On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Kaiwai Gardiner <kaiwai.gardiner at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 15:15 +0800, Alfred Peng wrote: > > Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > > The other issue is of course that almost every major software release > > > is slower than the one that came before. The number of necessary > > > shared libraries tends to multiply like Gerbils since everyone wants > > > their small contribution (requiring another huge library) to be > > > included. Some might call this the "Microsoft domino effect". > > > > > This seems to be a common case for the software development, with more > > and more fancy features and colorful stuff are introduced :-) > > > > I searched around and found some interesting things for Firefox. From > > the following two Tinderbox page, Firefox 3.0 performance has been > > improved to compare with Firefox 2.0: > > http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showbuilds.cgi?tree=Firefox > > http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showbuilds.cgi?tree=Mozilla1.8 > > > > Please note the two trees named "Linux talos trunk fast > > qm-plinux-fast01" and "Linux talos branch fast qm-plinux-fast02". They > > run on two mac minis with same hardware configuration, deploy the > > talos[1] test framework with automation testing[2] for Javascript, DHTML > > performance, Startup time, Page load time... > > > > I also tried the sunspider benchmark: > > http://webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html on my x86 box > > here(Nevada b87 with Firefox 3.0b5 and 2.0.0.12) and saw some > > improvement for Firefox 3.0. > > > > BTW, some performance/memory footprint progress for Firefox 3.0 on > > Solaris(Thanks for Ginn's hard work): > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425626 > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422055 > > > > Cheers, > > -Alfred > > > > [1] http://quality.mozilla.org/projects/automation/talos > > [2] http://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance:Tinderbox_Tests > > Hi, > > Thank you guys for the feedback - it appears that the single vector for > all missery is flash, news.zdnet.com seems to use flash in every add, > which which extrapolated over a whole webpage, makes the experience > non-too-savoury to say the least. > > Btw, I'm wondering, do we choose what scheduler is used, because it > appears that it isn't as smooth over all as it should be.
Did you ever try the ShadowFB option I mentioned? -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
