It is, at least in my FF 3.5.7 on Win 7, but I haven't the slightest clue as
to why. Thanks for sharing those demos.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 6, 3:44 pm, Acaz Souza acazso...@gmail.com wrote:
MooTools:http://www.jsfiddle.net/4vnya/
They seem about the same to me as well, FF3.5.6 on Win7
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Scott Sauyet
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 1:29 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: Why mootools animations is more
to be honest no library is 100% efficient.
its like a template that anyone can download. what counts as what you do
with it and if suits your needs.
in some cases you would create your very own template if nothing suits your
needs.
so if you require 100% smoothness in everything you would
test with the minified version :)
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Acaz Souza acazso...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone, i will do some tests with this librarys, i will elevate
the CPU usage and tests in the major browsers.
On 5 dez, 09:57, waseem sabjee waseemsab...@gmail.com wrote:
to be
Karl Swedberg wrote:
On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Dave Methvin wrote:
I refrained from replying because the OP seemed trollish, but he has a
point, IMHO.
It would be great if someone who knew both frameworks could set up a
page that demonstrated a side-by-side case where Mootools has
Just used your benchmark and I didn't see any significant differences. Both
had slight jumps from time to time, none felt like there was a pattern, I'm
using Firefox 3.5 on a iMac pro (last year's edition) running snow leopard.
Michel Belleville
2009/12/4 Jonathan Vanherpe (T T NV)
That's why I said you needed to find a slow computer to test it on ;-).
We need to cater to a diverse audience, and part of that audience is
using IE6 on a crappy Intel Celeron chip or Firefox on a G4.
Jonathan
Michel Belleville wrote:
Just used your benchmark and I didn't see any significant
Just out of curiosity, which browser are you using? Did you try it in
more than one?
--Karl
On Dec 4, 2009, at 9:43 AM, donb wrote:
I have a 'slow computer' that is 6 years old hardware, has been
upgraded from windows 3.1 and upward, to the current XP without ever a
wipe and reinstall. I
I wonder, is this a feeble attempt at launching a troll, a poorly worded
vague question, or just good old plain nonsense ?
Michel Belleville
2009/12/3 Acaz Souza acazso...@gmail.com
The jquery framework in past, it use the fx animation, it's true?
On Dec 2, 4:26 pm, MorningZ
Acaz,
I think you should consider looking into this yourself. The animations
provided by jQuery, while basic, are quite smooth and perform well. If
you feel that the ones provided by MooTools perform better, then I would
urge you to take the time to investigate it and consider offering
LOL. :D
Thanks Scott.
Rey...
Scott Sauyet wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:02 am, Rey Bango r...@reybango.com wrote:
I think you should consider looking into this yourself. The animations
provided by jQuery, while basic, are quite smooth and perform well. If
you feel that the ones provided by MooTools
I'm not trolling (at least today I'm not ;-)), but mootools' effects are
smoother in at least some cases. I've switched to mootools for some
websites just because of that, even though I really prefer working with
jQuery.
Try using scrollTo() diagonally in both frameworks to see one example
That's certainly possible. Again, for me the animations provided by
jQuery have been great. I'd give you the same feedback in that if there
are issues, I'd urge you to see if you can pinpoint them and provide a
patch. That would be a great help to the project.
Rey...
Jonathan Vanherpe (T T
On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Dave Methvin wrote:
I refrained from replying because the OP seemed trollish, but he
has a
point, IMHO.
It would be great if someone who knew both frameworks could set up a
page that demonstrated a side-by-side case where Mootools has smoother
animations than
14 matches
Mail list logo
