IE10 at top, Chrome-dev 26 at left, Firefox/Aurora 21 at right.You could argue that Microsoft tuned the code to favor IE. But look at it. It doesn't really look tuned in any fashion at all. In fact, it looks plain rushed. At first glance, I don't even understand the bit about "run some webkit sunspider code a few times before continuing." Perhaps that's especially favorable to IE10, but I doubt it.This is corroborated by my own anecdotal observations that IE10 is very fast at HTML rendering. It shames Firefox and Chrome at rendering and scrolling on my hardware. However, it doesn't support the SMIL animation I use for this blog's background—love it or really passionately hate it as you might. The point being there are still things I find wanting in IE10, so I can feel righteous in sticking with Aurora. Yes! Sweet, sweet validation.But I say one thing is certain: IE10's rendering engine is reason enough to put to rest the "let's all use Webkit" nonsense.(Oh and notice that Chrome doesn't even render the Minesweeper background animation.)2013-02-26
Let's all use Webkit!
IE10 is finally available for Windows 7. I am not going to use it because I'm irrationally in favor of all things Mozilla. Well, not Bugzilla. Yuck, Bugzilla.Nevertheless, the performance of IE10 on the rendering and scripting benchmarks Microsoft put together is impressive. To coincide with the IE10 for Windows 7 launch, they built Minesweeper as a benchmark.IE10 at top, Chrome-dev 26 at left, Firefox/Aurora 21 at right.You could argue that Microsoft tuned the code to favor IE. But look at it. It doesn't really look tuned in any fashion at all. In fact, it looks plain rushed. At first glance, I don't even understand the bit about "run some webkit sunspider code a few times before continuing." Perhaps that's especially favorable to IE10, but I doubt it.This is corroborated by my own anecdotal observations that IE10 is very fast at HTML rendering. It shames Firefox and Chrome at rendering and scrolling on my hardware. However, it doesn't support the SMIL animation I use for this blog's background—love it or really passionately hate it as you might. The point being there are still things I find wanting in IE10, so I can feel righteous in sticking with Aurora. Yes! Sweet, sweet validation.But I say one thing is certain: IE10's rendering engine is reason enough to put to rest the "let's all use Webkit" nonsense.(Oh and notice that Chrome doesn't even render the Minesweeper background animation.)
IE10 at top, Chrome-dev 26 at left, Firefox/Aurora 21 at right.You could argue that Microsoft tuned the code to favor IE. But look at it. It doesn't really look tuned in any fashion at all. In fact, it looks plain rushed. At first glance, I don't even understand the bit about "run some webkit sunspider code a few times before continuing." Perhaps that's especially favorable to IE10, but I doubt it.This is corroborated by my own anecdotal observations that IE10 is very fast at HTML rendering. It shames Firefox and Chrome at rendering and scrolling on my hardware. However, it doesn't support the SMIL animation I use for this blog's background—love it or really passionately hate it as you might. The point being there are still things I find wanting in IE10, so I can feel righteous in sticking with Aurora. Yes! Sweet, sweet validation.But I say one thing is certain: IE10's rendering engine is reason enough to put to rest the "let's all use Webkit" nonsense.(Oh and notice that Chrome doesn't even render the Minesweeper background animation.)About this blog