|
2009-06-24
, 20:50
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#2
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to qwerty12 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-06-24
, 20:53
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#3
|
You're comparing an OMAP2 device with a computer and two OMAP3 devices. Nuff said.
|
2009-06-24
, 20:54
|
|
Posts: 4,708 |
Thanked: 4,649 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Bulgaria
|
#4
|
|
2009-06-24
, 21:00
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#5
|
I disagree with your statement and I agree with his original assessment. Why DOES Nokia prefer to include such a terribly slow implementation on a product that was primarily intended to be an Internet device?
I can't use MicroB anymore--can't tolerate it. I actually wish I could make Tear the default and free up the space that MicroB is using up that could better be used by some other data or application.
The Following User Says Thank You to qwerty12 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-06-24
, 21:05
|
Posts: 91 |
Thanked: 65 times |
Joined on Feb 2009
|
#6
|
|
2009-06-24
, 21:14
|
Posts: 16 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#7
|
|
2009-06-24
, 21:18
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#8
|
Well, I detest MicroB too (and hated it even more when they introduced browserd) and much prefer Tear with its webkit. Tear does really show what this hardware can do.
But Nokia could only work with what they had hardware-wise at the time, can't blame 'em for that. Won't argue with you about MicroB though.
|
2009-06-24
, 23:19
|
Posts: 3 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Oct 2008
|
#9
|
|
2009-06-24
, 23:46
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#10
|
The Following User Says Thank You to qole For This Useful Post: | ||
Tags |
benchmark, browser, performance |
|
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817...069TX1K0001121
thought i'd benchmark microb on my n800, an hour later (!) I had the results.
microb : 645227.0ms yes that's 645 seconds per itteration
microb with webkit : 47213.8ms
tear : 50944.6ms
from the above review :
iphone 3GS : 27272ms
iphone 3GS with safari : 3606ms
ie7 on hp mini 110 : 411,168ms
yes the n800/n810 designs are probably 3-4 years old but the standard microb performance is embarrising.
Wonder where all the iphone performance is coming from ? As the n800/810 are primarily for web browsing i'm amazed that web-kit is not part of one of the upgrades we have had.
hope nokia does better with its next offering.