Browser Speed Tests: Chrome 17, Firefox 10, Internet Explorer 9, and Opera 11.61 [Browser Speed Tests]

Source: http://lifehacker.com/5884941/browser-speed-tests-chrome-17-firefox-10-internet-explorer-9-and-opera-1161

Chrome 17 is out with a new prerendering feature designed to make your pages load faster, and both Firefox and Opera have also released speedy new versions since our last round of speed tests. So, we've once again pitted the four most popular web browsers against each other in a battle of startup times, tab loading times, and more, with more surprising results.

We've been testing browsers for awhile, and we've refined our method pretty well. It's a good mix of both manually timed user experience measures and hardcore JavaScript and CSS benchmarks, plus a new test aimed at seeing what Chrome's prerendering can really do. All tests take place on Windows.

As always, remember that speed is not the only thing each browser has to offer. Each browser has a number of unique features and characteristics, all of which you should factor into making your choice of which to use. However, while most features can be listed on their home pages, you can't easily compare their speed just from each browser's changelog, and that's why we've put this together. It's just one more way to compare the browsers as you make your decision. Also keep in mind that everyone's computer is different, and it's not really the numbers that matter here. Your own tests on your machine could produce very different numbers, but it's the comparison between each browser that matters—on a level playing field, they should rank similar on any computer you test them.

Cold Boot-Up Winner: Chrome!

We've slightly tweaked how we test cold boot-ups since last time. Instead of waiting for the same home page to load, we've decided to time cold boot-ups only until the browser window appears, since that's what really matters to most people: when you can actually start using the browser (clicking bookmarks, typing URLs, and so on). In this test, Chrome came out the pretty clear winner, showing itself before any of the other browsers. It was a close match though, with Firefox taking only about a second more in last place.

Tab-Loading Winner: Opera!

Given nine tabs to load, ranging from Lifehacker to Facebook to Hulu, Opera once again blew everyone else out of the water with an insanely quick time of 6 seconds. Other browsers took nearly 3 times as long, with Firefox and IE hitting 17 seconds and Chrome moving like molasses with 22 seconds.

URL-Loading Winner: Chrome!

We wanted to test Chrome's new prerendering feature to see what kind of difference it made in loading a page after typing it in in the address bar. So, we ran an AutoHotkey script that typed in Lifehacker.com, ran it a few times in each browser, and subtracted the time it took to type the address. While the results were fairly close—within a second from one another—Chrome was noticeably faster, loading pages instantly after hitting the Enter key (as long as you had visited that page once during that session). IE was surprisingly quick, taking a bit less than a half second more, while Opera and Firefox took their own sweet time at 1.35 seconds each to load a new page. It was one of the smallest scales on which the browsers did battle today, but it was still different enough that we though it worth including—and it's actually quite noticeable when you're browsing.

JavaScript Winner: Chrome!

As usual, Chrome kicks butt when it comes to JavaScript performance. Firefox takes a distant second, with IE and Opera trailing behind. Nothing new here.

DOM/CSS-Performance Winner: Opera!

Once again, these results should be pretty familiar. Opera smoked the competition during the CSS tests, more than usual, while Firefox, Chrome, and Internet Explorer all ate its dust in 2nd, 3rd, and last place respectively.

Memory Usage (with Nine Tabs Open) Winner: Firefox!

This time around, we've left our no-tabs-memory-usage scores out of the final tally, since we didn't find that they really mattered in real world usage. When it comes to memory usage with nine tabs open, however, Firefox reigns supreme—which, even though isn't a new result, is still shocking given the fact that Firefox used to eat memory like it was Pac Man and memory was little white dots. Unlike last time, this time Firefox edged out Opera, showing its truly committed to this lower-memory browsing, while Chrome and IE took up a fair amount more memory on their own.

If you're curious about each browser's memory usage without nine tabs open, we still measured it; we just didn't put it in the graphs. Chrome actually wins the battle of base memory usage at only 42 MB, with Opera close behind at 48 MB. Firefox and IE use up closer to 63 MB of RAM without any tabs open—negligible in the grand scheme of things, but interesting to know, considering how bad Chrome is at managing memory once you open up a few tabs (and how Firefox squeezes into first place).

Memory Usage (with Nine Tabs and Five Extensions) Winner: Firefox!

It looks like using extensions may raise each browser's memory usage, but not in a way that differentiates them in these tests. Firefox still comes out ahead when you install five extensions, with Opera behind it and Chrome in last place.

Overall Scores

We tallied the place rankings for each browser and assigned them point values, then divided them by the total number of points each could have gotten for an easily readable scale. This time around, we started counting the memory use scores for half, since with and without extensions they're two sides of the same coin (and we didn't want memory over-represented in the battle). The scoring system isn't perfect, since it also doesn't take into account by how MUCH each browser might win a specific battle—but everyone wants to see a winner, and it at least gives us that. We urge you to look closely at the above results and determine which browser fits your needs best rather than just looking at the final scores. If tab loading times are what really irk you, factor in tab loading times moreso than memory usage or cold boot time when picking which browser fits your speed needs. And, as we already said, remember that there's a lot more to browser choice than just speed—this is just supposed to rank them in ways one can't see from each browser's "feature" page. The scores are:

1. Chrome: 69%
2. Firefox and Opera: 63.2%
3. Internet Explorer: 48%

Chrome, for the first time in a long time, leaped into first place, no doubt due to its new prerendering feature and always-awesome JavaScript tests (not to mention a slight win in cold boot times). Firefox and Opera actually tied for second place, with Firefox winning in memory usage and Opera taking home blue ribbons in tab loading and CSS performance, though looking at the scores, it's easy to see that Opera's wins were more drastic than Firefox's—meaning that we'd probably give the edge to Opera, if asked. Internet Explorer came in last, placing well enough in every competition but excelling in none.

It's clear that each browser is improving quite a bit with each new version, and each has pretty clear strengths in the realm of speed. While loading a group of bookmarks (or restoring an old session) in Chrome is remarkably slow, loading a page from the URL bar feels instantaneous, while Firefox has learned its lesson with memory usage. Opera loads a group of tabs with shocking speed, as usual. Hopefully, this trend continues into the future and we see more competition between each browser for title of the fastest.

---

Our tests aren't the most scientific on the planet, but they do reflect a relatively accurate view of the kind of experience you'd get from each browser, speed-wise. Let us know if your experience differs—or if the speed losses are worth the browser's other features—in the comments.

Read More...

Summary only...

iPad 3: Everything We Think We Know (Updated) [IPad 3]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5882001/ipad-3-everything-we-think-we-know

It's that magical time of year again, when everyone expects a new iPad to be right around the corner. Which in turn means an amassment of iPad 3 rumors clogging up our lives. Here's a quick guide to making sense of them.

Take all of these with the usual large piles of salt grains. Oh, and remember: The iPad may only be two years old, but it's already such an institution that any radical shifts in design or philosophy are almost definitely out of the question (sorry, 7-inch believers). But that doesn't mean we don't expect see some significant changes both inside and out.

Display

One of the iPhone's most beloved features is its ultrasharp retina display. And while the iPad 2's screen is no lightweight, a bump up in pixel density is one of the most hotly anticipated iPad 3 improvements. There have been numerous unsourced reports from the supply chain stating that retina screens are coming to iPad. More officially, iBooks 2 has 2x resolution images that would make a lot of sense for a super resolution iPad. But then, that was the case last year, too.

Android tablet displays passed the iPad last summer, and since then have moved into 1080p territory, so it seems far fetched that Apple would put off upgrading the iPad's screen another year.

Guts

It's extremely unlikely that anything other than a superfast new A6 chip will power the iPad 3, as Bloomberg and others have reported. The main question at this point seems to be whether that A6 will pack quad core power. On one hand, competitors like the Transformer Prime have moved on to quad core chips, and the incredible gaming and HD movie processing heft that upgrade entails. And both BGR and Bloomberg have recently reported that the A6 will indeed be quad core. But for what it's worth, Apple has shown in the past that it's willing to stand pat if it feels a spec is more than good enough for the next generation, like it did with the iPad 2's 512MB of RAM.

Speaking of RAM, if we're going to take the retina display rumors seriously, it would make sense that the RAM would finally see an upgrade in the iPad 3. The iPad 2's 512MB, like the iPhone 4S's, was buffered by the symbiotic relationship between software and hardware. But it stands to reason that the brute force required to push the massive number of pixels a 10-inch retina display would require a memory upgrade. File that under pure speculation.

Camera

iLounge cited several sources saying the iPad 3 will have an HD front-facing camera for HD Facetime. This would make a lot of sense, considering that quality front-facing cameras have found their way into phones like the Lumia 900, and people use their tablets for video chat much more than their phones.

It's worth mentioning here that while many of these hardware upgrade rumors seem inevitable, we thought the same about the whoops-that's-not-happening-iPhone 5. So keep that enthusiasm curbed until the official announcement.

Network

BGR recently leaked debug screenshots of what it claimed was proof of both that fancy new A6 processor and global 4G LTE, and Japanese blog Macotakara reported similar network details around the same time. Bringing LTE to the iPad before the iPhone would make sense, because the iPad's larger battery can handle the 4G drain. Then again, a 4G iPad would almost certainly portend a 4G iPhone this summer, and it's not at all clear that Apple considers the network mature enough to hop on just yet.

Siri

iOS 6 is still a long way off, but the iPad 3's software warrants a quick mention because it might be the first non-iPhone 4S Apple product to get Siri, as some details in the iOS 5.1 beta reference the iPad in Siri Dictation.

Availability

AllThingsD has reported that the iPad announcement will come in the first week of March, but didn't specify when it would be released. For reference, the iPad 2 was announced on March 2nd of last year, and available on the 11th.

For whatever what it's worth though, two European Amazon sites had iPad 3 instruction manuals slated for a March 29th release.

Design

The one thing that's almost certainly not changing about the iPad is its overall look. Apple's had wild success with the size and shape, and there's no reason to rock the boat now. The WSJ has said that the company is testing out an 8-inch counterpart, but it almost certainly won't become an actual product. The only changes that could happen would be a very slightly thicker build if it needs to compensate for a retina display and/or a larger battery.

Otherwise? Take a guess.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Next-Generation MacBook Pro 2012 [Video]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5884734/the-next+generation-macbook-pro-2012

Have no doubt about this: Apple is revamping their MacBook Pro line in 2012 in a radical way—not merely evolutionary. We know this not because of the usual rumors, but because there is no way this will not happen.

This is what we expect.

A radical but logical change

When Steve Jobs said that the MacBook Air was the future of laptops, he was right. To the disgust of a vocal minority, Apple destroyed lots of ancient technology with the Air. They simplified its guts and squeezed its industrial design to create an amazing machine. The result was a huge success—and the whole industry started their photocopiers once again.

It's only logical that they will take the same steps with their MacBook Pro. It's not only a rational consequence of the Air, it's also extremely convenient for their bottom line and their public image: The new MacBook Pros—and not the beefed-up iPad 3—will be the first real test for the new executive team at Apple.

They need to make a statement. Here's how.

Faster guts

The new MacBook Pro will use Ivy Bridge, the new Intel 22-nanometer architecture with 3D transistors that will provide quite a speed boost over the current MacBooks. Intel estimates that it Ivy Bridge will provide a 20 percent performance boost with comparable Sandy Bridge laptops. Ivy Bridge also provides a 30 percent boost in integrated graphics performance, although these machines will use something stronger to drive graphic intensive applications (more on this later).

No hard drives

Screw the hard drives. It's antiquated technology with a negative impact on battery life. Apple loves SSD and Apple users love SSD. They may not be the cheapest, but it's the fastest, safest and most power efficient storage technology for mobile devices. Moving their entire laptop line to SSD will also give them more buying power, which will help them keep the same price and benefit margins.

SSDs are also key for speed. In fact, for most consumers, it's also one of the key factors to boosting speed perception, even more than the processor and the graphic cards. When everything loads and saves almost instantly, people instantly get it, which is what happened with the Air.

No legacy stuff

The new MacBook Pro 2012 line will get rid of legacy technology. That means no more optical drives, and no more Ethernet port and FireWire. These machines will have nothing but a bunch of Thunderbolt and USB ports, plus the SD memory card reader, just like the MacBook Air. By taking this out, the new machines will save space and simplify the electronics on board.

I can't remember the last time I used my optical drive. All my media and application consumption goes through online services, like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and iTunes. Apple and thousands of developers have already shifted to 100% digital downloads for software distribution. The optical drive is dead.

And I can't remember the last time I used my Ethernet port. Most consumers are in the same position. And while FireWire is the only point of conflict I may have—since I use it for backups and extra disk space—an adapter will easily an cheaply take care of any legacy equipment. In fact, there's plenty of Thunderbolt adapters at this point, for FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, and even PC Cards.

Retina-ish display

The machines will have a high definition Retina-ish display. This is part of Apple's ongoing move to HiDPI.

How much? They will not be as dense as the iPhone's 326 pixels per inch—which is as high as your average printed page—but they will be close enough. The current 15-inch MacBook has a 128-pixel-per-inch display (1440 by 900 pixels), while the 17-inch runs at 133 pixels per inch (1920 by 1200 pixels). These relative resolutions are similar to the current MacBook Airs.

The question now is if they would be able to double these resolutions to 2880 by 1800 pixels and 3840 by 2400 pixels. It seems insane and there's no evidence of anyone manufacturing these kind of displays.

But we know that there are graphic cards that can push that kind of power. We also know that, before the iPhone 4 came out, nobody had heard of a 326ppi Retina Display before. Apple had bought all of them and they kept the lid on them until the iPhone 4 was announced.

Perhaps Apple will just increase the resolution to 180 or 200ppi. Given the distance from your eyes to the screen, 200ppi will be enough to achieve close to the effect of a "retina" display in the iPhone, the point in which you can't see pixels. And still, it will be a lot of extra pixels.

Killer graphics

All those extra pixels will require a lot of graphic muscle. Apple uses AMD Radeon graphics in all their MacBooks now, so most probably they will stick with them. AMD is set to introduce their new high end, mobile 28nm process graphics engine in the second quarter of 2012. They will be part of the Radeon HD 7700m family.

If Apple continues with AMD, the top of the line MacBooks will likely use the HD 7770M (their current notebooks us the HD 6670M). Given the boost in resolution, I wouldn't be surprised if the highest end came with 2GB of GDDR5 memory. The current top of the line MacBook has 1GB of GGDR5 RAM. The cheaper option could be the HD 7750M, with 1GB of GGDR5 memory.

If Apple decided to change with Nvidia, it's not clear what would they use. Someone leaked that Samsung's Ivy Bridge laptop would use a Nvidia GeForce GTX 675M with 2GB DDR5, but GTX graphics would probably run too hot to be incorporated into a super-slim product like the MacBook Pro 2012.

Redesigned enclosure

That will be the biggest selling point of these new MacBook Pros. These things will have a super-slim wedge profile. Perhaps even more so than the Macbook Air, given that they will have a largest surface to spread the components. They will also be really light compared to the current machines, all thanks to the saving achieved by getting rid of so much legacy crap. Although maybe they will be less aggressive on the weight shaving and increase the space used by the battery.

Battery capacity

Something that will make everyone extremely happy and will be truly disruptive: some insane battery life. Given the reduction of components and the lack of a hard drive, an increased battery life seems more than reasonable no matter what. If they decide to increase the amount of battery cells, then maybe we could witness a laptop that will run for an entire work day on a single battery charge. Or close enough. If Apple is going radical on these, I would expect a radical battery life.

One more thing: Full surface trackpad

This is something that has been rumored before, but now I believe it may happen: the entire palmrest of the new MacBook 2012 will be a multitouch trackpad. It's obvious that, technologically, Apple can accomplish this. They have patents that cover detection of palm touch vs finger touch vs accidental touch. Even a Wacom Bamboo tablet can distinguish between my fingers and my palm.

But they would not do it just because they can. They would do it mainly for two reasons.

The first, because the full surface would be the cornerstone for the final step in the metamorphosis of Mac OS X. A metamorphosis that started with the success of multitouch and direct interface manipulation on iPhone and iPad.

Lion brought some of those concepts into Mac OS X and, while it isn't the successful merging that I was hoping for, it clearly shows where Apple is headed. The next Mac OS X will only get deeper into multitouch, just like Microsoft is doing with Metro and Windows 8. A full surface trackpad—not a touchscreen—will be the key in this transition for laptops and the desktop (for an idea of how this could work you only need to see the video next to these lines).

But there's perhaps a more important reason for the introduction of such an innovation: the "one more thing" factor. Cook and the new executive team need to show the world that they have what it takes, that they can keep innovating and pulling rabbits out of their hats just like the old boss did. He would have gone something like this:

"But why have just a trackpad? The current trackpad is very good, but too limiting. What about if we could give you the entire palmrest as a trackpad? It's a hard technological challenge, but we found a way to differenciate between your palms and your fingers, so your MacBook doesn't get confused and you can use multitouch with Mac OS X as easy as you can do it in your iPad! So we did it. We are eliminating the little trackpad and giving you a trackpad when you can freely use multitouch. We love it. And we think you will love it too. Let me show it to you."

Showing the world that they can pull something like this will be the perfect "Yes We Can Kick Ass Without Steve" statement from Cook's Apple. Because, even while they have their amazing economic results, they need to demonstrate the world that they can keep "making magic" happen for a long time.

Read More...

Summary only...

Aereo puts TV antennas in the cloud, streams OTA broadcasts on the internet

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/14/aereo-puts-an-antenna-in-the-cloud-streams-ota-television-broad/

We've all heard about SlingBox, that nifty bit of kit that lets you stream your cable or satellite television to the mobile device of your choice, and now a new company called Aereo aims to provide a similar service for OTA broadcast television. The service costs $12 dollars a month and will launch March 14th, but is only available to folks in New York City through Aereo's HTML5-powered website. It'll stream all the major networks, and also offers a cloud-based DVR service on the internet-connected device of your choosing, whether it's a media streamer, phone, tablet or TV. Aereo's powered by large devices containing tons of tiny, dime-sized TV antennas connected to the cloud, with individual antennas corresponding to individual users -- giving each the ability to tune into one channel at a time. Intrigued as much as we are? Learn all about Aereo's new service at the source link below.

Aereo puts TV antennas in the cloud, streams OTA broadcasts on the internet originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:33:00 EDT. Please see our term! s for us e of feeds.

Permalink New York Times  |  Aereo, Aereo blog  | Email this | Comments

Read More...

Summary only...

Is This Motorola's First Medfield Phone? [Rumors]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5884899/is-this-motorolas-first-medfield-phone

Since Intel showed off their first demo Medfield handset, we've only seen a production offering from Lenovo, and that's only going to be available in China. Rumor has it, though, that this is Motorola's first Intel offering.

Offered up by Pocket Now, these images are reportedly of Motorola's first Intel Medfield phone. It looks quite a lot like the Droid Razr to me. Details are scant, but it apparently runs Ice Cream Sandwich, and rumor has it the camera will be instant-on and shoot 15 frames per second bursts. The big question is, will it show up at MWC? [Pocket Now]

Read More...

Summary only...