Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. buyrihn's Avatar
    Posts
    449 Posts
    Global Posts
    453 Global Posts
       #1  
    Engadget has an article about how much faster the iPhone 3GS is than the Pre, thanks to an article posted originally at Anandtech about the speed of the browser. Check out the article here.

    In a nutshell, the article compares the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 3GS, the Pre, and the G1. Anandtech tested the load speed of 9 different sites, and the iPhone 3GS won 6 of the tests, and the Pre won the other 3, making (according to the test) the iPhone 3GS 21% faster than the Pre. Problem is, the test wasn't accurate for at least two of the sites- in essence, they cheated.

    Here's the thing, there are two tests in which the iPhone handily won by a large margin (100% faster in one test, 80% in another). It surprised me, because the Pre is fast, and I've had both versions of the iPhone. The new chipset notwithstanding, I didn't expect the iPhone to crush the Pre like it seemed to do in this unintentionally/intentionally rigged test.

    Slashdot.org and Facebook.com load times for the iPhone 3GS were 10.0 and 13.5 seconds respectively, compared to 20.9 and 19.6 for the Pre, also respectively. Problem is- the sites (when browsed to them on the iPhone) are formatted for the iPhone! Even if you don't have an iPhone, you can test it yourself if you have a Mac, and are running Safari 4. Go to the Develop menu on a new tab, and change the user agent to Mobile Safari 3.0 and load up slashdot.org. Now open a new tab (the user agent will default to the regular one) and open up slashdot.org. Compare the two. Notice the differences? Of course the one on iPhone loads faster- it's a different freaking version!! Similar thing on facebook.com.

    I wish I had an iPhone 3GS to compare two different sites- ones that are just standard formatted websites for both phones, instead of the ones that are formatted differently (ok, ok- the ones they cheated on), but alas, I don't. The only thing I can do is dismiss those numbers as completely inaccurate, and calculate a new total based on the other figures. It just struck me that I'm assuming that the other ones are, in fact, legit, but I just don't feel like checking them. At any rate, making an *** out of you and me (read: assuming) that the other tests are legit, the iPhone 3GS beats the Pre by about 6%, NOT 21%.

    I'm an Apple fan, NOT a fan-boy. Blatant disregard of competitor's products is silly and stupid, especially when there is such a clearly better option in phones, with the Pre. (Yeah, that did sound a little fan-boyish, I admit.) Since I am now becoming a Palm fan, please excuse my initial giddiness, mmmkay? It's hard treading in this ocean, considering all the Apple's in the water.
  2. #2  
    That's nice. What matters is which browser you like and ultimately, the device itself.

    -
  3. cashen's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    773 Global Posts
    #3  
    They must of drank some hatorade...
  4. punchx's Avatar
    Posts
    15 Posts
    Global Posts
    59 Global Posts
    #4  
    Does anyone really care? Their both fast, they both work, next topic please.
  5. geodim's Avatar
    Posts
    276 Posts
    Global Posts
    278 Global Posts
    #5  
    The iPhone 3GS's browser is faster than the Pre's. So what? Is that why you guys got this phone, because you thought it would be faster than the iPhone? I'm just glad it's in the same league.

    Also, I can understand the Gizmodo comments, but Engadget does a great job at being unbiased in their coverage. No need to call their integrity into question, just because they said something bad about your phone.
    Sidekick Color > Moto MPx220 > HTC Typhoon > Moto Q > HTC Apache > HTC Hermes > HTC Tilt > Palm Pre > HTC EVO 4G > HTC EVO 3D

    iPad 16GB WiFi > iPad 2 64GB WiFi
  6. #6  
    Thanks for the info. I also think we should all just choose a phone that pleases us and let it go at that. BUT I think many people see or hear something like the iPhone is significantly faster and in their mind that becomes the absolute truth.

    How many Palm is dead stories did all of us Treo users endure while we were happily using a phone that worked well and did so much more than its competitors. My opinion only based on my own experience.
  7. buyrihn's Avatar
    Posts
    449 Posts
    Global Posts
    453 Global Posts
       #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by punchx View Post
    Does anyone really care? Their both fast, they both work, next topic please.
    I would like Palm to succeed. Part of that success is public perception of the phone compared to it's rival, so yeah, I care.
    Quote Originally Posted by geodim View Post
    Also, I can understand the Gizmodo comments, but Engadget does a great job at being unbiased in their coverage. No need to call their integrity into question, just because they said something bad about your phone.
    It's not Engadget's integrity, rather Anandtech's. Engadget just popularized the story, so they've got to share some of the blame when the story is proven to be wrong, right? I think at some point, blogs aren't just simply blogs anymore- rather news vehicles. As such, they should be responsible for their content.
  8. Smubeht's Avatar
    Posts
    187 Posts
    Global Posts
    189 Global Posts
    #8  
    People need validation for their purchase. I see the same arguments on the PS3 and Xbox forums. People want to simply prove they made the right choice. Instead of simply being happy with their choice, they want to prove to those who chose differently, that their(the other person)'s choice was stupid and that they(the original person) was right in choosing what they chose.
  9. geodim's Avatar
    Posts
    276 Posts
    Global Posts
    278 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Smubeht View Post
    People need validation for their purchase. I see the same arguments on the PS3 and Xbox forums. People want to simply prove they made the right choice. Instead of simply being happy with their choice, they want to prove to those who chose differently, that their(the other person)'s choice was stupid and that they(the original person) was right in choosing what they chose.
    Exactly. To me, it's not a big deal that the iPhone is a few seconds faster. Also, keep in mind that we're still on 1.0.3. I'm sure that there will be many updates to come that will optimize the browser speed even more.
    Sidekick Color > Moto MPx220 > HTC Typhoon > Moto Q > HTC Apache > HTC Hermes > HTC Tilt > Palm Pre > HTC EVO 4G > HTC EVO 3D

    iPad 16GB WiFi > iPad 2 64GB WiFi
  10. #10  
    "Truthiness"? Seriously?



    While getting new tires this weekend, I killed time by stopping at the AT&T store next door, and playing with a 3GS.

    First thing I tried was Youtube and the result was the same I read about online -seems AT&T uses a different compression method than Sprint's, so while the Pre's Youtube video were fullscreen and with excellent quality, the 3GS was boxed in and with awful quality, specially with the Pre next to it. And the Pre loaded the same videos faster, but just by a tiny bit.

    And this was with both devices on their respective networks, full bars on both.

    However, from a clear cache on both, Engadget, Consumerist and ESPN all loaded faster on the iPhone, but not by a whole lot. Of note: some sites defaulted to an iPhone-customized page that while still having full graphics and perfect formatting (no need to zoom) also loaded much faster.

    Another thing the iPhone (all models though, not just the 3GS) does a bit better than the Pre: smooth scrolling/zooming (specially Google Maps and web pages). The iPhone has little UI touches (animated Gmaps icons) that I wouldn't mind the Pre copying them.

    But I hate that stupid onscreen keyboard!
  11. #11  
    The GS browser IS faster. Get over it. It also renders better and doesn't have that stupid checker board look like the Pre when you scroll most of the time.

    Palm needs to step up and optimize the browser to get things on par. That is the bottom line, competition is good and the Iphone does what it does well. I know that is hard for some here to accept but that is how things are.
  12. jozjonlin's Avatar
    Posts
    2 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #12  
    Nice post! I don't read it as fanboyish at all. I don't own (and wouldn't) an iPhone. I do, however, own the iPod touch, and I love that for what it is. The touch is essentially the same OS with a few things missing, like vibration, an actual phone, and GPS. Otherwise it's the same exact OS.

    My problem with the iPhone and now my Pre is that both companies have decided to release a product with an emphasis of style over substance. Look, I am a Palm fanboy and will freely admit it. The problem is that the Pre in many ways is crippled compared to my Treo 755. Sure, it looks good, but looking good doesn't get the job done. It just simply looks good.

    The nice thing about the Pre is that Most (not all) problems or shortcomings of the Pre can be fixed with software updates. Now the question is whether Palm will actually address some of those shortcomings at all, such as the crippled copy and paste, crippled Bluetooth, crippled EAS support, and several other important things.

    At this point, I still have to carry my Treo 755 around for some of the software I need for my job that I can't get or use on the Pre. I also use the 755 to tether when I'm on the road and I need a quick internet connection. It would be nice to be able to do that with the Pre, but it's not that important to me since I use my 755 for that job. Sure, it's not the EVDO Rev A, but it gets the job done nicely for me. Plus, it's nice to be able to tether with the 755 and still be able to use a cellphone to make calls.

    At this point, the more I use my Pre, the more I absolutely love it. It's not perfect, but with software updates, I think it's going to get better and better.
  13. JC Strat's Avatar
    Posts
    33 Posts
    Global Posts
    37 Global Posts
    #13  
    I asked Anand at Anandtech to clear this up.

    My post on his site at AnandTech: The Palm Pre Review

    -----------
    Dear Anand,

    I hesitate to point this out....

    Several of the sites (slashdot, facebook) that you loaded on the iPhone 3GS loaded disproportionately faster on the 3GS than the pre based on other site load times.

    It has been suggested that these sites detect the user agent of the iPhone and serve up an optimized site for the iPhone. This has been suggested by using a user agent switcher with Safari. Set it to "Mobile Safari 3.0" - the iPhone browser - and the site loads much quicker even on the same mac.

    From a recent post at Precentral.net:
    --------------
    Even if you don't have an iPhone, you can test it yourself if you have a Mac, and are running Safari 4. Go to the Develop menu on a new tab, and change the user agent to Mobile Safari 3.0 and load up slashdot.org. Now open a new tab (the user agent will default to the regular one) and open up slashdot.org. Compare the two. Notice the differences? Of course the one on iPhone loads faster- it's a different freaking version!! Similar thing on facebook.com.
    --------------

    Can you confirm that your tests loaded the exact same version of these pages, and that facebook and slashdot did not serve up different versions of their content to the iPhone that was less data or optimized specifically for the iPhone? The evidence seems pretty compelling that if your user agent is "Mobile Safari 3.0" you get a different version of the page, and comparing that with the Pre loading the full generic site is not valid.

    I mention this because a variety of news and gadget sites have carried this as evidence of a 20+ % advantage of the iPhone 3GS over the Pre in rendering web pages. If they are not rendering the same page and data, then that needs to be explicitly acknowledged.

    It may be that this turns out to be nothing, and the 3GS is rendering the exact same data and page that much faster than the Pre on these sites. But the discrepancy and possible explanation of an iPhone-optimized page should be explored and brought to light.

    Personally whether it's 24% or 6% faster than the Pre, I couldn't care less. They are both awesome phones. However, it is appropriate to give the Pre a fair shake.
  14. #14  
    Instead of loading one website at a time, how about loading a series of websites twice in a row, leaving them open as you go. Maybe the iPhone does have a small edge in the first round. But in the second round, the Pre has them still open and active. The iPhone need to refresh. Contest over.
  15. #15  
    I keep say this. PAlm is not after the "diePhone" folks....nor are they after the "BooBerry". They are after the plain ole dumbphone folks. Those that are thinking about moving up to the smartphone levels. That's still a huge market. This "too fast...too slow" stuff is boring. Let the individual decide what is best for him/her...
    GIVE DEBBIE THE CHIMP.....GIVE DEBBIE THE CHIMP!!!
  16. buyrihn's Avatar
    Posts
    449 Posts
    Global Posts
    453 Global Posts
       #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Aridon View Post
    The GS browser IS faster. Get over it. It also renders better and doesn't have that stupid checker board look like the Pre when you scroll most of the time.

    Palm needs to step up and optimize the browser to get things on par. That is the bottom line, competition is good and the Iphone does what it does well. I know that is hard for some here to accept but that is how things are.
    I'm happy with my Pre, and I'm not too concerned about the browser being a little slower. That being said, 21% is a lot different than 6%. The thing is, we all want the best possible phone there is, at least, that's why I bought it. I've had several iPhone's and I was more than happy to get rid of it/them.

    But you're right, competition IS good, which is why you'll see so many reviews comparing the Pre to the iPhone- and for that, I'm happy. I think though, that a lot of people wrote Palm off, and they don't necessarily want to be wrong in their thinking, which is why you see some reviews that don't necessarily see the Pre as WE see the Pre.

    And you gotta figure that percentages and facts and figures matter at SOME point, right? Otherwise, 3G/HDSPA speeds wouldn't matter, processing power wouldn't matter, and we would all be using something akin to the 1st generation iPhone. For the Pre to be perceived as an alternative to the iPhone (which is how I perceive at, although I think it's better, personally), it has to compete in the same league. That's what it will take for the phone to succeed, and Palm needs it to succeed. Sprint, for that matter, needs it to succeed. And since I just switched over from T-Mobile and an iPhone 3G, I need it to succeed too.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Aridon View Post
    The GS browser IS faster. Get over it. It also renders better and doesn't have that stupid checker board look like the Pre when you scroll most of the time.

    Palm needs to step up and optimize the browser to get things on par. That is the bottom line, competition is good and the Iphone does what it does well. I know that is hard for some here to accept but that is how things are.
    Why thank you mobileman .
    Palm History: Palm III>IIIc>CLIÉ NR70v>CLIÉ TG50>Tungsten C>Treo 650>Treo 700p>Centro>Pre!! 6/5/09
    Phone History: Way too long

    Sorry Timmy, SERO does not work with the Pre.
    If you have an iTouch click me.
  18. buyrihn's Avatar
    Posts
    449 Posts
    Global Posts
    453 Global Posts
       #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by JC Strat View Post
    I asked Anand at Anandtech to clear this up.

    My post on his site at AnandTech: The Palm Pre Review

    -----------
    Dear Anand,

    I hesitate to point this out....

    Several of the sites (slashdot, facebook) that you loaded on the iPhone 3GS loaded disproportionately faster on the 3GS than the pre based on other site load times.

    It has been suggested that these sites detect the user agent of the iPhone and serve up an optimized site for the iPhone. This has been suggested by using a user agent switcher with Safari. Set it to "Mobile Safari 3.0" - the iPhone browser - and the site loads much quicker even on the same mac.

    From a recent post at Precentral.net:
    --------------
    Even if you don't have an iPhone, you can test it yourself if you have a Mac, and are running Safari 4. Go to the Develop menu on a new tab, and change the user agent to Mobile Safari 3.0 and load up slashdot.org. Now open a new tab (the user agent will default to the regular one) and open up slashdot.org. Compare the two. Notice the differences? Of course the one on iPhone loads faster- it's a different freaking version!! Similar thing on facebook.com.
    --------------

    Can you confirm that your tests loaded the exact same version of these pages, and that facebook and slashdot did not serve up different versions of their content to the iPhone that was less data or optimized specifically for the iPhone? The evidence seems pretty compelling that if your user agent is "Mobile Safari 3.0" you get a different version of the page, and comparing that with the Pre loading the full generic site is not valid.

    I mention this because a variety of news and gadget sites have carried this as evidence of a 20+ % advantage of the iPhone 3GS over the Pre in rendering web pages. If they are not rendering the same page and data, then that needs to be explicitly acknowledged.

    It may be that this turns out to be nothing, and the 3GS is rendering the exact same data and page that much faster than the Pre on these sites. But the discrepancy and possible explanation of an iPhone-optimized page should be explored and brought to light.

    Personally whether it's 24% or 6% faster than the Pre, I couldn't care less. They are both awesome phones. However, it is appropriate to give the Pre a fair shake.
    Helluva post. +10.
  19. #19  
    Digg.com shows automatically an mobile version too.

    I don't know, but I figured that if they changed the User-Agent, then they would explain it. So they didn't do it.
  20. #20  
    digg.com shows optimized site too.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions