Acid 3 - The Web Browsers Test

By Avi
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Community Regular

Azmodan

Posted
Posted
You have to cmd + Shfit + r after maximizing.

Cmd? :blink: My keyboard has Ctrl, **** or Alt, I don't have Cmd :(

By the way, I figured out how this happens.

Select a portion of the page and drag it up and down, and it'll mess up.

acid2wf5.png

acid1pu1.png

acid3ks8.png

I guess this isn't part of the test, but it just made me doubt for a while.

Veteran

megamanXplosion

Posted
Posted

It's behaving normally. The scalp is set, by the test, to be positioned relative to the viewport. In this case, offset from the top of the viewport by 9em. If you scroll up or down, in Firefox or Opera or Safari (not sure about IE7), the scalp will always stay near the top of the screen. When you load the Acid2 test page and you see the box that contains the "Take The Acid2 Test" link, the scalp of the smiley is hidden behind it.

Grand Master

Malisk

Posted
Posted (edited)

WebKit is a really impressive layout engine that seem to be flexible for their developers to adapt without breaking other things as easily. I've heard it's pretty lean at its core which is part why it's pretty quick, and part why it's easier to fix without dragging a huge bulk that have built up over the years like e.g. the Microsoft devs have to do. So this would be a contributor to why they can gain such a lead in Acid3 compliance so quickly.

It's just sad that Safari (for Windows at least) seem to eat ridiculous amounts of RAM after browsing for a while, perhaps related to Flash usage. I had Vista report 450 MB after a Safari 3.1 browsing session once, where Firefox 3 beta 4 would still hover around 70 MB or so. It's like comparing among the worst performers in this area to the most impressive ones lately, where the Mozilla team made a very impressive job -- they're definitely nailing these problems with Firefox 2. In my case, this graph seem to follow pretty closely what I experienced on Safari vs Firefox, memory-wise. Safari 3.1 unfortunately didn't seem to fare much better than 3.0.4 listed there.

Although I would like to use Safari more, the unorthodox theme for Windows users combined with the bad memory performance doesn't really offset the improved standards support for me. After all, even modern websites aren't at all designed around 90%+ Acid3 compliance, so I can't see this as a major advantage. In that case, things like Firefox extensions weigh much heavier here.

Edited by Jugalator
Veteran

megamanXplosion

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't go by the visual appearance. To truly pass the test, you must not only get 100/100 but also progress through the test in a smooth fashion. If you have a fairly modern processor, the speed figures will be relevant. (My computer is perhaps too slow to provide meaningful results.) To figure out which parts of the test a browser is failing—or passes but too slowly—click on the "A" of the "Acid3" logo.

Safari (using the latest webkit nightly as of this post) fails tests 70, 75, 76, and 79. It would be interesting to see which tests it passes but too slowly on a newer computer. I would appreciate it if someone with a Core 2 Duo processor could reply with their computer specs along with the test numbers (and the corresponding times) where Safari with the latest nightly fails performance-wise.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted (edited)

windowclipping2ez8.png

That's on a Core 2 Duo e6300 (1.85Ghz)

A 2 second pause while running a test is really noticeable, I wonder what's causing it.

Edit: Seems there's currently a patch for Test 70, But it hasn't landed as it needs test cases, http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17079

Edited by The_Decryptor
Veteran

megamanXplosion

Posted
Posted

My run, on an AMD Athlon 1.33Ghz, had a significantly better time on test 65 (at 60ms). I think that test uses Ajax-related features (I haven't checked) and the performance difference is caused by network latency—I'm probably much closer to the server than you are. My run was significantly slower on test 26 (at 280ms). I think that is probably due to my slower processor.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
My run, on an AMD Athlon 1.33Ghz, had a significantly better time on test 65 (at 60ms). I think that test uses Ajax-related features (I haven't checked) and the performance difference is caused by network latency—I'm probably much closer to the server than you are. My run was significantly slower on test 26 (at 280ms). I think that is probably due to my slower processor.

// bucket 5: Tests from the Acid3 Competition
	function () {
	  // test 65: bring in a couple of SVG files and some HTML files dynamically - preparation for later tests in this bucket
	  kungFuDeathGrip = document.createElement('p');
	  kungFuDeathGrip.className = 'removed';
	  var iframe, object;
	  // svg iframe
	  iframe = document.createElement('iframe');
	  iframe.onload = function () { kungFuDeathGrip.title += '1' };
	  iframe.src = "svg.xml";
	  kungFuDeathGrip.appendChild(iframe);
	  // object iframe
	  object = document.createElement('object');
	  object.onload = function () { kungFuDeathGrip.title += '2' };
	  object.data = "svg.xml";
	  kungFuDeathGrip.appendChild(object);
	  // xml iframe
	  iframe = document.createElement('iframe');
	  iframe.onload = function () { kungFuDeathGrip.title += '3' };
	  iframe.src = "empty.xml";
	  kungFuDeathGrip.appendChild(iframe);
	  // html iframe
	  iframe = document.createElement('iframe');
	  iframe.onload = function () { kungFuDeathGrip.title += '4' };
	  iframe.src = "empty.html";
	  kungFuDeathGrip.appendChild(iframe);
	  // html iframe
	  iframe = document.createElement('iframe');
	  iframe.onload = function () { kungFuDeathGrip.title += '5' };
	  iframe.src = "xhtml.1";
	  kungFuDeathGrip.appendChild(iframe);
	  // html iframe
	  iframe = document.createElement('iframe');
	  iframe.onload = function () { kungFuDeathGrip.title += '6' };
	  iframe.src = "xhtml.2";
	  kungFuDeathGrip.appendChild(iframe);
	  // html iframe
	  iframe = document.createElement('iframe');
	  iframe.onload = function () { kungFuDeathGrip.title += '7' };
	  iframe.src = "xhtml.3";
	  kungFuDeathGrip.appendChild(iframe);
	  // add the lot to the document
	  document.getElementsByTagName('map')[0].appendChild(kungFuDeathGrip);
	  return 5;
	}

Lots of DOM access and network access.

The Firefox nightlies don't seem to be improving at all anymore.... I guess webkit is the only browser with a full focus on Acid3.

The Gecko guys shouldn't be focusing on Acid3 at the moment, Firefox 3 is nearing release (Beta 5 is the last beta), they should be focusing entirely on bugs within the new features, not looking at adding new features this late.

Edit: Unless there's a 3.5 or something, the next release with any major changes will be 4

Grand Master

SnowRanger13

Posted
Posted
Wow. I am sure webkit will get to 100 % very soon. Only 4 more points to go!

Yes no doubt Webkit will reach 100/100 in the next while. The question is will they be releasing a Safari 3.2 or Safari 4 anytime soon?

Sure it's great and all that were tech oriented people and can use Webkit and know that it might not work with some pages because it is a Nightly build. But the majority of people are going to want to use a final product.

There is still a lot of CSS Webkit is working on other the just what Acid 3 tests for so I don't expect a Safari 3.2 shortly after webkit gets 100/100 but I do hope to see a Safari 3.2 within the next 6 months.

Apprentice

max-pain

Posted
Posted

http://annevankesteren.nl/2008/03/acid3-opera-98

Acid3: Opera hits 98/100

It is probably no surprise that we were working on Acid3 given the latest weekly snapshot. However, what might be a surprise is that our post-Kestrel builds are at 98/100. It?s unlikely we?ll get that far with the official Kestrel release, but to keep some level of competition in passing the latest Acid test we wanted to share this. I?m told a public ?alpha? build to demonstrate this is imminent. Among the interesting new features are hsla() / rgba() and Web fonts (@font-face). (I?ll update this when I have some more information. Heading to the CSS WG meeting now.)
Grand Master

what

Posted
Posted
It'd be cool if this whole entire time, the team at Mozilla has been working their butts off on Acid3 and release the nightly that scores 100 like right before WebKit does. That would be freakin sweet.

Yeah, but they're too busy uploading Release Candidates of pre-alphas of betas every five seconds.

Mentor

Neyht Member

Posted
  • Member
Posted

I doubt that will happen. I don't really care either way. Opera is even saying that the final build of Kestrel (which is 9.5 I think) will not get that high of a score. I don't expect Firefox 3 to get higher than a 70 and I'm perfectly alright with that...for now.

Grand Master

LOC Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Its almost there!!!

Wow, what version of webkit are you using? I can only get 96/100 on the latest Win32 snapshot! :D

As for Opera, 77/100 on the latest build of Kestrel isn't to bad considering. And plus, the constant competition to get 100 on a test that isn't even recognized yet (other than being future proof I guess) is amazing heh.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.