<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Opera easily beats major browsers with JavaScript speed test</title>
	<atom:link href="http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html</link>
	<description>A blog covering the latest buzz on the Opera browser and its competition.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Remco</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7352</link>
		<dc:creator>Remco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7352</guid>
		<description>More numbers in the newsgroup opera.general: &lt;a href="http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/browse_thread/thread/537c0c3af7c74496/2b8ca506dee34ad2#2b8ca506dee34ad2" Title="	Opera 9 Fastese JavaScript" rel="nofollow"&gt;	Opera 9 Fastese JavaScript&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More numbers in the newsgroup opera.general: <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/browse_thread/thread/537c0c3af7c74496/2b8ca506dee34ad2#2b8ca506dee34ad2" Title="	Opera 9 Fastese JavaScript">	Opera 9 Fastese JavaScript</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7237</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7237</guid>
		<description>I just tried it in Virtual PC, which is a barren install of XP SP2 along with a brand-new 9.01, no other tabs, and I get these still-high numbers (or pretty close) every time:

Try/Catch with errors 10
Layer movement 170
Random number engine 101
Math engine 140
DOM speed 70
Array functions 90
String functions 210
Ajax declaration 70
Total Duration 861 ms

How much cleaner could it possibly be?!  But perhaps that's because it's in VPC. Is this test highly memory or CPU dependent?  If so, I guess that explains VPC.

So I closed all my tabs in my main 9.01 Opera (outside of VPC: machine 3GHz P4 with 2GB RAM), and without restarting it got this:

Try/Catch with errors 15
Layer movement 141
Random number engine 78
Math engine 125
DOM speed 63
Array functions 62
String functions 672
Ajax declaration 16
Total Duration 1172 ms

Ran it again, got this (seriously):

Try/Catch with errors 0
Layer movement 47
Random number engine 93
Math engine 110
DOM speed 62
Array functions 63
String functions 93
Ajax declaration 32
Total Duration 500 ms

Closed Opera, ran it again, and then got this:

Try/Catch with errors 15
Layer movement 63
Random number engine 94
Math engine 109
DOM speed 47
Array functions 78
String functions 156
Ajax declaration 47
Total Duration 609 ms

Ran it again, got this:

Try/Catch with errors 16
Layer movement 78
Random number engine 78
Math engine 109
DOM speed 63
Array functions 62
String functions 172
Ajax declaration 47
Total Duration 625 ms

Opened all my tabs (15-20) again and saw it go from 1437 to 1640 to 1125 to 1250 to 1094.

Perhaps this test is severely affected by what else you have running. I didn't try closing down every last thing, including tray apps, but perhaps if I did I'd get good numbers. Not that I'd ever do that in real life.

In summary, I think this test is whacked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just tried it in Virtual PC, which is a barren install of XP SP2 along with a brand-new 9.01, no other tabs, and I get these still-high numbers (or pretty close) every time:</p>
<p>Try/Catch with errors 10<br />
Layer movement 170<br />
Random number engine 101<br />
Math engine 140<br />
DOM speed 70<br />
Array functions 90<br />
String functions 210<br />
Ajax declaration 70<br />
Total Duration 861 ms</p>
<p>How much cleaner could it possibly be?!  But perhaps that&#8217;s because it&#8217;s in VPC. Is this test highly memory or CPU dependent?  If so, I guess that explains VPC.</p>
<p>So I closed all my tabs in my main 9.01 Opera (outside of VPC: machine 3GHz P4 with 2GB RAM), and without restarting it got this:</p>
<p>Try/Catch with errors 15<br />
Layer movement 141<br />
Random number engine 78<br />
Math engine 125<br />
DOM speed 63<br />
Array functions 62<br />
String functions 672<br />
Ajax declaration 16<br />
Total Duration 1172 ms</p>
<p>Ran it again, got this (seriously):</p>
<p>Try/Catch with errors 0<br />
Layer movement 47<br />
Random number engine 93<br />
Math engine 110<br />
DOM speed 62<br />
Array functions 63<br />
String functions 93<br />
Ajax declaration 32<br />
Total Duration 500 ms</p>
<p>Closed Opera, ran it again, and then got this:</p>
<p>Try/Catch with errors 15<br />
Layer movement 63<br />
Random number engine 94<br />
Math engine 109<br />
DOM speed 47<br />
Array functions 78<br />
String functions 156<br />
Ajax declaration 47<br />
Total Duration 609 ms</p>
<p>Ran it again, got this:</p>
<p>Try/Catch with errors 16<br />
Layer movement 78<br />
Random number engine 78<br />
Math engine 109<br />
DOM speed 63<br />
Array functions 62<br />
String functions 172<br />
Ajax declaration 47<br />
Total Duration 625 ms</p>
<p>Opened all my tabs (15-20) again and saw it go from 1437 to 1640 to 1125 to 1250 to 1094.</p>
<p>Perhaps this test is severely affected by what else you have running. I didn&#8217;t try closing down every last thing, including tray apps, but perhaps if I did I&#8217;d get good numbers. Not that I&#8217;d ever do that in real life.</p>
<p>In summary, I think this test is whacked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gkiller</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7165</link>
		<dc:creator>gkiller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7165</guid>
		<description>Wajo357:

On my Linux w/ Gnome 2.14 the String function test is also *reaally* slow. When about 30 tabs are open (and music player in the background eating a bit of CPU) the string test takes about 3000 msec on first run and 1000-1500 msec on subsequent runs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wajo357:</p>
<p>On my Linux w/ Gnome 2.14 the String function test is also *reaally* slow. When about 30 tabs are open (and music player in the background eating a bit of CPU) the string test takes about 3000 msec on first run and 1000-1500 msec on subsequent runs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7098</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7098</guid>
		<description>Yes, I'm seeing the same stumble on string functions as some others do. What's going on?  I do have a number of tabs open, but that should be n/a. Firefox finishes at about 2100, 2200 or so. No dramatic difference here.

Try/Catch with errors	78
Layer movement	63
Random number engine	62
Math engine	110
DOM speed	47
Array functions	62
String functions	1484
Ajax declaration	32
Total Duration	1938 ms</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I&#8217;m seeing the same stumble on string functions as some others do. What&#8217;s going on?  I do have a number of tabs open, but that should be n/a. Firefox finishes at about 2100, 2200 or so. No dramatic difference here.</p>
<p>Try/Catch with errors	78<br />
Layer movement	63<br />
Random number engine	62<br />
Math engine	110<br />
DOM speed	47<br />
Array functions	62<br />
String functions	1484<br />
Ajax declaration	32<br />
Total Duration	1938 ms</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7069</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:14:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7069</guid>
		<description>LOL

My IE6 must be screwy somewhere check this:

Opera:
Try/Catch with errors	0
Layer movement	47
Random number engine	62
Math engine	94
DOM speed	31
Array functions	47
String functions	63
Ajax declaration	15

IE6:
It gets hung up on two stages!

Try/Catch with errors 15 
Layer movement 328 
Random number engine 47 
Math engine 125 
&lt;b&gt;DOM speed 6969&lt;/b&gt; 
Array functions 16 
String functions 0 
&lt;b&gt;Ajax declaration 29516&lt;/b&gt; 
&lt;b&gt;Total Duration 37016ms&lt;/b&gt; 

Pretty much a fresh install, as i recently formatted the partition, as well all patched and up to date ... wierd eh?

Good thing i dont use it, so i dont really care :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOL</p>
<p>My IE6 must be screwy somewhere check this:</p>
<p>Opera:<br />
Try/Catch with errors	0<br />
Layer movement	47<br />
Random number engine	62<br />
Math engine	94<br />
DOM speed	31<br />
Array functions	47<br />
String functions	63<br />
Ajax declaration	15</p>
<p>IE6:<br />
It gets hung up on two stages!</p>
<p>Try/Catch with errors 15<br />
Layer movement 328<br />
Random number engine 47<br />
Math engine 125<br />
<b>DOM speed 6969</b><br />
Array functions 16<br />
String functions 0<br />
<b>Ajax declaration 29516</b><br />
<b>Total Duration 37016ms</b> </p>
<p>Pretty much a fresh install, as i recently formatted the partition, as well all patched and up to date &#8230; wierd eh?</p>
<p>Good thing i dont use it, so i dont really care <img src='http://operawatch.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Gregory</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7067</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7067</guid>
		<description>While benchmark tests are fun to brag about, nobody actually uses benchmarks tests while surfing. What you really want is for the "real" code to be instrumented.

While it would be next to impossible to get proper website to include such code, an example of what I mean is the recent &lt;a href="http://www.tiddlywiki.com/beta/" rel="nofollow"&gt;TiddlyWiki beta&lt;/a&gt;. This is a very complicated client-side script. For testing purposes during development, they added a performance check.

On my system, Opera usually takes 800ms to process the script, Firefox about 1000ms (25% longer) and IE about 1140ms (42.5% longer).

Another good thing about that page is that you can download it to your computer and totally eliminate network latency from the numbers.

I consider that a much better test than some arbitrary benchmark.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While benchmark tests are fun to brag about, nobody actually uses benchmarks tests while surfing. What you really want is for the &#8220;real&#8221; code to be instrumented.</p>
<p>While it would be next to impossible to get proper website to include such code, an example of what I mean is the recent <a href="http://www.tiddlywiki.com/beta/">TiddlyWiki beta</a>. This is a very complicated client-side script. For testing purposes during development, they added a performance check.</p>
<p>On my system, Opera usually takes 800ms to process the script, Firefox about 1000ms (25% longer) and IE about 1140ms (42.5% longer).</p>
<p>Another good thing about that page is that you can download it to your computer and totally eliminate network latency from the numbers.</p>
<p>I consider that a much better test than some arbitrary benchmark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. King</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7052</link>
		<dc:creator>J. King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7052</guid>
		<description>I find it interesting that Opera beats out the competition even though it is considerably slower with string functions compared to the competition.  If its performance in that area could be improved, I wonder how fast it would be then. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it interesting that Opera beats out the competition even though it is considerably slower with string functions compared to the competition.  If its performance in that area could be improved, I wonder how fast it would be then. <img src='http://operawatch.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heathen Dan</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7051</link>
		<dc:creator>Heathen Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7051</guid>
		<description>Not surprising at all. The BenchJS tests show the speed of Opera when executing javascript. What's surprising is the low score of FF and that even IE has a small edge on it. How do other gecko-based browsers fare?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not surprising at all. The BenchJS tests show the speed of Opera when executing javascript. What&#8217;s surprising is the low score of FF and that even IE has a small edge on it. How do other gecko-based browsers fare?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GT500</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7036</link>
		<dc:creator>GT500</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7036</guid>
		<description>That is not true in the Linux builds.

Any Linux Opera users check out your CPU usage while running &lt;a href="http://www.cross-browser.com/x/examples/xparaeq.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, and then compare it to other browsers (such as Konueror).

I'l been trying to get them to fix those rendering issues. I can't tell if it's doing any good though...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is not true in the Linux builds.</p>
<p>Any Linux Opera users check out your CPU usage while running <a href="http://www.cross-browser.com/x/examples/xparaeq.php">this</a>, and then compare it to other browsers (such as Konueror).</p>
<p>I&#8217;l been trying to get them to fix those rendering issues. I can&#8217;t tell if it&#8217;s doing any good though&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kyleabaker</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7034</link>
		<dc:creator>kyleabaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7034</guid>
		<description>@Wajo357
 I too experienced this string function problem. I had several windows opened and both IE and FF opened all at the same time while testing. Here are the fastest results I could come up with when multiple windows were opened all at once...
 &lt;a href="http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4627/javascriptspeedtest2rp7.png" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4627/javascriptspeedtest2rp7.png&lt;/a&gt;
This is a test I did with a fresh opening of Opera...
&lt;a href="http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4739/javascriptspeedtest3kp0.png" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4739/javascriptspeedtest3kp0.png&lt;/a&gt;
Wenty from 1859ms to 375ms! Incredible!

Also, yes Gmail does seem to slow it down some, but my 375ms just went up to 610ms. Still not bad!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Wajo357<br />
 I too experienced this string function problem. I had several windows opened and both IE and FF opened all at the same time while testing. Here are the fastest results I could come up with when multiple windows were opened all at once&#8230;<br />
 <a href="http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4627/javascriptspeedtest2rp7.png">http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4627/javascriptspeedtest2rp7.png</a><br />
This is a test I did with a fresh opening of Opera&#8230;<br />
<a href="http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4739/javascriptspeedtest3kp0.png">http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4739/javascriptspeedtest3kp0.png</a><br />
Wenty from 1859ms to 375ms! Incredible!</p>
<p>Also, yes Gmail does seem to slow it down some, but my 375ms just went up to 610ms. Still not bad!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wajo357</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7029</link>
		<dc:creator>Wajo357</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:17:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7029</guid>
		<description>It seems like to me that when gmail.com is opened, the test takes an extra 400-500ms. Can someone confirm?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like to me that when gmail.com is opened, the test takes an extra 400-500ms. Can someone confirm?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: diz</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7027</link>
		<dc:creator>diz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7027</guid>
		<description>These tests are of no value as long as Opera has
&lt;a href="http://prgk.xtina.pl/bug/offset_poorperf/" rel="nofollow"&gt;such awful bug&lt;/a&gt; that affects a lot of important sites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These tests are of no value as long as Opera has<br />
<a href="http://prgk.xtina.pl/bug/offset_poorperf/">such awful bug</a> that affects a lot of important sites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wajo357</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7023</link>
		<dc:creator>Wajo357</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7023</guid>
		<description>very interesting. On a band new setup I can repeat the results, but on my Opera setup which has mail, a few windows opened..etc the test slows down drastically by String functions	(1781 ms). Is anyone getting this as well?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>very interesting. On a band new setup I can repeat the results, but on my Opera setup which has mail, a few windows opened..etc the test slows down drastically by String functions	(1781 ms). Is anyone getting this as well?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Korri</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7020</link>
		<dc:creator>Korri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7020</guid>
		<description>That's because they have been optimized for IE and maybe Firefox, but probably not for Opera, so the comparison is inherently unfair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s because they have been optimized for IE and maybe Firefox, but probably not for Opera, so the comparison is inherently unfair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arty</title>
		<link>http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7017</link>
		<dc:creator>arty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:41:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://operawatch.com/news/2006/08/opera-easily-beats-major-browsers-with-javascript-speed-test.html#comment-7017</guid>
		<description>Simple test may result in incredibly great results, by I can't use NewsAlloy in 9.0 because of slowness, and see annoying loss of speed at BlogLines, RememberTheMilk and Netvibes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Simple test may result in incredibly great results, by I can&#8217;t use NewsAlloy in 9.0 because of slowness, and see annoying loss of speed at BlogLines, RememberTheMilk and Netvibes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
