I'm reluctant to start this thread, because I'm afraid it will start yet another browser war, however, I thought it was pretty neat. The Acid Test, as some of you know, is a test for certain standards and stuff-like-that for browsers. I don't think it's a particularly good test for how well your browser handles the internet, but other people disagree, and point to Internet Explorers low scores. This has been a point of contention for many years, and it looks like Microsoft is trying to turn their image around.
On Firefox 3.6.13 I get 94/100, here are the details:
Quote:
Failed 6 tests.
Test 26 passed, but took 131ms (less than 30fps)
Test 69 passed, but took 85 attempts (less than perfect).
Test 71 failed: expected '1' but got '2' - wrong number of children in HEAD (first test)
Test 75 failed: anim.beginElement is not a function
Test 76 failed: expected '0' but got '100' - Incorrect animVal value after svg animation.
Test 77 failed: expected '4776' but got '5560' - getComputedTextLength failed.
Test 78 failed: expected '90' but got '0' - getRotationOfChar(0) failed.
Test 79 failed: expected '34' but got '33' - SVGSVGTextElement.getNumberOfChars() incorrect
Total elapsed time: 2.39s


In IE 9.0.7930.16406 (a beta) I get 95/100. Unfortunately I can't copy text from an alert window in it, and am too lazy to type up the specifics, but it's pretty similar to the report from Firefox.

For reference, Chrome and Opera both scored 100/100. All four of them passed Test 26, but took too long to do it (Chrome did it the fastest @ 36ms, then Opera @ 82ms, then Firefox @ 131ms, and then IE @ 555).

Like I said, I'm not trying to start a browser war here, and we all know people have different preferences, I just wanted to share my findings with IE9.
For a fully apples to apples comparison, you may want to compare the Firefox 4.0 betas against the IE9 beta Smile
(doing so would yield reversed results - Minefield has been doing 97/100 for months on the Acid3 test)

But I agree that Microsoft is trying to be serious about some standards conformance, and that's a good thing for users Smile
Too bad IE9 won't work on XP.
Lionel Debroux wrote:
For a fully apples to apples comparison, you may want to compare the Firefox 4.0 betas against the IE9 beta Smile
(doing so would yield reversed results - Minefield has been doing 97/100 for months on the Acid3 test)
Ah, yeah, I hadn't thought of that. 95 is still pretty good though, especially compared to 12 (which is what IE8 just pulled Smile).

Ibid. wrote:
But I agree that Microsoft is trying to be serious about some standards conformance, and that's a good thing for users Smile
Exactly. To me the important part wasn't really the having a higher score, it was having such a high score. Hopefully people will start to realize IE is not as horrible as everyone thinks.
merthsoft wrote:
In IE 9.0.7930.16406 (a beta) I get 95/100. Unfortunately I can't copy text from an alert window in it, and am too lazy to type up the specifics, but it's pretty similar to the report from Firefox.

You can copy text from any standard messagebox in Windows by pressing Ctrl+C. Here's what I get from 1.9.8023.6000 (which I thought was fairly old, yet is somehow more recent than your version):

Quote:
---------------------------
Message from webpage
---------------------------
Failed 5 tests.
Test 26 passed, but took 287ms (less than 30fps)
Test 69 passed, but took 33 attempts (less than perfect).
Test 75 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 76 failed: expected '0' but got '100' - Incorrect animVal value after svg animation.
Test 77 failed: Not implemented
Test 78 failed: expected '90' but got '1.9237771034240722' - getRotationOfChar(0) failed.
Test 79 failed: Not implemented
Total elapsed time: 3.12s
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------


It also scores 95/100.
Goe Chromeo! I got 100/100 on that. But don't forget betas are betas.
The ACID test seems so esoteric and arbitrary to me; I really don't see the point, personally. I guess it's a general indicator of compliance, but it seems quite ridiculous.
Good for IE. Let's hope MS is going to fortify it against the numerous vulnerabilities intrinsic to every prior incarnation. For starters, let's hope IE doesn't integrate with core OS components, and consequently make those components vulnerable to hi-jacking.

I'm still an Opera user. It already has a 100/100 score, and I'm satisfied with the features and flexibility.
100/100 chrome of me too, WOO
I use IE>
The pass/fail numbers are only 1/3rd of the Acid 3 test, too bad everyone ignores the other 2/3rds Rolling Eyes

For example, Chrome gets 100/100, but it does *not* actually pass Acid 3. I see 2 failures, there might be more.
Kllrnohj wrote:
The pass/fail numbers are only 1/3rd of the Acid 3 test, too bad everyone ignores the other 2/3rds Rolling Eyes

For example, Chrome gets 100/100, but it does *not* actually pass Acid 3. I see 2 failures, there might be more.
But does anyone actually care about the ACID test? I would think that some kind of real-world usability, responsiveness, speed, and memory-usage test would be a far superior browser metric.
KermMartian wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
The pass/fail numbers are only 1/3rd of the Acid 3 test, too bad everyone ignores the other 2/3rds Rolling Eyes

For example, Chrome gets 100/100, but it does *not* actually pass Acid 3. I see 2 failures, there might be more.
But does anyone actually care about the ACID test? I would think that some kind of real-world usability, responsiveness, speed, and memory-usage test would be a far superior browser metric.

It's called the NIKKYISAWESOME test. Here are the results:
Chromium: 127/100
Chrome: 105/100
Opera: 99/100
IE8: 78/100
IE9: 74/100
Firefox: 4/100 (tied)
IE6L 4/100 (tied)
allynfolksjr wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
The pass/fail numbers are only 1/3rd of the Acid 3 test, too bad everyone ignores the other 2/3rds Rolling Eyes

For example, Chrome gets 100/100, but it does *not* actually pass Acid 3. I see 2 failures, there might be more.
But does anyone actually care about the ACID test? I would think that some kind of real-world usability, responsiveness, speed, and memory-usage test would be a far superior browser metric.

It's called the NIKKYISAWESOME test. Here are the results:
Chromium: 127/100
Chrome: 105/100
Opera: 99/100
IE8: 78/100
IE9: 74/100
Firefox: 4/100 (tied)
IE6L 4/100 (tied)

Why is IE9 ranked lower than IE8?
Because it doesn't load pages half the time.
allynfolksjr wrote:
Because it doesn't load pages half the time.
That's a good reason. I think I want to subscribe to nikky's newsletter.
KermMartian wrote:
But does anyone actually care about the ACID test? I would think that some kind of real-world usability, responsiveness, speed, and memory-usage test would be a far superior browser metric.


Agreed, which is why I run Firefox.
Kllrnohj wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
But does anyone actually care about the ACID test? I would think that some kind of real-world usability, responsiveness, speed, and memory-usage test would be a far superior browser metric.


Agreed, which is why I run Firefox.

Oddly enough. That's why I *don't* run Furryfox.
allynfolksjr wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
But does anyone actually care about the ACID test? I would think that some kind of real-world usability, responsiveness, speed, and memory-usage test would be a far superior browser metric.


Agreed, which is why I run Firefox.

Oddly enough. That's why I *don't* run Furryfox.
I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I get bothered when Firefox starts pegging my CPU, and churning through 600MB of my hard-earned RAM, but on the other hand, it seems to be the least of several significant evils to me.
KermMartian wrote:
I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I get bothered when Firefox starts pegging my CPU, and churning through 600MB of my hard-earned RAM, but on the other hand, it seems to be the least of several significant evils to me.


Yet you don't care that every other browser uses MORE RAM than Firefox? 'Cause the simple, well tested fact is that Firefox uses the least RAM of all the browser.

Also, it's probably flash pegging your CPU.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 2
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement