1. @3iza's Avatar
    i'm curious to see how it really stacks up after the new update...thanks in advance!
    06-21-11 09:48 AM
  2. s219's Avatar
    What site do you want to use for comparison?
    06-21-11 10:22 AM
  3. rsxsniper's Avatar
    engadget. oh wait ipad doesnt support flash
    06-21-11 10:29 AM
  4. osubass1's Avatar
    i have a PlayBook using 1.0.3 and another one on 1.0.6.

    i have the Xoom and the iPad, just got to get them all charged up.

    i'll see if we can have it tomorrow.
    06-21-11 11:24 AM
  5. s219's Avatar
    engadget. oh wait ipad doesnt support flash
    I can do engadget -- doesn't need flash at all. Stay tuned.
    06-21-11 11:55 AM
  6. exzibit3's Avatar
    I can do engadget -- doesn't need flash at all. Stay tuned.
    Thanks. Even posting time results in comparison would be helpful. I've consistently gotten the iPad1 to win in browser speeds before the latest update but it's probably due for a re-challange.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-21-11 12:22 PM
  7. semicoln's Avatar
    Should probably take times both with Flash on and off for devices that support it
    06-21-11 12:34 PM
  8. ignites's Avatar
    i have a PlayBook using 1.0.3 and another one on 1.0.6.

    i have the Xoom and the iPad, just got to get them all charged up.

    i'll see if we can have it tomorrow.
    dont forget to clear cache......
    06-21-11 01:13 PM
  9. s219's Avatar
    OK, here are videos of the PlayBook (with latest 1.06.x update) and iPad 2 (with iOS 4.3.2) loading the engadget website. Both devices were restarted before the test to eliminate any caching or other factors (though in my experience, that doesn't really matter much). Both devices were using my local wi-fi and were the only clients using it at the time. The PlayBook browser had Flash turned off just in case there were any Flash ads on the site.

    First up is the PlayBook, which took 12.2 seconds to load the site:



    Next is the iPad 2, which took 6.7 seconds to load the site:



    The biggest difference I see, which hasn't really changed with any OS updates, is that there is a lot of checker boarding on the PlayBook when you scroll around, especially after zooming or when going end-to-end on a page. The scrolling has gotten faster and smoother over time, but it's definitely less snappy and instantaneous than the iPad, and lags the finger a bit. Zooming in/out by double tap is also a bit choppy on the PlayBook. Thankfully, the PlayBook now lets you scroll over sidebar ads without firing off links all the time, though that could be a side effect of having Flash turned off in this test.
    06-21-11 01:31 PM
  10. ScottsdaleHokie's Avatar
    OK, here are videos of the PlayBook (with latest 1.06.x update) and iPad 2 (with iOS 4.3.2) loading the engadget website. Both devices were restarted before the test to eliminate any caching or other factors (though in my experience, that doesn't really matter much). Both devices were using my local wi-fi and were the only clients using it at the time. The PlayBook browser had Flash turned off just in case there were any Flash ads on the site.

    First up is the PlayBook, which took 12.2 seconds to load the site:



    Next is the iPad 2, which took 6.7 seconds to load the site:



    The biggest difference I see, which hasn't really changed with any OS updates, is that there is a lot of checker boarding on the PlayBook when you scroll around, especially after zooming or when going end-to-end on a page. The scrolling has gotten faster and smoother over time, but it's definitely less snappy and instantaneous than the iPad, and lags the finger a bit. Zooming in/out by double tap is also a bit choppy on the PlayBook. Thankfully, the PlayBook now lets you scroll over sidebar ads without firing off links all the time, though that could be a side effect of having Flash turned off in this test.
    My lord the Playbook is SLOW.
    06-21-11 01:34 PM
  11. semicoln's Avatar
    RIM still has a long way to go getting that browser optimized
    06-21-11 01:56 PM
  12. slingxshot's Avatar
    RIM still has a long way to go getting that browser optimized
    it probably wont be optimized anymore till ver 2.0, just my gut feeling.
    06-21-11 02:33 PM
  13. pbfan's Avatar
    It compares 2 different videos and both are in .mov format:

    "First up is the PlayBook, which took 12.2 seconds to load the site:

    YouTube - PlayBook

    Next is the iPad 2, which took 6.7 seconds to load the site:

    YouTube - iPad 2"
    06-21-11 02:42 PM
  14. semicoln's Avatar
    it probably wont be optimized anymore till ver 2.0, just my gut feeling.
    I won't be too upset about that as long as our current Playbooks can run ver 2.0.
    06-21-11 03:01 PM
  15. slingxshot's Avatar
    I won't be too upset about that as long as our current Playbooks can run ver 2.0.
    All I can say they wont be a playbook 2 probably till end of next year so plenty of time to get to a ver 2.0.
    06-21-11 03:10 PM
  16. NO_CARRIER's Avatar
    I find these tests are always inconsistent from personal experience. Not just with iPad or Playbook, but any wifi devices really---even desktop computers. Depending on conditions and dropped packets, the results can change. Not to mention load on the servers at any time, or if there are multiple servers/mirrors which one you get routed to can change depending on load. Even having more than one device connected to the wifi network which may be taking up bandwidth at different times.

    Not to say that Playbook isn't slower than the iPad2, it very well might be. But these tests should be taken as a grain of salt unless it's on a closed network and in a controlled environment. Results can and will vary.
    06-21-11 03:24 PM
  17. slingxshot's Avatar
    I find these tests are always inconsistent from personal experience. Not just with iPad or Playbook, but any wifi devices really---even desktop computers. Depending on conditions and dropped packets, the results can change. Not to mention load on the servers at any time, or if there are multiple servers/mirrors which one you get routed to can change depending on load. Even having more than one device connected to the wifi network which may be taking up bandwidth at different times.

    Not to say that Playbook isn't slower than the iPad2, it very well might be. But these tests should be taken as a grain of salt unless it's on a closed network and in a controlled environment. Results can and will vary.
    When I did PB tests on crackberry.com, prob at least 20, results varied -1,-2,-3,+1,+2,+3 on average. But they did not vary a lot on consistent basis.
    06-21-11 03:27 PM
  18. wxman123's Avatar
    It's not just the load time. The PB browser hangs inexplicably on many sites, making "normal" load time irrelevant. I could live with the PB loading a website in 12 seconds when the Ipad takes 6. What is intolerable is the PB hanging for 30 seconds or more, sometimes demanding a reboot, cache clearing etc to resolve the issue. It ruins the experience. This never happens on my android device.
    06-21-11 04:13 PM
  19. s219's Avatar
    I find these tests are always inconsistent from personal experience. Not just with iPad or Playbook, but any wifi devices really---even desktop computers. Depending on conditions and dropped packets, the results can change. Not to mention load on the servers at any time, or if there are multiple servers/mirrors which one you get routed to can change depending on load. Even having more than one device connected to the wifi network which may be taking up bandwidth at different times.

    Not to say that Playbook isn't slower than the iPad2, it very well might be. But these tests should be taken as a grain of salt unless it's on a closed network and in a controlled environment. Results can and will vary.
    Out of curiosity, I reran a page load on each device five times, and am not seeing a lot of variation -- it's on the order of 0.5-1.0 seconds. That is significantly smaller than the 5-6 second difference in load times between the two devices.
    06-21-11 04:39 PM
  20. s219's Avatar
    It compares 2 different videos and both are in .mov format:

    "First up is the PlayBook, which took 12.2 seconds to load the site:

    YouTube - PlayBook

    Next is the iPad 2, which took 6.7 seconds to load the site:

    YouTube - iPad 2"
    I'm not comparing times loading youtube videos . The videos actually show both devices loading the engadget website. That is what was timed. I thought that would be clear from the point of this thread.
    06-21-11 04:41 PM
  21. s219's Avatar
    Note that in this other thread, turning javascript off was found to make both devices load engadget about twice as fast as before:

    http://forums.crackberry.com/f222/wa...owsing-624903/
    06-21-11 11:45 PM
  22. xandermac's Avatar
    I don't buy into this clearing cache, turn off flash, disable javascript rubbish, thats not real world. If you have to use a few unrealistic tweaks to make your device perform on par maybe its time for a different device that doesnt need that.
    06-22-11 07:06 AM
  23. xandermac's Avatar
    That's very true. The one thing the video does show though is just how poorly the PlayBook scrolls the site, its laggy & choppy. That drives me insane.

    I find these tests are always inconsistent from personal experience. Not just with iPad or Playbook, but any wifi devices really---even desktop computers. Depending on conditions and dropped packets, the results can change. Not to mention load on the servers at any time, or if there are multiple servers/mirrors which one you get routed to can change depending on load. Even having more than one device connected to the wifi network which may be taking up bandwidth at different times.

    Not to say that Playbook isn't slower than the iPad2, it very well might be. But these tests should be taken as a grain of salt unless it's on a closed network and in a controlled environment. Results can and will vary.
    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by xandermac; 06-22-11 at 07:16 AM.
    06-22-11 07:14 AM
  24. Kerms's Avatar
    I don't buy into this clearing cache, turn off flash, disable javascript rubbish, thats not real world. If you have to use a few unrealistic tweaks to make your device perform on par maybe its time for a different device that doesnt need that.
    That's sort of where I'm at. Read about the Tab 10.1 and turning off I think it was javascript or opengl, too early to remember but it was to take away the lag from the keyboard typing on some forums.

    It's 2011. I'm done tweaking and disabling, enabling things on a consistent basis. I may disable something from running but I'm not going to play the turn on, turn off game. I did all that back in DOS.

    I'll take it as it comes or find something else that does it more to my liking. No device is perfect. The key is finding what you can live with and what you can't
    Last edited by Daps; 06-22-11 at 08:42 AM.
    howarmat likes this.
    06-22-11 08:40 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD
";