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 figure I'm a worst-case scenario if there ever was one. ;-)
I routinely find pages loading extremely slow from javascript-intense sites. But these test cases run equally-smooth with jquery or mootools, for me. I would throw out another possibility here - the particular javascript engine that the browser is using. Might want to check that. (NOTE: I just tried to figure out what version I am using, but danged if I can find anything that tells me what version it is. Give me a pointer what to look for and I'll look again if you want me to). On Dec 4, 5:54 am, wshawn <sh...@sanityllc.com> wrote: > Celeron? BAH! > > They need to kill that beast. > > In openSuse, on a not so slow machine ;) running KDE, Firefox 3.5.5 > with only the cookie monster plugin activated, I noticed a slight lag > in the mootools sample. > > Some of this perceived speed difference may be a direct result of > plugins, or proxy issues in the browsers themselves. > > The biggest noticeable changes were 2 to 3 and 4 to 1. The direct > vertical and horizontal slides were fine in both jQuery and Mootools. > > On Dec 4, 4:06 am, "Jonathan Vanherpe (T & T NV)" <jonat...@tnt.be> > wrote: > > > > > 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 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) <jonat...@tnt.be > > > <mailto:jonat...@tnt.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 > > >>> smoother > > >>> animations than jQuery. Otherwise it's hard do know what might be > > >>> causing the problem, or even whether there's a problem at all. > > > >> That's a great idea, Dave. > > > >> I wonder how much the easing equation affects people's perception > > >> of "smoothness." It might be worthwhile to try animations using > > >> the easing plugin and see if any of those equations feel smoother. > > > >> --Karl > > > >> ____________ > > >> Karl Swedberg > > >> www.englishrules.com<http://www.englishrules.com> > > >> www.learningjquery.com<http://www.learningjquery.com> > > > > ok, I've used some code I had lying around and put dummy content > > > in there: > > > http://www.tnt.be/bugs/jquery/moovsjquery/ > > > > I actually don't really see a difference on my Ubuntu box (using > > > FF 3.6b4), but there's a huge difference on a colleague's G4 (OS X > > > 10.4, Firefox 3.5.5), so try to find a slow computer to test this on. > > > > Again, this might be the fault of the plugin I'm using, if you > > > have another way of doing the same thing in jQuery you can tell me > > > so I know for next time. I really prefer using jQuery, but > > > sometimes I just can't because of things like this. > > > > Jonathan > > > > -- > > > www.tnt.be<http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig> *Jonathan > > > Vanherpe* > > > jonat...@tnt.be <mailto:jonat...@tnt.be> -www.tnt.be > > > <http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig> - tel.: +32 (0)9 3860441 > > > --www.tnt.be<http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig> *Jonathan > > Vanherpe* > > jonat...@tnt.be <mailto:jonat...@tnt.be> -www.tnt.be > > <http://www.tnt.be/?source=emailsig> - tel.: +32 (0)9 3860441- Hide quoted > > text - > > - Show quoted text -
