uhh not sure i see the deal here
faster load times for these sites?
faster load times for these sites?
[Fav] Browsers Hardware Rendering: Direct2D vs. “Regular” (GDI)
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Quote:
Mozilla has been working on this for a while. This type of rendering was introduced with Windows 7 and they were working on it before we knew that IE9 was going to have hardware acceleration.
Mozilla is simply better at programming than the IE team so it will be out first, and unlike IE it probably won't break the web.
Originally Posted by Madman340  What this article told me: Mozilla saw what Microsoft planned on doing, is going to now copy them, and finish it faster by rushing, just to get a client out before them? Splendid idea, I see no possibility of errors. |
Mozilla is simply better at programming than the IE team so it will be out first, and unlike IE it probably won't break the web.
Quote:
Quote:
Think long term.
More powerful browser process means.... more advance applications. Highly interactive, graphical apps will run more smoothly.
Originally Posted by MR_Plow uhh not sure i see the deal here faster load times for these sites? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coma What's the point? It renders much faster than any page might load, anyway. It's a gimmick. Well, unless you count torture pages with thousands of tables. |
Think long term.
More powerful browser process means.... more advance applications. Highly interactive, graphical apps will run more smoothly.
2
So the race to finish it first is just marketing?
![]()
Typical.
Typical.
It's funny how the Facebook and Twitter got the most decrease in load time.
![]()
Oh my god, what will this mean for Runescape!
![]()
Quote:
I suppose it's possible, but I don't see how hardware rendering is going to speed up processing of data that hasn't arrived yet (which is why 56k is slower). It seems to me this would only help on systems that are held back by their CPU and RAM.
Originally Posted by MR_Plow maybe this would really help those with dial up? I feel like those comfortable with their internet speeds won't notice... |
Quote:
Yeah, I mean, come on. It rendered some pages twice as fast, isn't that awesome?
Like if you surf thousand of pages every day... + more powerful apps, etc.
Originally Posted by MR_Plow hmmm but op is very excited about this apparently... |
Like if you surf thousand of pages every day... + more powerful apps, etc.
Quote:
This.
Unless they are going to send highly compressed, highly detailed pages that need rendering, I don't see an benefit here. They'd be better off sorting Flash out - I find web pages with Flash apps run the worst of all. You could say it's Adobe's fault, personally I think the browsers should pull the processing in house
Originally Posted by stargate125645 I suppose it's possible, but I don't see how hardware rendering is going to speed up processing of data that hasn't arrived yet (which is why 56k is slower). It seems to me this would only help on systems that are held back by their CPU and RAM. |
Unless they are going to send highly compressed, highly detailed pages that need rendering, I don't see an benefit here. They'd be better off sorting Flash out - I find web pages with Flash apps run the worst of all. You could say it's Adobe's fault, personally I think the browsers should pull the processing in house
Quote:
Flash 10.1 = GPU acceleration.
Originally Posted by chemicalfan This. Unless they are going to send highly compressed, highly detailed pages that need rendering, I don't see an benefit here. They'd be better off sorting Flash out - I find web pages with Flash apps run the worst of all. You could say it's Adobe's fault, personally I think the browsers should pull the processing in house |
Quote:
Quake Live already runs at 200+ FPS. I'd like to know where you got your 400Hz monitor from.
Originally Posted by Kryten QuakeLive should play pretty well, then? |
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
