Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 8th Sep 2006 04:10 UTC
Benchmarks "Oh sure, the following tests aren't as scientific as putting all the browsers in a ring and seeing which one is left standing after the fight, but it's close." More here.
Thread beginning with comment 160393
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by sbenitezb on Fri 8th Sep 2006 06:08 UTC
Member since:

Don't people have anything to do than benchmarking browser speed? Loading a lot of data (not common) is not the best way to test rendering speed. Complex pages with CSS 2.1, Javascript and XHTML, and images are more suited to be benchmarked because they are close to the real world, not some stupid and fixed HTML rows. A better benchmark should be to generate the page dynamically with javascript in the browser and measure that.

Edited 2006-09-08 06:10

Reply Score: 5

RE: Crap
by Ford Prefect on Fri 8th Sep 2006 09:54 in reply to "Crap"
Ford Prefect Member since:

For example, this page is slow on some browsers, and significantly faster on others, while scrolling:

That's due to transparency effects.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Crap
by KenJackson on Fri 8th Sep 2006 20:16 in reply to "Crap"
KenJackson Member since:

CSS 2.1 and XHTML are not the problem. A well crafted page using these is a smaller file than an older page with several levels of nested tables. CSS reduces complexity.

But you are right about Javascript. Specifically, I think advertising schemes like and that double underline random words to insert advertising links are the real guilty parties on a lot of forum sites.
Edited typo.

Edited 2006-09-08 20:17

Reply Parent Score: 2