The basic package was the same cost as their dialup. They were amazed. Then their kid tried uploading over it, and it took an hour to upload some video they shot. "My computer is slow doing this...." They brought it back to me, and again I demonstrated it wasn't the computer. I tried to explain the speed of the package they got, and that there were other packages if they wanted to spend more money. Of course they didn't want to spend more money, so they just told the kids "it's because the computer is too slow." {sigh}

Re:file://... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128122)

Cool video but probably not as impressive when you don't load from the page cache and add network latency and overloaded webservers to the mix.

Which is why the title reads "rendering speed" not "loading" or "network" speed. If you have dialup, you could have a browser coded by Jesus Christ himself and it's going to be slow as dirt. How on Earth could someone justify moderating you Insightful?

Oh, nice double negative as well. Really clarified your message.

Re:file://... (5, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128516)

"...you could have a browser coded by Jesus Christ himself and it's going to be slow as dirt."

Not only that, but it would take three days to recover from a crash.

Re:file://... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32131380)

But notice when one tab crashed the other two stayed functional.

Re:file://... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129194)

when you want to measure a certain value, you try your best to isolate it. It's hard to "see" how fast a page is rendered when you start to add a ton of other variables that could slow down the response.

Too bad they kind of cheated on the fetch speeds (1, Informative)

Tsaot (859424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127838)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9840543&postcount=11 [macrumors.com] All the pages loaded from a local source (as seen in the image linked), so this is a render demo only. I will admit that the render speeds are lightning fast and I've come to prefer Chrome over FF for my casual browsing. However, If I'm doing research of any kind, I know I'm going to have some 50+ tabs and until Chrome has a tree style tab plugin, FF has the job.

Re:Too bad they kind of cheated on the fetch speed (4, Informative)

gotpoetry (1185519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127922)

Two of the three were from local source. The Pandora example was not.

From TFYTV [youtube.com] :

Chrome Browser vs. Sound: We loaded an artist page from Pandora.com, a streaming internet radio service directly off the web on a 15Mbps internet connection.

The other two examples were indeed from a local disk copy.

Re:Too bad they kind of cheated on the fetch speed (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129524)

These speed tests were filmed at actual web page rendering times.

First line of the description of the video. Granted they could've put it in the title instead of just 'speed', but I think they're being pretty straightforward in stating that this is just a rendering test.

Proper adblock (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127860)

Most days, I love me some Chrome. But a proper ad blocking solution is an absolute must on Windows.

Google makes money off advertising. I get that. But many ads on the internet pose legitimate security risks.

Give me a Chrome with a proper ad block (that stops the ad from loading, not just hiding it) and I'll use Chrome every day. I'd even subscribe to a filter that blocks other ads, and allows Google ads through.

Re:Proper adblock (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129164)

Either run the latest IE on Vista/7 which is sandboxed, or switch to Linux/BSD/Haiku/ReactOS.

Adblock isn't the solution. Maybe some slick virtualisation of a minimal Linux distro like CrunchBang! Linux would help?

Re:Proper adblock (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129428)

ReactOS is designed to run Windows code. Windows malware should run just fine on it. How is that secure? Likewise, people have proven you can run Windows malware on Wine. Which is why you should avoid running IE in Wine unless you absolutely need to.

Linux/BSD/openSolaris is the solution and I highly recommend it. openSUSE is my distro of choice. I keep Windows on my gaming rig largely for gaming.

The sandboxed IE is anything but secure, especially since plugins aren't sandboxed.

All those Flash ads that IE isn't sandboxing can install software in the background without telling you.

Friends never let friends use IE.

If you want to be secure browsing the web in Windows I recommend a HOSTS file, Spybot Search and Destroy (immunization feature), Firefox + Adblock Plus, and Microsoft Security Essentials.

Combined you're pretty safe.

Re:Proper adblock (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32130850)

Seriously, WTF?!

How will virtualisation block ads?

Re:Proper adblock (0)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129248)

As has been pointed out to others, Chrome has had adblock for some time now [google.com] .

I expect you'll be using Chrome daily now? ;)

Re:Proper adblock (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129476)

No, Chrome fully renders ads, even with adblock. Malicious code in the ads still runs. It just hides the ad from you.

That is why I said a:

"Give me a Chrome with a proper ad block (that stops the ad from loading, not just hiding it)"

I do bounce back and forth between Chrome and Firefox most days on my Windows box, but hidden ads in Chrome have trigged my anti-virus a few times. And that is with my running a HOSTS file which blocks most ads to begin with.

Re:Proper adblock (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129986)

No, Chrome fully renders ads, even with adblock.

So... how would I go about verifying that?

Re:Proper adblock (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32130546)

Look at the network packets. If the browser is fetching the ads, you'll see network traffic from the various ad sites.

For people with slow network connections (like me), Firefox with noscript+adblock can be significantly faster than Chrome in many/most cases.

Downloading the ads but not displaying them will still interfere with the other network downloads.

Re:Proper adblock (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32130124)

Looks like there's a revision committed 8 hours ago [google.com] to do what you want, which should go into the next release.

Re:Proper adblock (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32130830)

Thanks for the link!

Outstanding. Last I had read, it wasn't possible for a Chrome extension to accomplish this without changing Chrome's core code.

I don't know if they have worked around this, or if something has changed.

Re:Proper adblock (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32130920)

I suspect it's a workaround of some sort; they note that the way they do it can slow some sites down.

Re:Proper adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32129550)

Except it's not very good.
Try enter a domain filter like say *doubleclick*.

Re:Proper adblock (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129710)

Er... Adblock in Chrome uses the same filter list as Adblock in Firefox, so if one misses things, then so does the other...

Re:Proper adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32131294)

Er, I mean, try entering it, in the gui. No worky. The filter works fine in firefox.

Chrome is cheating... (4, Interesting)

stazeii (1148459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32127916)

Chrome is caching ALL content, even stuff that says "no-cache". While "no-cache" is somewhat broken, things like the horrible "Blackboard" web apps don't really work in Chrome because it's caching things that shouldn't be cached. If Google intends to do this, and encourage this with other browsers, they need to start teaching designers how to properly use caching headers so that Chrome doesn't break usability with it's aggressiveness.

Re:Chrome is cheating... (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128222)

Well you can always fork it and make a tinfoil hat version of Chrome, that's the beauty of Open Source.

Re:Chrome is cheating... (1)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128872)

We already have a tinfoil hat version of Chrome, its called Iron [srware.net]

Re:Chrome is cheating... (1)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128900)

My bad, that link is in German. English Linky! [srware.net]

Re:Chrome is cheating... (2, Informative)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129186)

umm, blackboard works just fine in my chrome...

Chrome vs. Firefox+NoScript (1)

nlewis (1168711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128030)

I just checked Chrome out for the first time, and yes it does render pages quickly. But it's no faster (to my naked eye, at least) than Firefox with the NoScript extension running. And since Firefox+NoScript is also blocking scripts, Flash applets, etc. from running, it seems to me that it would be safer than Chrome anyway. YMMV, but I think I'll stick with my Firefox a bit longer.

Re:Chrome vs. Firefox+NoScript (1)

SpeZek (970136) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128922)

So, what you're saying, is that Chrome loads pages full of crap that slows FF to a crawl just as fast as FF loads a completely stripped down page.

Right.

Re:Chrome vs. Firefox+NoScript (1)

nlewis (1168711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129024)

Point / counterpoint. However, I still like the fact that Firefox+NoScript doesn't download "pages full of crap" *at all*. Give me Chrome+NoScript and I'd be one happy camper. :-)

Re:Chrome vs. Firefox+NoScript (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131000)

Most LCD monitors can't refresh that fast anyway (60Hz), so when you're rendering a locally stored and cached page, you'll start to hit that limit (about 16 milliseconds).

That's why the potato gun is further to the left from the screen (otherwise the spud would go past before Chrome is done), and they used paint on a speaker which I think is moving slower than sound (which travels about 5.6 metres in 16 milliseconds ). If you really want to see sound waves travel through air there are various methods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbomsOPSSII&feature=related [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q [youtube.com]

Undoing comment moderation (1)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128424)

I'd like to see a rig where they cause multiple computers running one browser each loading the page in the same way versus each of the objects. Or see if lightning could cook a potato before a historic browser finishes rendering.

Wow, an ad with pre-conditioning (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128452)

I'm surprised to see an ad where they introduce the product or brand before the actual video, which is the opposite way from which things are normally done. If my psychology learnings are correct, this is actually more likely to get a strong association (through Pavlovian conditioning) than doing things the 'normal' way. I've often wondered why advertisers don't typically show their product in the first few seconds of the ad. Any ideas?

Re:Wow, an ad with pre-conditioning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32129514)

maybe they want to "trick" you into thinking its not an ad and get you interested in it, so that you'll be paying more attention when they do finally show you the product?

Other browsers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128496)

When are we going to see this done with firefox, or any other competitive browser for that matter?

Useful here at Slashdot (1)

clintp (5169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128560)

I don't know about you, but Slashdot comment pages are slooow for me to load under Firefox 3.6. The initial story block loads quick, the sidebars fill in, and then there's the painful wait for the rest of the page to pop. Large comment sections can take long enough that I get bored and try flipping to another tab -- which doesn't work under Firefox and gives the "app is busy" cursor and shades the window as "not updating".

The latest Chrome: much faster. Zip, zip, done. 600 Comment article gives the busy-cursor for 3 seconds. And during those three seconds I can change tabs. FF 3.6? 8 seconds and the whole window goes to sleep. Same goes for opening a "Reply" section here.

That being said, I don't like Chrome for other reasons and probably won't use it. But it's nice to have something to aim for.

Re:Useful here at Slashdot (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128948)

FF 3.6.4 here on OSX 10.4 and 3 seconds is about all it usually takes, although you're apt to see the spinning beach ball in the meantime.

Re:Useful here at Slashdot (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32129304)

With Firefox it isn't just the one window that sleeps - it's every Firefox window. Suppose you have two Firefox windows open (say, one on each monitor), each with its own set of tabs. You load up a Slashdot article, and both Firefox windows will freeze. (Turns out Firefox only runs one process, regardless of how many windows you have open.)

Hahaha (1)

naam00 (1145163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128698)

Google Error
Server Error
The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request. Please try again in 30 seconds.

... when using Safari. I am sure that's on purpose.

Re:Hahaha (1)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32128788)

Nope, it's in all browsers.

Google got ./ed ? Neat.

Re:Hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128998)

YouTube to slow to serve up the video showing how fast Chrome is?

The ironing is delicious!

Opera rendering engine is far and away the best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128740)

Run demos from IE9's testdrive site. You will see that Opera (without hardware acceleration) destroys all other browsers and keeps up with IE9 (with its hardware acceleration). Truly Astonishing... http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/

Rendering Speed Matters Why Exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32128824)

How many people are using 10+ year old machines? Why does Chrome's rendering speed matter? My machine is over 3 years old and I can't tell the difference in speed. Any decent system will typically be rendering faster than the net will give you the data regardless of browser. Browser wars are last millennium.

Microsoft has their demo too (3, Interesting)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32130262)

Earlier this week, I attended Web 2.0, a conference in San Francisco. One of the big exhibitors is Microsoft. At their booth was a beautiful woman demonstrating a preview of IE9. At the time, she was demonstrating the graphics performance of IE9, highlighting the fact that they used the graphics controller directly to render the spinning graphics (which looked like a Windows-NT-3GL-screen-saver) much faster than Firefox and slightly faster than Chrome. She mentioned that it was “HTML5 rendering” and pointed to the site where you or I could prove it to ourselves -- http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/ [microsoft.com] . As she stood their beaming, I innocently asked if I could try, and she foolishly agreed to let me browse http://html5test.com/ [html5test.com] which gave IE9 a score of 19/160 (BTW, that is what IE8 shows too). Then I tried it with Firefox and got 101/160, and Chrome 118/160. The beautiful woman was taken aback, obviously never having seen this site or acting as such. After learning what the site was about then generally questioning its motives, she dismissed the tests out of hand, saying they were basically irrelevant when compared to Microsoft’s. A gentleman standing next to me replied something like, “browser compatibility has been the biggest issue in developing applications, and now that most other browsers seem to have converged on a common standard, you dismiss it as irrelevant. You demonstrate a new version that will not be out for a year but does not feature any movement toward compatibility with anything but yourself.” The beautiful woman went into damage control, replying that what was being demonstrated was a preview, not even beta, and implied that many things may be added by the time it ships. I hope so, but I doubt it. BTW, others at the kiosk demonstrating Windows Mobile 7 were saying that will ship by the end of the year with IE8 and , of course, Silverlight.

Re:Microsoft has their demo too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32131330)

You repeated "the beautiful woman" several times, but where is the ugly woman?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?