Jump to content

What is it about Spartan that you find the tiniest bit interesting?


NoelC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Andre, your ongoing unwillingness to discuss the subject of UAC at anything above a level of "daddy knows best" implies you're invested in UAC in some emotional way.  Given your responses I'd almost guess that you work[ed] for MS and that it was you who actually implemented UAC.  I hope that's not true, because otherwise I have a lot of respect for you.

 

Try to chill and accept that it's just barely possible other people 1) use their systems differently than you do, 2) might require different behavior from it than you do, and 3) might actually know some things about what they're doing too.

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I haven't insulted you. I simply wrote the truth. You have NO knowledge and troll around. I haven't had 1 UAC prompt today, so UAC is no issue at all during normal work and instead of understanding it you bash about this feature.

 

I'll put you on my ignore list, so that I don't need to read your crap any longer *facepalm*

 

I'll decide how I feel about something, you have no say in the matter.

 

From one post about UAC you say I have NO knowledge and troll around.

 

What I said about UAC is just my opinion nothing more.

 

Before I built my first computer, don't remember what year but it had WFW

 

on it, I was  afraid of doing much of anything with a computer.

 

Having to get rid of a virus or two over the years has taught be a lot about

 

computers than I would ever know otherwise. because of the knowledge I've gained

 

over the years I haven't had any malware for years. that's not exactly true I did get a pup

 

when I installed a program without checking advanced install about a month ago and

 

had to uninstall it.  Oh I also always turn off system restore also. But I do have a backup

 

two actually one on a usb 3.0 drive and another on a NAS. I guess what I'm tring to say is

 

I do have some knowledge, maybe not as much as I'd like, but I'm only 61 maybe there is

 

still time.

 

Jim M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, many people are quick to assume that because the process for Edge shows less memory consumption than IE, Edge must be more efficient that IE. IE is native code. C++/COM. IE uses Direct2D and GDI. It's UI is very responsive. That Spartan UI is most probably XAML and is running on top of WinRT and EdgeHTML. That adds some performance overhead. Task Manager doesn't show the slowness of the WinRT runtime but in real-world tests, it's nowhere near as fast as native code nor memory efficient. Why couldn't IE have the EdgeHTML engine?

 

Out of curiosity, has anybody published benchmark test results comparing, for example, how long it takes to load a variety of web pages in Edge vs. IE?

 

--JorgeA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't been able to stand the looks of it long enough to use it.  But I can try it if you'd like.

 

What web sites take a long time to load?  That's just not something that's on my radar.

 

Edit:  OK, I did some comparative testing on a fresh VM, installed from a 10130 ISO, and with virtually no other tweaks.

 

I tried a few web pages with the two browsers side by side, timing to the point where the page is fully displayed:

 

  • This MSFN page:  IE: 2.0 seconds, Spartan 3.6 seconds, but 2.2 seconds on a subsequent run.
  • Gamespot.com:  Both same, 2.0 seconds.  IE refreshed in 1 second, while Spartan took 2.
  • Apple.com:  IE 1.2 seconds, Spartan 1.4 seconds
  • My company's web page:  Both same:  Instantaneous
  • TechNet forums site:  Both same:  3.0 seconds.
  • StackOverflow.com:  Both same: 0.6 seconds (almost too short to measure)
  • Google.com:  Both same:  0.6 seconds (almost too short to measure)
  • Pandora.com:  Both same:  2.6 seconds
  • Corvette-forum.com:  Both same:  3.6 seconds

 

Seems to me the timing is more about the sites themselves, not the browser, and I certainly can't see many differences between the two browsers.  If anything IE gets the data on the screen a fraction of a second before Project Spartan.

 

FYI, The above were measured in an out-of-box condition.  I added the MVPS hosts file and the times all generally dropped.

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some that usually take a long time to finish loading (longer than others, anyway) for me:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

 

http://arstechnica.com/

 

http://www.zdnet.com/

 

 

Not an exhaustive list, of course. News sites and entertainment sites will probably also be good candidates for testing.

 

--JorgeA

 

Edited by JorgeA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edge's Javascript engine might be super-fast in benchmarks, especially Google's own benchmarks as MS shows but on the whole, I find the Edge UI to be far more sluggish than IE. And I don't think it will ever get IE's level of customization or options. So that's a deal-breaker for me. I am not a web developer and I don't care that the page rendered few milliseconds faster than IE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just it.  Indications are it renders slower.

 

But it doesn't matter any more how things work.  Just how Microsoft says that they work.

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some that usually take a long time to finish loading (longer than others, anyway) for me:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

 

http://arstechnica.com/

 

http://www.zdnet.com/

 

 

Not an exhaustive list, of course. News sites and entertainment sites will probably also be good candidates for testing.

 

--JorgeA

 

Times for the above:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html - 1.0 seconds for IE, 1.2 seconds for Spartan

 

http://arstechnica.com/ - 1.0 seconds for IE, 1.0 seconds for Spartan

 

http://www.zdnet.com/ - 0.8 seconds for IE, 1.0 seconds for Spartan

 

Time to cold start to my company's web page, which I use as a home page:  0.8 seconds for IE, 1.0 seconds for Spartan

 

Where is the supposed performance improvement for Project Spartan?

 

-Noel

 

 

 

Edit: 

 

P.S., Spartan does NO MORE and NO LESS color-management than IE.  Both read the color profiles of images and transform the colors to the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 color space, which is wrong for virtually every monitor that's not part of an sRGB reference system.  This means that IE and Spartan will display oversaturated images 100% of the time on a system equipped with a wide gamut color monitor.

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating, NoelC -- thanks! :thumbup  While not definitive of course, the data is strongly suggestive. As a scientist would say, it calls for "further research."

 

Maybe you can post these and other results on the Windows Insiders forum to see what happens.  ;)

 

--JorgeA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you can post these and other results on the Windows Insiders forum to see what happens. 

 

I would but I'm banned for challenging others views that the new stuff is "faster".  They don't want the truth known.

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now something totally different...

http://glovis.usgs.gov/

This is the slovest running site i ever opened on regular basis, you may check this one as well :>

 

Anything special you want me to check there?  The message "Unable to find Java" comes up immediately (less than 1 second) for me in both browsers.  I'll install / enable Java if you'd like, though I don't normally use it.  It'll be the same Java runtime for each browser, though - the one from Sun - so I'm not sure there's any use in doing a comparison.

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...