Dan Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 As I have struggled in recent weeks with various 4.9 builds, I have hesitated to go back to compare with the last pre 4.9 build, but today I got on my wife's laptop, which still has 4.4.8.1000 installed. Wow, what a difference. The old pre 4.9 Maxthon is quick and responsive, far ahead of 4.9 and recent builds. It reminded me of why I stuck with Maxthon all of these years as my No 1 browser, and made me hope upon hope that changes can be made, to bring 4.9 up to the speed and efficiency of 4.4.8.1000. I am still tempted to go back to that version and will make a decision soon as I just am so frustrated with the slowness and sluggishness of 4.9xxxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowLeopard Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 15 hours ago, Dan3393486 said: As I have struggled in recent weeks with various 4.9 builds, I have hesitated to go back to compare with the last pre 4.9 build, but today I got on my wife's laptop, which still has 4.4.8.1000 installed. Wow, what a difference. The old pre 4.9 Maxthon is quick and responsive, far ahead of 4.9 and recent builds. It reminded me of why I stuck with Maxthon all of these years as my No 1 browser, and made me hope upon hope that changes can be made, to bring 4.9 up to the speed and efficiency of 4.4.8.1000. I am still tempted to go back to that version and will make a decision soon as I just am so frustrated with the slowness and sluggishness of 4.9xxxxx Unfortunately, I have to agree. I've used the Peacekeeper.futuremark.com website to run tests of Maxthon browsers merely for intercomparison to detect progress or regression. Today I ran a test on 4.9.0.3000 RC and got a score of 2867. This is almost the worst score I've ever seen for any Maxthon version. Here's a screen shot of my test history on the site: The best score I ever had was with 4.4.1.200 at 4247. The shot shows a 4060 score for 4.4.8.1000 - not too bad. But at the bottom we have 4.9.0.2400 at 3141 and 4.9.0.2500 at 3144. My test of 4.9.0.3000 RC is almost the worst of the Maxthon tests. In the middle of the set is 4.2.0.2400 which is the one version of Maxthon which had most nearly complete hardware acceleration. We want that, but we definitely want the speed restored. <<SL>> PS: I know the Peacekeeper is no longer being supported, but the test is still available and as a relative test is probably good enough to judge progress or lack thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 I hope this is seen by our friends at Maxthon -- I appreciate all the hard work that goes in to improving things, but all the evidence I have so far points to the pre 4.9 version being superior in speed and other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkisS Posted February 8, 2016 Report Share Posted February 8, 2016 On Sun Feb 07 2016 03:34:48 GMT+0200 (GTB Standard, Dan3393486 said: As I have struggled in recent weeks with various 4.9 builds, I have hesitated to go back to compare with the last pre 4.9 build, but today I got on my wife's laptop, which still has 4.4.8.1000 installed. Wow, what a difference. The old pre 4.9 Maxthon is quick and responsive, far ahead of 4.9 and recent builds. It reminded me of why I stuck with Maxthon all of these years as my No 1 browser, and made me hope upon hope that changes can be made, to bring 4.9 up to the speed and efficiency of 4.4.8.1000. I am still tempted to go back to that version and will make a decision soon as I just am so frustrated with the slowness and sluggishness of 4.9xxxxx Another reason i keep working on 4.4.8.1000. I tested all 4.9.xxx portable versions except 4.9.0.3000 rc and went back to 4.4.8.1000. 19 hours ago, SnowLeopard said: Unfortunately, I have to agree. I've used the Peacekeeper.futuremark.com website to run tests of Maxthon browsers merely for intercomparison to detect progress or regression. Today I ran a test on 4.9.0.3000 RC and got a score of 2867. This is almost the worst score I've ever seen for any Maxthon version. Here's a screen shot of my test history on the site: The best score I ever had was with 4.4.1.200 at 4247. The shot shows a 4060 score for 4.4.8.1000 - not too bad. But at the bottom we have 4.9.0.2400 at 3141 and 4.9.0.2500 at 3144. My test of 4.9.0.3000 RC is almost the worst of the Maxthon tests. In the middle of the set is 4.2.0.2400 which is the one version of Maxthon which had most nearly complete hardware acceleration. We want that, but we definitely want the speed restored. <<SL>> PS: I know the Peacekeeper is no longer being supported, but the test is still available and as a relative test is probably good enough to judge progress or lack thereof. BTW SnowL, i just did the test with 4.4.8.1000 and my results was 5245! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ldfa Posted February 8, 2016 Report Share Posted February 8, 2016 27 minutes ago, AkisS said: BTW SnowL, i just did the test with 4.4.8.1000 and my results was 5245! Test results are CPU dependent See ya, Ldfa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHYR Posted February 8, 2016 Report Share Posted February 8, 2016 Given that Peacekeeper is no longer supported, I am skeptical with the legitimacy of these results although I can confirm similar results. Using https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/testdrive/categories/performance/ tells a whole other story, 4.9.0.3000 comes out ahead in each of the test by a substantial margin! These differences are significant on both performance and graphic tests. Fish tank, 47 fps vs 60fps with 1000 fish on 4.9 Speed reading: 10 seconds vs 7 seconds on 4.9 Particle acceleration: roughly 50,000 vs 59,000 on 4.9 etc, etc, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowLeopard Posted February 8, 2016 Report Share Posted February 8, 2016 5 hours ago, AkisS said: Another reason i keep working on 4.4.8.1000. I tested all 4.9.xxx portable versions except 4.9.0.3000 rc and went back to 4.4.8.1000. BTW SnowL, i just did the test with 4.4.8.1000 and my results was 5245! That shows what good hardware can do. You've got better than I have to use. I'm on a Dell Latitude E6430. <<SL>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHYR Posted February 8, 2016 Report Share Posted February 8, 2016 21 minutes ago, SnowLeopard said: That shows what good hardware can do. You've got better than I have to use. I'm on a Dell Latitude E6430. <<SL>> Notice the red print on win10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHYR Posted February 9, 2016 Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Zurobara said: One webpage with problems (for me):http://folhetimdasletras.blogspot.ro/2009/10/origem-da-lingua-latina.html The column (with different texts and links) from the right side is shaking and is high CPU usage Confirmed, but I see the same behavior in Edge, Nitro, Sogou browsers once you zoom the page.No problems with FF or chrome which are both using newer cores than Mx4.9. Even in Mx4.9 the shaking stops when you reduce the zoom below 150%(but again at 110% zoom). Cpu usage also drops when there is no "shaking", so it's dependent on zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHYR Posted February 9, 2016 Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Zurobara said: Hmm, that's not a solution ="other browser behave the same"! IE 11 or Firefox don't do that, no matter what zoom. I didn't say it was a solution, merely made an observation....and indicated that the core might be to blame. The first word I used was "confirmed", some people like confirmation.... Edit: FYI, being that it is probably a core issue, it is unlikely the devs can do anything to remedy the situation until a new core is used which probably won't happen until M5 is released. So though it might not be a satisfactory "solution" for you, it is probably your only recourse. So, your welcome... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.