Just out of curiosity, which browser are you using? Did you try it in
more than one?
--Karl
On Dec 4, 2009, at 9:43 AM, donb wrote:
I have a 'slow computer' that is 6 years old hardware, has been
upgraded from windows 3.1 and upward, to the current XP without ever a
wipe and reinstall. I figure I'm a worst-case scenario if there ever
was one. ;-)
I routinely find pages loading extremely slow from javascript-intense
sites. But these test cases run equally-smooth with jquery or
mootools, for me.
I would throw out another possibility here - the particular javascript
engine that the browser is using. Might want to check that. (NOTE: I
just tried to figure out what version I am using, but danged if I can
find anything that tells me what version it is. Give me a pointer
what to look for and I'll look again if you want me to).
On Dec 4, 5:54 am, wshawn <sh...@sanityllc.com> wrote:
Celeron? BAH!
They need to kill that beast.
In openSuse, on a not so slow machine ;) running KDE, Firefox 3.5.5
with only the cookie monster plugin activated, I noticed a slight lag
in the mootools sample.
Some of this perceived speed difference may be a direct result of
plugins, or proxy issues in the browsers themselves.
The biggest noticeable changes were 2 to 3 and 4 to 1. The direct
vertical and horizontal slides were fine in both jQuery and Mootools.
On Dec 4, 4:06 am, "Jonathan Vanherpe (T & T NV)" <jonat...@tnt.be>
wrote:
That's why I said you needed to find a slow computer to test it
on ;-).
We need to cater to a diverse audience, and part of that audience is
using IE6 on a crappy Intel Celeron chip or Firefox on a G4.
Jonathan
Michel Belleville wrote:
Just used your benchmark and I didn't see any significant
differences.
Both had slight jumps from time to time, none felt like there was a
pattern, I'm using Firefox 3.5 on a iMac pro (last year's edition)
running snow leopard.
Michel Belleville
2009/12/4 Jonathan Vanherpe (T & T NV) <jonat...@tnt.be
<mailto:jonat...@tnt.be>>
Karl Swedberg wrote:
On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Dave Methvin wrote:
I refrained from replying because the OP seemed trollish,
but
he has a
point, IMHO.
It would be great if someone who knew both frameworks could
set up a
page that demonstrated a side-by-side case where Mootools has
smoother
animations than jQuery. Otherwise it's hard do know what
might be
causing the problem, or even whether there's a problem at
all.
That's a great idea, Dave.
I wonder how much the easing equation affects people's
perception
of "smoothness." It might be worthwhile to try animations
using
the easing plugin and see if any of those equations feel
smoother.
--Karl
____________
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com<http://www.englishrules.com>
www.learningjquery.com<http://www.learningjquery.com>
ok, I've used some code I had lying around and put dummy
content
in there:
http://www.tnt.be/bugs/jquery/moovsjquery/
I actually don't really see a difference on my Ubuntu box
(using
FF 3.6b4), but there's a huge difference on a colleague's G4
(OS X
10.4, Firefox 3.5.5), so try to find a slow computer to test
this on.
Again, this might be the fault of the plugin I'm using, if you
have another way of doing the same thing in jQuery you can
tell me
so I know for next time. I really prefer using jQuery, but
sometimes I just can't because of things like this.
Jonathan
--
www.tnt.be<http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig>
*Jonathan Vanherpe*
jonat...@tnt.be <mailto:jonat...@tnt.be> -www.tnt.be
<http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig> - tel.: +32 (0)9 3860441
--www.tnt.be<http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig>
*Jonathan Vanherpe*
jonat...@tnt.be <mailto:jonat...@tnt.be> -www.tnt.be
<http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig> - tel.: +32 (0)9 3860441-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
