« swfir | Main | Online Photoshop »
February 27, 2007
Browser cycles
Browser cycles: Safari and Firefox both process HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. By 2007 there's a wide intersection of common functionality that they share. But the underlying implementations still differ, leading to different results on higher-end metrics. Here, people construct different tests to measure various system loads... one test seems to show that keeping Safari open in the background slows down video rendering chores, compared to keeping Firefox in the background. For years people have been benchmarking SWF files and noticing that the results vary by the hosting browser -- the different browsers have different ways of requesting processor cycles from the computer, and then apportioning those cycles out among various guest processes like plugins -- different memory management tactics too. You can do a lot in JavaScript these days, but it's still hard to benchmark and profile such work. Update: Dave Hyatt has good info on the types of implementation choices not specificied by web standards.
Posted by JohnDowdell at February 27, 2007 09:08 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mtadmin/mt-tb.cgi/8425
Comments
Hi John, sorry, this is unrelated to your post. I saw your response to my comment on Read/WriteWeb, thanks for giving me that pointer to the Director FAQ. I don't know how I'd missed that bit of info!
I was wondering if you could give me a pointer as to who I could speak to in regards to being involved with the beta program for Director? I'm currently involved with other Adobe betas and I've asked a couple of people but had no response (nor any confirmation that there would be another version of Director, hence my comment on Read/WriteWeb!).
I've been using Director since Version 4 and it's a really useful application for creating cross platform apps. I'd love to be involved in the process of testing the next version (I'd also love to find out more about new features etc! Presumably it will be Intel Native for Mac). I am very interested in what Apollo can offer due to the online / offline capabilities, but I'm sure there is still a good market for a Director upgrade.
Apologies again for the off-topic comment, please feel free to remove it due to it's irrelevance!
[jd sez: Hi Rick, no worries. I remember seeing discussion on one of the Director-oriented mailing lists two weeks ago about the beta page giving replies that they were already fully subscribed, but I didn't confirm that mailing-list discussion myself. The two FAQs I see on the site don't seem to clearly address this actual Frequently Asked Question, but here's the general Adobe beta page. Unfortunately, it doesn't give guidance on when you should expect what type of reply... I'll try to pursue this when I get back into the office this week.]
Posted by: Rick Curran at February 28, 2007 03:22 AM
Hi John,
Thanks, if there's anyway I could be involved in the beta test that would be excellent. As I say I'm currently on the CS3 suite beta program, Dreamweaver in particular my main area of interest, however Director comprises a reasonable section of my work, particular in regards to integrating it with PDF usage via INM's Impressario Xtra, any advances to working with PDF natively would be awesome in Director. Thanks for checking it out for me!
Posted by: Rick Curran at February 28, 2007 10:55 AM