Efficiency and UI speed issues #2

Efficiency and UI speed issues #2

Dear Community Members, Developers,

I recently opened a thread with almost the same title, it got closed, the reason was "A bit lacking in the constructiveness department". I don't know what I did wrong, I tried to be as constructive as I could, but if I see problems, how else could I describe?

Please note that I don't want to degrade Opera developers' hard work, I have always appreciated it, that's why these slowdown issues bother me a lot. If I'm not constructive enough, I'll try to be: I have written down again detailed slowdown issues that can be tested by the user, I have already given step-by-step instructions. I don't rely on algoritmized tests like Futuremark's Peacekeeper, because at many sites reality proves the opposite.

First: Create a separate install of Opera 9.64 beside your 10.5X. Do the following things with both browsers:

Test 1

1. Make sure smooth scrolling is enabled.
2. Visit http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bloatware
3. You'll see search results in the left. Scroll down to the bottom to get all thumbnails loaded, then start scrolling up and down in the page.
4. You'll see that scrolling in Opera 10.5X is much more sluggish than in Opera 9.64.
5. Now click on the first hit, then pause the video. Start scrolling up and down in the page.
6. You'll see that scrolling different kinds of content on the same page (images, JS/CSS elements) in Opera 10.5X is much more sluggish than in Opera 9.64.

Test 2

1. Make sure smooth scrolling is enabled.
2. Visit http://kuruc.info/r/52/58679/
3. You'll see two embedded YouTube videos, but before doing anything Right click the page -> Block content...
4. Add the following line to get rid of bloaty flash banners that could influence rendering speed badly:

   http://kuruc.info/galeriaN/banner/*

5. Reload the page after blocking if needed.
6. Now there are two YouTube embedded videos in the middle content section. Start scrolling up and down.
7. You'll see that scrolling different kinds of content on the same page (flash, images, JS/CSS elements) in Opera 10.5X is much more sluggish than in Opera 9.64.

Test 3

1. Make sure smooth scrolling is enabled.
2. Visit any page you want.
3. Hit '.' (dot) and start typing some word.
4. You'll see that search fade and highlight effect in Opera 10.5X is much more sluggish than in Opera 9.64 where no fading is done.
5. You'll see that scrolling while searching in Opera 10.5X is much more sluggish than in Opera 9.64.

Test 4

1. Open a blank page (about:blank is perfect).
2. Roll through the upper menubar (File, Edit, View, ... etc.).
3. You'll see that in Opera 10.5X it will hang at Widgets for a second even if no widgets are installed, while it will disappear immedieately in Opera 9.64 when mouse pointer leaves it.

Test 5

1. Visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/
2. Look for the tab at the top-left section "More Top Stories"
3. At the right part of this tab, you'll see three different titles of stories. These titles change when you move the mouse pointer over them, they change their colour and the picture at the left.
4. Roll through this list from the top to the bottom.
5. You'll see that the way it replaces row-style and the image at the left is much more sluggish than in Opera 9.64.

Another trivial issue that is unnecessary to be tested is skin compatibility. In 10.5X you can use almost no skin written for 9.X, but new skins for 10.5X make the whole UI a bit slower.

I did these tests on a computer like this:
Processor: Pentium III 500MHz
Memory: 192MB
Graphics card: NVidia Geforce 2 MX/MX400 (64MB) with recommended NVidia driver (93.71) installed
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c
OS: Windows XP SP3

I did these tests using a fresh install of Windows XP from my original disk. The third test (search) is much slower on a Pentium 4 too and it takes 100% CPU when being typed or scrolled. Maybe I'm inconstructive, but as for me this means unoptimized, bloaty code. It might be optimized for real multi-threaded systems unlike older Pentium machines e.g P3. This is not a problem, but not everyone can afford (and want to buy) these kinds of machines only for software reasons. So I'm kindly asking the Developers to review their point of view about the issues I have introduced above. If you don't want to optimize new features for older hardware, because it's a harder work, please keep up the 9.X brand and release at least security fixes. With this you allow people using older computers to continue using their favorite browser with the same experience while not being afraid of getting malwares through security holes. Thanks in advance.

Please vote below!

I tried your test.
I have no problem with rendering in opera whatsoever. All went VERY smoothly.

I would not expect any with this
Intel Core Duo 2 T7500 2.2 GHz
Windows 7 x64
nVidia GeForce 8400M GS 124 MB
3GB RAM
Opera 10.52(3370)

Also My opera take 200 - 500 MB RAM.

Try changing some cache settings in your 10.5x opera. It might help.

I do not think you (and your PC) are typical mainstream user Opera focus on with development:
Recommended configuration for Opera:
Windows XP or later
256 MB of RAM
100 MB of free disk space

Minimum configuration for Opera:
Windows 2000 on a Pentium II
128 MB of RAM
20 MB of free disk space

Originally posted by maskokot:

I tried your test.
I have no problem with rendering in opera whatsoever. All went VERY smoothly.

I would not expect any with this
Intel Core Duo 2 T7500 2.2 GHz
Windows 7 x64
nVidia GeForce 8400M GS 124 MB
3GB RAM
Opera 10.52(3370)

Also My opera take 200 - 500 MB RAM.

Hi there, thanks for taking time
Well, it will definitely not be sluggish with that configuration because there are so much resources to be used (or wasted). I agree that my configuration is not a recent one, but an efficiently-written software should run smoothly on this config too. Just an example: if I use Adobe Flash Player to watch flash videos on YouTube it will play at 1-5 FPS and take 100% CPU. If I get the video file from Opera's cache, e.g. opr002L0 and play it using P3-optimized mplayer or MPC-HC+FFDShow (that is not a strictly P3-optimized build), it will play at full FPS and won't take more than 70% CPU. This is a difference between a bloatware and a well-written, resource-efficient software. Although, Flash is a very extreme example (it's the biggest software bloat on Earth), if Opera 9.64 is able to render some things smoothly on my configuration, then I'm wondering why 10.5X can't?

Try changing some cache settings in your 10.5x opera. It might help.

Thanks for your advice, but unfortunately it didn't help. I think UI rendering is nothing to do with memory or disk cache.

I do not think you (and your PC) are typical mainstream user Opera focus on with development:
Recommended configuration for Opera:
Windows XP or later
256 MB of RAM
100 MB of free disk space

Only the RAM is the requirement that doesn't meet, but it's definitely not affecting the issues I intended to test, because if did Windows would be swapping all the time, but it isn't. Also the search fade-effect slowdown is significant on a Pentium 4 2.40GHz with 1024MB RAM.

Well, it is likely that users with high-end computers won't notice any slowdown at all, this topic is not about them. This topic and its ancestor were dedicated to users having older computers and want the same experience. Opera guaranteed this experience until version number was changed to 10.X. Something else has also been changed: coding mentality of developers, I guess. From now on they only develop for state-of-the-art high-end computers where there are too much resources to be wasted, so the effects of inefficiently modified and updated code won't be felt. This makes users of low-end computers to buy newer computers, not because their several years old machine is not functional, but because software developers wanted them to do so. This keeps up an evil, wild-capitalist business chain that ruins the world, just look at the electronic trash we produce globally every year. This era should be shut down and developers should optimize, optimize, and optimize, even if it's hard, because the more their product is bloaty, the more machines and energy get wasted by people who use it.

Originally posted by str4ngS:

Well, it is likely that users with high-end computers won't notice any slowdown at all, this topic is not about them. This topic and its ancestor were dedicated to users having older computers and want the same experience. Opera guaranteed this experience until version number was changed to 10.X. Something else has also been changed: coding mentality of developers, I guess. From now on they only develop for state-of-the-art high-end computers where there are too much resources to be wasted, so the effects of inefficiently modified and updated code won't be felt. This makes users of low-end computers to buy newer computers, not because their several years old machine is not functional, but because software developers wanted them to do so. This keeps up an evil, wild-capitalist business chain that ruins the world, just look at the electronic trash we produce globally every year. This era should be shut down and developers should optimize, optimize, and optimize, even if it's hard, because the more their product is bloaty, the more machines and energy get wasted by people who use it.

there is only so much you can do with older tech and eventualy you will have to abandon it as it can no longer keep up with advances in technology, eventualy you will have to either: upgrade or keep what you got and hence thats the end of the road for you.

there is only so much you can do with older tech and eventualy you will have to abandon it as it can no longer keep up with advances in technology, eventualy you will have to either: upgrade or keep what you got and hence thats the end of the road for you.

You have just introduced the effects of wild-capitalism on technology in a nutshell (= buy the new, trash the old), I did the same thing. Well, to be honest I would not like to abandon. In this case I'm talking about the results of the tests. My theory is the following: a hardware (independently from its age) is capable of doing something efficiently if there is an efficient software A written for it. If a software different from A, let's call it B fails doing the same task, then it is more inefficient than A and it's not the fault of oldness/slowness of hardware.

Example #1: If Opera 9.64 can scroll a page smoothly and Opera 10.5X can't scroll the same page smoothly, then Opera 10.5X scrolling code has been bloated in some ways. You may not feel it if you have twenty-times faster CPU than I, but this is not the point. Opera 9.64 is software A which proved that there is a software that can do a job efficiently so from this point, it's not my hardware's problem. Of course I could've referred to all my tests with this example.

Example #2 (offtopic): We are still on a P3 500MHz computer with 192MB RAM. If MPlayer (version Sherpya-SVN-r31027-4.2.5) can play an H.264-format FLV-muxed video (450x360, 25FPS, 561 kbps) at full-FPS taking 90% CPU, but Adobe Flash Player only produces 1-2 FPS (!) while wasting 100% CPU (at the same video, of course), well, it's not the fault or slowness of this machine, rather a shame on Adobe's bloaty and inefficient code.

If the world worked as you want, developers would still be forced to support Windows 3.1. Even Microsoft is going to abandon support of XP in 2014 -- for SP3, other SP's are already undsupported.

I'm not trying to sound insensitive, until recently I had to deal with the hell that is using an outdated computer. But I certainly didn't blame software back then for not working as well on my 8-year-old PC.

Originally posted by str4ngS:

...the search fade-effect slowdown is significant on a Pentium 4 2.40GHz with 1024MB RAM.

This can be disabled by setting this setting in opera:config to 0. Make sure you save the change.

Originally posted by Superfluid:

If the world worked as you want, developers would still be forced to support Windows 3.1. Even Microsoft is going to abandon support of XP in 2014 -- for SP3, other SP's are already undsupported.

Windows 3.11 was supported for 18 years by Microsoft and is still used in some places where inefficient, bloaty new and slow Java-botches are unacceptable. Well, I don't want to force Microsoft to support Windows XP until the end of the world, but they could at least give the right of supporting to a non-profit organization or bunch of developers who don't want to follow the fashion, because they find older software as useful (or more useful) than newer ones. There are two options, though, either a software company optimizes its software so it can run well on older computers too, or they keep up decreased support (e.g. only security fixes) for an older version which runs well on the older computer. They must choose between the two unless they want to support this wild-capitalist business chain that creates demand artificially (with releasing software capable of the same but slower on the same hardware) and then repeats it infinitely.

Originally posted by Superfluid:

I'm not trying to sound insensitive, until recently I had to deal with the hell that is using an outdated computer. But I certainly didn't blame software back then for not working as well on my 8-year-old PC.

Well, if you have a little time, you could explain me that hell, because I'm pretty sure, that it was rather a software issue. If Microsoft Word 6.0 can't read a .doc that was created by Office XP, well, it's not the hardwares fault, it's fault of Microsoft. What I see is the wild-capitalist intention in the background which is the following: if we don't care about backward-compatibility, people will buy the new (and trash the old).

Unfortunately, we are so much off-topic again

Maybe a GPU problem? Try updating drivers.

I would agree with others. There is so much resources you can invest before it is not viable anymore to support them in the future. You are a victim of what we call 'software bloat' that affects older configurations. As hard drives and memory not to mention the overall cost of a new spanking computer has gone down considerably over the years, developers had more 'breathing space' to fit more code in favour of functionality. You can only add so much before you get crap at the other end.

Is disabling smooth scrolling an option at all for any of the scrolling performance issues? I've never enabled it (in 9.64, 9.53 or otherwise) when I've wanted performance whilst juggling an excessive number of tabs - although I sometimes don't turn it off in new (separate/testing) installs that I don't use often.

If comparing 10.53 to 9.64, one might also want to try comparing smooth scrolling to smooth scrolling disabled because while some features contribute to bloatware, others still remain optional and can be toggled off.

It feels nice and smooth for a while, but I always end up opting for non-smooth scrolling once I start using it more.

I haven't answered the poll because none of the options really suit me. 10.53 does feel faster than 9.64, but my computer is neither 'slow' nor 'fast' (but it is a bit old, I guess). I think configuring to the individual system's capabilities remains important, which unfortunately (?) means no smooth scrolling for me. In fact, depending on the circumstances; perhaps "all of the above" is an appropriate answer; however idealistic.

Originally posted by Ichann:

Maybe a GPU problem? Try updating drivers.

No GPU problems and I have the latest drivers.

Originally posted by Protiotype:

Is disabling smooth scrolling an option at all for any of the scrolling performance issues? I've never enabled it (in 9.64, 9.53 or otherwise) when I've wanted performance whilst juggling an excessive number of tabs - although I sometimes don't turn it off in new (separate/testing) installs that I don't use often.

There was no performance problems about smooth scrolling in 9.X, only in 10.X. So yes, I can turn it off but then I lose a feature. This means degradation, doesn't it?

On my 3Ghz Athlon X2 with 4Gb RAM the difference in speed between 10.10 and 10.5 is definitely noticeable. 10.5's UI can be annoyingly sluggish even on a reasonably modern computer.

Scrolling is almost always smooth in 10.10, and the UI remains slick and responsive, while 10.5 feels much more variable and inconsistent. I definitely get the kind of jerky scrolling you're talking about if I push 10.5 by opening a lot of tabs with flash content, the speed slowdown when search greys out the page is obvious too. There are also a lot of scrolling glitches, where content like videos and flash banners can get stuck while site text scrolls. As you can see here:



The biggest speed difference is when using MDI, with tabs restored rather than full screen. Dragging restored tabs in 10.5 tends to be jerky and slow, especially if a tab with flash/video is open. That's the case even when 10.5 is being lightly used, while 10.10 can be pushed to breaking point with hundreds of tabs yet stays speedy.

I get a lot of other graphical glitches too, like flash videos in background tabs showing through, and garbage left on screen for a second or two when dragging windows around. Not the end of the world, but it definitely adds to the unpolished feel of 10.5. Here are a couple of screenshots to illustrate the kind of thing I'm talking about:




The speed issues and graphical glitches aren't the main reasons why I'm still using 10.10, there are much more annoying bugs I'd like to see fixed first, but hopefully it'll get faster and smoother as 10.5's new UI engine is gradually improved and optimised.

Please file bug report about problem you experienced & then post the bug number in this forum.
https://bugs.opera.com/wizard/

I think I reported all the bugs I found back during beta testing.

A little review about the new stable release 10.53

Scrolling bloats: There is still a scrolling bloat in the new stable release 10.53 (in comparison with 10.52 and 10.51) at some pages. Go to http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/2246875/7508260/ (not warez) and try to scroll up-and down. It's visibly sluggish on a Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 2.4GHz too. Bug reported, number is DSK-299683. Also there are countless examples you meet during everyday browsing, here is another one. Opera 9.64 and 10.10 scroll these pages prefectly smooth.

Widgets menu: seems to be semi-fixed. It only halts at the first time when I roll through the menu bar.

Fade and highlight effect: improved, but still sluggish on some pages on a Pentium 4 2.4GHz, and sluggish on every page on a Pentium III 500MHz.

Plug-in content (Flash): scrolling flash plug-in content (that stevejyates proved with screenshots) seems to be a little faster on Pentium 4 2.4GHz, but still sluggish and bloaty.