In under 36 hours, a lot has changed:
- ECMAscript.org has updated their tests
- Opera 12 Alpha is out.
- Firefox 10 Alpha is out.
Here's the updated (2011-11-11) results. Each browser's data is compressed with bzip2.
| Browser | Fails | The photo | The data | Release Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Opera 11.60 beta 1147 | 1 | Screenshot | XML Results | Beta |
 IE 10 10.0.8102.0 | 6 | Screenshot | XML Results | Alpha |
| Opera 12.00 alpha 1116 | 11 | Screenshot | XML Results | Alpha |
 Firefox 10.0a2 2011-11-11 | 160 | Screenshot | XML Results | Alpha |
| Firefox 9.0 | 164 | Screenshot | XML Results | Beta |
| Firefox 8.0 | 164 | Screenshot | XML Results | Release |
| IE 9 9.0.8112.16421 | 322 | Screenshot | XML Results | Release |
 Chrome 17 17.0.932.0 dev-m | 415 | Screenshot | XML Results | Alpha |
| Chrome 16 16.0.912.36 beta-m | 415 | Screenshot | XML Results | Beta |
| Chrome 15 15.0.874.120 m | 416 | Screenshot | XML Results | Release |
 Safari 5.1.1 6534.51.22 | 772 | Screenshot | XML Results | Release |
| Opera 11.52 1100 | 3751 | Screenshot | XML Results | Release |
| IE 8 8.0.6001.18702 | N/A[1] | Screenshot | N/A | Release |
Well, Opera wins. and the old becomes new again. IE10 still takes the number 2 slot with everything else staying nearly the same.
about:
Tests were done on Windows 8, XP, and Vista; to try to main consistency. If you want to contact the author, reply here below. The author is Chris McKenzie; a programmer dedicated to truth, no matter how crazy it gets. Check out his projects on github.
I don't know what to say about this test. I have my doubts.
ReplyDeleteWe know that Microsoft is very close to ECMA, they approved the OOXML standard (which was very low quality) and make a fast track to approve it ISO. ECMA was the standard body used by Microsoft to do that, and the way the pull out the standard didn't help for their reputation.
On the other hand the test script is created by the ECMA TC39 team. Who is an active member of that team?
- David Fugarte (MS Employee) (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=21929029)
I do not trust ECMA being serious enough about standards. After the OOXML fiasco I just think of ECMA as an standard body were you can give a pile of cash to approve anything.
There might be good standards promoted by ECMA out there, but I don't trust ECMA anymore.
@Quien? Well ok. But if it was run by a mozilla developer and firefox did well, would you have the same suspicion?
ReplyDeleteI think there's too much conspiratorial skepticism with Microsoft. Sure, they have a history of really underhanded tricks; but those were in the 1990s; at what point can they get past those?
And besides, most of the really dirty tricks are done by marketing, and they are the same tricks that any for-profit-software (Sun, SGI, IBM, Oracl) use; basically "we are more cost effective than free somehow, and read this".
I don' think this is the case though. I found this test on my own, just by poking around wikipedia and then I went to the site. The buzz and press of this test was created basically, entirely by me; and if Microsoft wants to send me a check for it, I'd probably cash it; but it hasn't happened.
I think this is a relatively benign and agnostic thing in the world of seedy testing; which is indeed frought with corruption. If you look at the previous post I went into some details about trying to verify the veracity of it; I really can't paint Microsoft into a corner any more so then Google or Mozilla on this one.
Although if you'd like to start an initiative to get a more "honest" test, then please, I'll hop on board; I'm all for transparency.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletethose last two comments were SEO spam btw ... just for the record. Useful discussion is great. But saying "Great post (client website link)" is not.
ReplyDelete