First, and I'm not trying to be mean, but why are you using Javascript for an animation (or rather, what kind of animation)? If it's anything like I'm thinking (animated GIF files or Flash files), then Javascript is inefficient to use anyway.
Chrome's rendering engine is actually a good thing. I can point out one definite example where the speed of Chrome is way better: http://safalra.com/web-design/javascript/mac-style-dock/demonstration.html On any normal browser (IE, internet explorer and even firefox), this piece of javascript is slow and inefficient, although it's visually appealing. However, Chrome renders the script fast enough for it to be usable. Now, as a side note, Chrome's user agent text should be different than most others (I believe that it uses the Webkit user agent). Maybe create a hack for the script that puts a timer on for only the Webkit user agent string. That should speed the animation up in IE/FF and slow it down in Chrome (and possibly Safari, but their rendering engine should be well enough). On Sep 23, 9:03 am, gabydewilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With all respect, the Chrome user interface needs just as much work as > it's current rendering engine. If Chrome would use Gecko, Presto and > Trident all websites should render properly. > > This way the interface design could get our full attention. > > Microsoft's homepages will never be fully compatible with other > browsers. It gets there 99% of the cases which means it's going to do > weird things quite often. > > I do realise it's a rather huge can-o-worms to do it like this but it > would give Chrome an edge over other browsers and it wouldn't be an > evil thing to do. But the truth is that active X is never going to > work in modern browsers. > > The proof is in the pudding: > > http://ietab.mozdev.org/http://digg.com/software/IE_Tab_in_Operahttp://www.meadroid.com/neptune/about.htm > > Adobe used Presto for Dreamweaver, a mature technology. > > http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/ > > I know Google wants it's own rendering machine to work but to be frank > I have not reported a single page when I ran into an occasional bug. > If one could change the user agent the Chrome database of poorly > rendering pages would expand much more rapidly. Then when you know > some active-X site has lots of users you can render it in IE by > default. It's the only way to fix it, this implementation could > actually be finished some day. > > Porting to other operating systems would be so much easier. (think > Google OS) I like the idea of Google building a browser but I don't > like the idea other browsers would disappear over time as a result. > > To give an example, I made some animations in js. In Chrome the > animation goes so fast you cant even see it. If I fix this with timers > the FPS will drop far below being a visually appealing effect in other > browsers. > > I promise some day I will write a separate version :-) perhaps some > day Chrome will be able to understand changing the same DOM element > several times in a row requires a slight delay. > > Until that day there is nothing wrong with either Chrome or my script. > It just goes way to fast. > > Good luck, --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
