> This is exactly the egotistical attitude you have that comes out.

There is nothing "egotistical" about my attitude.

> before you really piss me off.

My knees are shivering :-)

> I DONT KNOW WHAT #&@*@#^&!@ VIDEO I WATCHED

Could it be the one koszer linked to?

Quote:

It is NOT the one koszer linked to.. i know that much

> It is NOT the one koszer linked to

Okay.

you guys made my day, hilarious, you make me think of them

You two should get a room already

> You two should get a room already

Don't be so rude to SoundSquare ;-)

I still see this as a technical debate. Okay, pretty incandescent, but technical. Amigans are like that!

That muppets photo was great.

Seems OWB 1.11 is a good overall browser :

http://powerpc.lukysoft.cz/test-kvality-weboveho-prohlizece-owb-111-pro-morphos

Quote:

i jus resisted quoting your own sig

Daff

Yeah links in Croatian are really benificial to us...
:/

> links in Croatian are really benificial to us...

I guess he mainly referred to that chart:

http://powerpc.lukysoft.cz/data/pictures/html5test.png

No need for Croatian or Czech skills.

Daff, thanks for link to my article + image. Yeah, whole article is in czech language... only graph from article is in english for multi-lingual use ;)

If someone wants to read whole article, he can use Google's automatic english translate from czech... but it creates sometimes very funy parts :)

Test quality OWB Web Browser 1.11 for MorphOS (auto translate to english)

[ Edited by luky-amiga on 2010/11/13 23:27 ]

in another note, owb 1.11 got a 869 points score on peacekeeper, while Safari 5 got a 1130 score under macos x running at the same MDD dual g4@1.5ghz. It' amazing how Safari is only faster by 30% considering it sports a JIT JS engine (correct me if I am wrong on this) and it uses both available cpus instead of just 1 like OWB does (as morphos itself utilizes only 1 cpu). A Testament to Fab's excellent work!

edit:
sunspider results (lower is better)
OWB: 4265
Safari: 4922

Awesome JS performance for OWB beating Safari on the same machine! Has OWB incorporated the latest webkit JS JIT engineas well? Or maybe this is just for x86 and neither Safari or OWB have one? I'm a bit confused on that. In any case, OWB with 1 cpu soundly defeated Safari on 2 cpus!

[ Edited by vulture on 2010/11/14 15:04 ]

[ Edited by vulture on 2010/11/14 15:10 ]

> Safari [...] sports a JIT JS engine (correct me if I am wrong on this) [...]
> Has OWB incorporated the latest webkit JS JIT engineas well?

AFAIK Nitro is not available for PPC.

> Or maybe this is just for x86 and neither Safari or OWB have one?

Yes.

Quote:

First, OWB 1.11 uses a WebKit snapshot from 5th november, so it might be more recent (and optimized?) in some parts than your Safari browser.

Also, I can't tell if Safari for OSX / PPC uses the two PPC cores, but in any case, Safari probably rather wins on the gfx render speed (check the detailed histogram in peacekeeper results). OWB MorphOS indeed uses a software cairo surface, and it can easily be beaten by anything else that is somewhat accelerated, like OSX CoreGraphics or so.

And like said previously, WebKit's JIT is only implemented for ARM and X86/X64. So OSX has no advantage there.

Fab

If there was full hw accel with Cairo in morphos would it be as fast as chromium? I really think that this project should be a huge priority for Morphos atm...

Er... Cairo hardware acceleration is not the Holy Grail. And i don't see why it would be such a "huge priority" either. It's not like it's unusable as it is. Some things would be faster with it, and some also slower, actually.

Anyway, Chrome's speed is mostly about javascript, which is unrelated to cairo. So if we want speed, better ask WebKit guys to write a PPC implementation of their javascript JIT.

[ Edited by Fab on 2010/11/15 2:16 ]

> I am on a business trip in San Fransico when I get back to my studio
> in LA I will elaborate more.

Did you find the time yet?

Quote:

Erm... Why do I see you now with a can of gasoline and a matchbox?

I thought magnetic put very clear that he no longer remembers which supposed HD video he saw with that unexplicable low CPU usage.

It was all a mistake, or not?

> Why do I see you now with a can of gasoline and a matchbox?

Because you didn't follow the thread properly? ;-)

> I thought magnetic put very clear that he no longer remembers which
> supposed HD video he saw with that unexplicable low CPU usage.

Yes, that's why he said he wants to check his browser history as soon as he has returned to LA.

> It was all a mistake, or not?

That's what I've suspected from the start. Only a link to that video can clarify.

Hey Andreas

Apparently unlike you I have a life, and my top priority isnt posting on a forum to please YOU. I will report my findings when I set my peg up again as I had to do repair on a4000t. And do yourself a favour and dont get confrontational.

> my top priority isnt posting on a forum to please YOU.

Apparently you find the time to post on a forum to not please me ;-)

> I will report my findings when I set my peg up again

I'm looking forward to it and hope you won't mind me reminding you now and then, just in case the busy man that you are forgets about it.

>> Did you find the time yet?

> dont get confrontational.

It's obvious that you read something else than my harmless question (quoted above for reference). Whatever "confrontational" it is that you think you just replied to, let me assure you that it's just in your head.

Quote:

But I did. For example, now it's the time to bring up that muppets photo again.

Quote:

And that's what I suspected from the start too: You knew it had to be a mistake, but insist in having confirmation for the obvious.

Have you ever thought if that's worthwile? Especially, if you see it might piss people off...

> But I did.

I don't think so, else you wouldn't have thought that my simple question was something that had already been more or less answered by magnetic when in fact he held out the prospect of providing the link as soon as he fires up his Pegasos again.

> You knew it had to be a mistake

No, as I said I *suspect* it. See there for reference:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7522&forum=11&post_id=78919#78919

> Have you ever thought if that's worthwile?

Yes, I did. Conclusion: Asking simple questions costs me much less time than discussing with you whether it's worthwile or not to ask them ;-)

> Especially, if you see it might piss people off...

A simple harmless question pissing someone off indicates that there's more to that reaction than just the factual matter. But that's not my problem, really.

> if we want speed, better ask WebKit guys to write
> a PPC implementation of their javascript JIT.

Nothing about Nitro/JaegerMonkey unfortunately, but there seems to be progress on Nanojit/TraceMonkey for PPC:

"With big thanks to Edwin Smith at Adobe who put up with my constant queries, I'm proud to announce that we're making progress on doing the obvious: expanding the PowerPC nanojit so it can be used as part of TenFourFox. Ed helped me out with some of the fiddly aspects, and we're now full speed ahead on implementing the LIR instructions needed to fully support the length and breadth of JavaScript that the Mozilla framework requires. Already it is passing most of the LIR assembler tests, and when it passes all of the supported ones, I'll start work on integrating it with the main browser."
http://tenfourfox.blogspot.com/2010/12/enter-nanojit.html

"The nanojit has been up and running for a few days on my personal dev build and is pretty stable, but the results are currently mixed, and I'm going to do a full post on that when I have some hard numbers to present. The long and short of it is, for many tasks the nanojit is a screamer, but for certain tasks it is actually slower (because remember, the trace and emit step has overhead of its own, and any savings the JIT makes seem to be outweighed by that overhead under certain conditions). The argument is which benchmark to believe, but I'm still working on optimizations to the nanojit, it still seems to be an overall win"
http://tenfourfox.blogspot.com/2010/12/got-it-flaunt-it.html

"The plan for the nanojit then is this: it will come out as part of beta 9 [...]. It has been tested mostly on G5 and G4/7450, though I also ran it on a G4/7400 and it seemed okay. [...] See if it's faster for your workload. See if it's something you can improve upon. It's a start."
http://tenfourfox.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-bench-was-run-and-what-it-got-us.html

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2011/1/2 1:18 ]
[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2011/1/7 18:14 ]