Ha.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/03/1334203/X11-Chrome-Reportedly-Outperforms-Windows-and-Mac-Versions
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Linus Upson wrote:
> scrolling jank in gmail
> http://crbug.com/25741
>
> Linus
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
>>
>> On We
scrolling jank in gmail
http://crbug.com/25741
Linus
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
> > General comments: Linux tends to be "lighter" which means it does
> > better on older hardware, so depending on what sorts of la
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> Linux draw order:
> 1) Fill entire window with blue (This looks bad, can we use a
> different color? White?).
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=20059
Looking at it again, I imagine one of the widgets has no background
(TabCo
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Elliot Glaysher (Chromium)
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour wrote:
>>> For the UI bits, I'm willing to believe that GTK, which uses cairo, hence
>>> XRender for rendering, is h
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Elliot Glaysher (Chromium)
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour wrote:
>> For the UI bits, I'm willing to believe that GTK, which uses cairo, hence
>> XRender for rendering, is hardware accelerated and in any case pipelined in
>> another pr
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour wrote:
> For the UI bits, I'm willing to believe that GTK, which uses cairo, hence
> XRender for rendering, is hardware accelerated and in any case pipelined in
> another process (X), and so is faster than serialized, software rendered
> Skia. How
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> I bet the reason Windows startup feels slower is whatever drawing
>> operation we're using for the main content area is slow. The
>> top-to-bottom sweep probably makes me feel like t
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
> > General comments: Linux tends to be "lighter" which means it does
> > better on older hardware, so depending on what sorts of laptops you're
> > talking about that could be a major fac
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
> General comments: Linux tends to be "lighter" which means it does
> better on older hardware, so depending on what sorts of laptops you're
> talking about that could be a major factor. Windowses later than 2000
> or so need surprising amounts
Jens Alfke wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to continue a forked process on OS X
> if it uses any higher-level (above POSIX) APIs. The main problem is that
> Mach ports can't be replicated across the fork, so if any ports were already
> open, they'll all be bogus in the new process.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Erik Corry wrote:
> Do you have anti-virus software on your Windows machines?
No. I could editorialize here, but I wont.
Adam
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Jens Alfke wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to continue a forked process on
> OS X if it uses any higher-level (above POSIX) APIs.
Nothing says we have to use fork(). Always having a renderer process
started and waiting for instructions could als
On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> When I benchmarked this a few months ago on a fairly ordinary Mac, it
> took nearly 100ms from the time that the browser started a renderer to
> the time that the renderer was ready to service requests. A decent
> chunk of that is load time an
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
3) Startup time is faster than calculator.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if you're kidding. Do you mean Windows calculator?
>>
>> On my home linux box (Jaunty, reasonably fast),
>> warm startup time of chrome is less
>> than the warm startup time o
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
>>> 3) Startup time is faster than calculator.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you're kidding. Do you mean Windows calculator?
>
> On my home linux box (Jaunty, reasonably fast),
> warm startup time of
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
>> 3) Startup time is faster than calculator.
>
> I'm not sure if you're kidding. Do you mean Windows calculator?
On my home linux box (Jaunty, reasonably fast),
warm startup time of chrome is less
than the warm startup time of gnome calculato
An additional note:
Most Windows boxes have an AV installed while most linux boxes don't.
Never underestimate the sluggishness of AVs.
M-A
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> My three laptops have relatively comparable
Do you have anti-virus software on your Windows machines?
2009/10/28 Adam Barth :
>
> My three laptops have relatively comparable hardware and run Chrome on
> Windows, Mac, and Linux respectively. The Linux version of Chrome
> feels ridiculously faster than Windows and Mac. Do we understand why
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> My three laptops have relatively comparable hardware and run Chrome on
> Windows, Mac, and Linux respectively. The Linux version of Chrome
> feels ridiculously faster than Windows and Mac. Do we understand why
> this is? Can we make Windows
Darin Fisher wrote:
> I suspect this is at least one of the bigger issues.
> I also suspect that process creation is a problem on Windows. We should
> probably look into having a spare child process on Windows to minimize new
> tab jank. Maybe there is a bug on this already?
This shouldn't be r
When we were all out in MtnView last, one of the action items for some
of the Mac QA folks was to get a machine that triple-boots
(Mac/Win/Linux) so that we could run the same version of chrome on the
same hardware and see the differences between platforms and then to
run a bunch of tests (startup
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Darin Fisher
>> wrote:
>> > What version of Windows are you using? I find the double-buffering on
>> Vista
>> > and Win7 to have a big negative imp
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> > What version of Windows are you using? I find the double-buffering on
> Vista
> > and Win7 to have a big negative impact on performance as compared to
> WinXP.
> > I'm always delight
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> What version of Windows are you using? I find the double-buffering on Vista
> and Win7 to have a big negative impact on performance as compared to WinXP.
> I'm always delighted to run Chrome on my old WinXP laptop. It seems so
> much fast
What version of Windows are you using? I find the double-buffering on Vista
and Win7 to have a big negative impact on performance as compared to WinXP.
I'm always delighted to run Chrome on my old WinXP laptop. It seems so
much faster there.
On X-windows, the renderer backingstores are managed
25 matches
Mail list logo
