Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 116675	2011-03-15 09:26:00	IE9 RTM is out	jwil1 (65)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1186323	2011-03-15 21:31:00	I saw something about it using your gpu to load stuff instead of your cpu. MS thought this = better pc performance. Now it just means you need a semi-decent GPU to browse the internet. An what about the people who alt tab between a game and the internet. MS just trashed that idea. Errr don't all browsers at the moment use GPU acceleration?	Cato (6936)
1186324	2011-03-15 22:18:00	How standards-compliant is it, wainuitech? I'll defer to wainuitech since he'll have a view I'm sure, but one way of validating standards is by conformance to official test cases from standards bodies. This site shows current conformance to the W3C and Ecma test cases: samples.msdn.microsoft.com A test doesn't cover everything in the syllabus so passing 100% of the current test cases doesn't mean 100% standards compliance. Failing test cases does mean non-compliance though. cheers W	waldok (15185)
1186325	2011-03-15 22:21:00	I'll defer to wainuitech since he'll have a view I'm sure, but one way of validating standards is by conformance to official test cases from standards bodies. This site shows current conformance to the W3C and Ecma test cases: samples.msdn.microsoft.com A test doesn't cover everything in the syllabus so passing 100% of the current test cases doesn't mean 100% standards compliance. Failing test cases does mean non-compliance though. cheers W Much like antivirus products are tested then? :)	Snorkbox (15764)
1186326	2011-03-15 23:10:00	Dont know if the fish test for graphics is an indication This test (ie.microsoft.com) - Run it In IE9 - my computer handles 1000 fish easily enough. Firefox spits the dummy on 10, and opera spits the dummy full time - no fish :yuck: I'll defer to wainuitech since he'll have a view I'm sure, but one way of validating standards is by conformance to official test cases from standards bodies. Gee thanks very much - I think :nerd: :D Have not done any standards-compliant tests- never have, basically I use software as is normally then alter setting to my needs. What I will do is use it here, as well as get the family to use software on their computers to simulate a average user. If they start complaining about something, thats when I have to sort it out.	wainuitech (129)
1186327	2011-03-15 23:24:00	meh. Firefox is better, and easier. how do i put this.....um.....Internet Explorer is for noobs. So have you tried IE9 recently? Carry on with Firefox if it suits you as it's not for me to tell you what to use.	Snorkbox (15764)
1186328	2011-03-16 08:16:00	Bah humbug Its better, Its faster, but something in the javascript engine changed and i had to write a fix for Image Handler (zencart plugin), completely caught me out.	Morgenmuffel (187)
1186329	2011-03-16 12:14:00	Much like antivirus products are tested then? :) LOL I hadn't thought of that but yes much the same! :) cheers W	waldok (15185)
1186330	2011-03-16 21:41:00	Dont know if the fish test for graphics is an indication This test ( . microsoft . com/testdrive/Performance/FishIETank/Default . html" target="_blank">ie . microsoft . com) - Run it In IE9 - my computer handles 1000 fish easily enough . Firefox spits the dummy on 10, and opera spits the dummy full time - no fish :yuck: Gee thanks very much - I think :nerd: :D hmmm I got the reverse result IE choked around 100 fish or at least got really noticeably jerky, at 1000 Microsoft . com stops responding (or at least thats what the error message says) Opera & Chrome got up to 250 before the jerkness got noticeable, but both did go up to 1000 although it moved about once a second as for firefox yeah um hmmm at 1000 the animation moved once every 5 seconds Then again this test is designed as a Javascript test by IE, would be interesting to see one by an independent group, although i have to say it is a very appealing looking test compared to the boring ones usually put out by companies	Morgenmuffel (187)
1186331	2011-03-16 22:33:00	I get 33FPS on that test with 1000 fish. A crap 6600 vidcard, AMD4400+ and 2 gig RAM.	Snorkbox (15764)
1186332	2011-03-16 22:40:00	I decided to give Opera a go this morning, having already given Chrome the flick. I must say I actually found Opera to be slower than FF with all my add-ons working and none on Opera. I did install some for Opera. yes both Opera and Chrome have a minimalist look to them which is not bad but I found after a day of using both (one at time) I went back to FF as I simply found it did things the way I want it to much better and speed wise it was faster. Will give IE9 a try sometime next week. Hmm IE8 wont run the fish test so downloading 9 now	gary67 (56)
1 2 3