You've seen the 'pinching and zooming' adverts for many (non-Symbian) smartphones, showing lightning fast manipulation of full desktop-class web page renders, with new pages 'coming down' in a matter of seconds. "It's the Internet in your pocket" say the promos. And, from my own observations, for many people this is utter pie in the sky. Out in the real world, mobile coverage and bandwidth falls diabolically short - which partly helps explain the popularity of a certain proxy-based web browser that works on everything and enables not the 'real web', but more 'looks and feels a lot like the real web, but isn't really'...
Read on in the full article.
A good article that makes a lot of valid points...
but as a developer I am going to disagree that most web pages are developed using WYSIWYG editors, in fact I'd say it's exactly the opposite.
With the evolving web's reliance on CSS along with Javascript libraries, jquery, ajax etc etc it is near impossible to develop in the WYSIWYG environment.
Very good article. In my area there's no 3G whatsoever, not even edge so I rely heavily on Opera Mini and Bolt when browsing away from home which do a reasonable job most of th time.
My most recent train journey was on a National Express, WiFi was available on board, so no problem with tunnel dropouts. There are also bus companies with onboard WiFi.
However, the 3G/3.5G coverage frequently falls short of what is promised in the UK, which makes me laugh when people talk about Google Maps being any use for nav. It's shite.
I think the usual understanding is that B refers to bytes and b to bits. Also, base connection speeds are almost always quoted in bits per second, though the amount of data you can transfer is in bytes per second.
I don't think people use bits instead of bytes in an effort to inflate the numbers - we're not talking about disk drives here.
davidmaxwaterma wrote:I think the usual understanding is that B refers to bytes and b to bits. Also, base connection speeds are almost always quoted in bits per second, though the amount of data you can transfer is in bytes per second.I don't think people use bits instead of bytes in an effort to inflate the numbers - we're not talking about disk drives here.
Agreed, it's always been the convention to refer to data comms capacity in bits per second. The calculation to determine how long it should take to transfer a number of Bytes over a given link in bits/s is not a simple multiply by 8 either. There are overheads for TCP/IP and MTUs and other wrapping protocols and all the clever stuff that goes on to encode symbols over RF and error detect/correct them. It's possible to add on a percentage to get a rule of thumb though.
When I get 3.5G with good signal strenth things are pretty rapid. I wouldn't rely on it though, so back a couple of weeks or so to the discussion about cloud services, no thank you - and this is the reason why.
Opera Mini is my best friend for mobile internet , regardless Wifi , 2G , 3,5G , including Gmail . The links in Mail are also rendered by OM . It's a grand pity , this weeks released OVI browser by Betalabs only works on S40 . I have got it installed on my S60 device . Opening OVI Browser up , there is a message popping up : Warning : "OVI browser does not run on this device" . There is also one Option : "Close" .
I think it's a missed opportunity .....
😊 Regards jApi NL
Attachments:
The built in s60 browser is always slow... But more on point. Where I live I can happily surf on 3.5G using the built in browser on my iphone or android phone.
Opera mini will always be somewhat faster. Even on wifi. But the difference is not very large on modern phones like a galaxy s or iphone 4. And the rendering, ui, zooming is so much better than in opera mini it's easily worth it for me at least.
S60 browser UI is just ridiculous. In fact. Opera mini offers a better experience regardless of loading speed.
But opera mobile 10.1 for s60 is pretty nice.
But I do have opera mini installed for when I find myself in a edge only area. No reason to limit one's options.
For me, reception is not the main reason why I find the web browsing experience on a Nokia phone to be lousy. The problem I find is the pathetically low-end CPU Nokia has been using in its "high-end" phones. Webpages these days are complex and they NEED CPU power to render them in an acceptable amount of time.
I cannot believe that in Q4 2010, Nokia's flagship phone, the N8, will sport a 600 MHz ARM11 CPU. At that point, other manufacturers would have been using higher speed (up to 1GHz) Cortex-A8 CPUs, or equivalent designs like the Qualcomm Scorpion, for almost two years. These phones, which are already on the market, have more than 3 times the CPU power than the unreleased Nokia N8.
BTW, when I heard that the Nokia N97, the 2009 Nokia flagship, had a 434 MHz ARM11 CPU, I almost cried.
Do the benefits mentioned here translate to Opera Mobile as well as Opera Mini? I know that the former is a native app and the latter a Java one but I don't hear Opera Mobile talked about much and am not sure what the real dfference in performance is. Should I be using Mini instead when the signal isn't great?
The explanation of thr differences on the Opera website doesn't help me, I'm afraid..
nudger wrote:Do the benefits mentioned here translate to Opera Mobile as well as Opera Mini? I know that the former is a native app and the latter a Java one but I don't hear Opera Mobile talked about much and am not sure what the real dfference in performance is. Should I be using Mini instead when the signal isn't great?The explanation of thr differences on the Opera website doesn't help me, I'm afraid..
You need Opera Mini to get the compressed low bandwidth feed from the Opera proxy.
Opera mobile is a good browser for interpreting standards for small screen but connects directly to the website.
Opera mini connects to Opera proxy server and takes the compressed/stripped feed - although you might find some features of the original website are sacrificed for the speed.
Will81 wrote:For me, reception is not the main reason why I find the web browsing experience on a Nokia phone to be lousy. The problem I find is the pathetically low-end CPU Nokia has been using in its "high-end" phones. Webpages these days are complex and they NEED CPU power to render them in an acceptable amount of time.I cannot believe that in Q4 2010, Nokia's flagship phone, the N8, will sport a 600 MHz ARM11 CPU. At that point, other manufacturers would have been using higher speed (up to 1GHz) Cortex-A8 CPUs, or equivalent designs like the Qualcomm Scorpion, for almost two years. These phones, which are already on the market, have more than 3 times the CPU power than the unreleased Nokia N8.
BTW, when I heard that the Nokia N97, the 2009 Nokia flagship, had a 434 MHz ARM11 CPU, I almost cried.
The 434 MHz ARM11 in the N97 should be measured against the 412MHZ ARM11 in the iPhone 3G. (although the iPhone had graphics accelerator to support the CPU).
I disagree that the Nokia flagship phone will be the N8, it's now going to be their mid range phone, with Meego devices supplying the "flagship"(I hate that geeky word flagship). The price of the phone purchased as handset only will be below the ones with 1GHz in to reflect this.
I personally (like the vast majority of buyers) couldn't give a flying fig about the number on the CPU and I will only judge a phone by how it works for me.
Unregistered wrote:You need Opera Mini to get the compressed low bandwidth feed from the Opera proxy. Opera mobile is a good browser for interpreting standards for small screen but connects directly to the website.
Opera mini connects to Opera proxy server and takes the compressed/stripped feed - although you might find some features of the original website are sacrificed for the speed.
That is not so. Opera Mobile uses the proxy to compress data as well. However, this facility is turned off by default in Opera Mobile. If you go to settings within opera mobile and turn on Opera Turbo, it starts using the proxy to compress data.
Both compress data, but the mini does a better job at compressing than mobile. This is because even though it compresses, mobile retains a lot of the site (fancy) features that you can use (unlike mini).
malerocks wrote:That is not so. Opera Mobile uses the proxy to compress data as well. However, this facility is turned off by default in Opera Mobile. If you go to settings within opera mobile and turn on Opera Turbo, it starts using the proxy to compress data.Both compress data, but the mini does a better job at compressing than mobile. This is because even though it compresses, mobile retains a lot of the site (fancy) features that you can use (unlike mini).
This is from the FAQ at Opera.com (http://www.opera.com/mobile/help/faq/)
What is the difference between Opera Mini and Opera Mobile?
Opera Mini and Opera Mobile look the same, so what�s the difference? Opera Mini, Opera Mobile and Opera for desktop all share the same rendering engine, Opera Presto. With Opera Mini, this is located on a server. In Opera Mobile, it is installed on your phone.
When you request a page in Opera Mini, the request is sent to the Opera Mini server that then downloads the page from the Internet. The server then packages your page up in a neat little compressed format (we call it OBML), ready to send back to your phone at the speed of ninjas on jetpacks.
When you request a page in Opera Mobile, the page is sent directly to your phone from the place from which you requested it, meaning you do not rely on the Opera Mini server. This means that the page is displayed just as it would in Opera for desktop. Your phone has to do a bit of work here, meaning that older phones might struggle.
By using Opera Mini, our servers do most of the work, so it works well with less- capable phones. Pages are often smaller (saving you money) and faster to load due our server-side compression. Opera Mobile can compress pages also, by enabling Opera Turbo.
Opera Mobile is only available if you have a Windows Mobile or Symbian/S60 phone. Opera Mini is available for a much wider range of handsets. To see which version(s) of Opera your phone is capable of running, see the
[quote="Steve Litchfield"][...] The truth is that most sites are designed using WYSIWYG or wizard-based tools far removed from the original raw text tags.[...] [/quote]
Please Steve, as a person using HoTMetaL PRO 5.0 don't talk about what mayorities use in web design ... 😉
Hey,
slightly off topic but close to this thread. Why does the Opera Mobile browser, which is excellent for most other sites, make such a hash of the BBC news website? it completely fails to reflow the text when you zoom in. This means that when you have the text at a sensible size (for reading) you have to scroll everywhere to read it. A right pain.
I switched to mini just so that I got the text re-flowed. Oh and I use an N97.
Otherwise I like both the opera browsers. quick and simple. I trust their proxy privacy enough.
cheers,
dj
Personally, I would like to see operators improve their woeful 3G coverage outside urban areas.
On a recent trip to the Dolomites I was getting perfect 3g coverage, even on top of the mountains. Similarly in Snowdonia I can get good 3G coverage in most places. Here at home, out in the sticks between towns there is no 3G coverage at all.
Ian.
@Will81
I take your point about the CPU but bear in mind the rendering will be done by the GPU on the N8. It's not as simple as more clock cycles.
Hi Cox, what about this then, also from the Opera site:
"Opera is the smart choice for browsing on expensive wireless data plans. Using Opera to browse the Web with your mobile phone can save you money on your phone bills, by reducing your data usage substantially. Opera Mini uses only a tenth of the bandwidth of other browsers, compressing Web pages by up to 90%. On Opera Mobile, turning on Opera Turbo compresses data up to 80% or leave Opera Turbo off to get full Web site data, as you would on a PC."
What you have pasted is about rendering. That is not the same as compressing. And the FAQs is doing comparisons between the default setting of both the browsers. Once Opera Turbo is turned on in Opera Mobile, it uses the servers as well - for compressing, not for rendering.
malerocks wrote:Hi Cox, what about this then, also from the Opera site:"Opera is the smart choice for browsing on expensive wireless data plans. Using Opera to browse the Web with your mobile phone can save you money on your phone bills, by reducing your data usage substantially. Opera Mini uses only a tenth of the bandwidth of other browsers, compressing Web pages by up to 90%. On Opera Mobile, turning on Opera Turbo compresses data up to 80% or leave Opera Turbo off to get full Web site data, as you would on a PC."
What you have pasted is about rendering. That is not the same as compressing. And the FAQs is doing comparisons between the default setting of both the browsers. Once Opera Turbo is turned on in Opera Mobile, it uses the servers as well - for compressing, not for rendering.
I don't really understand what you are trying to communicate. This section from the FAQ passage I already quoted:
"By using Opera Mini, our servers do most of the work, so it works well with less- capable phones. Pages are often smaller (saving you money) and faster to load due our server-side compression. Opera Mobile can compress pages also, by enabling Opera Turbo."
Says they same thing that you seem to be saying but in far less words, but also includes compression. It wasn't me who asked about the difference between mini and mobile.
@SFx86: " as a person using HoTMetaL PRO 5.0 "
Eh? I used that for a while in the early 2000s.... It got discontinued, sadly. I still work at the HTML tag level though - guess I should go through and rip out some of the HoTMetaL comment lines on all 150 pages? One rainy day, maybe.....
The 434 MHz ARM11 in the N97 should be measured against the 412MHZ ARM11 in the iPhone 3G. (although the iPhone had graphics accelerator to support the CPU).
So we should compare the N97, Nokia's current "flagship" consumer smartphone (and no I don't count the N900 as a consumer phone) to the iPhone 3G, a phone which was superseded by the significantly faster iPhone 3GS, which was in turn superseded by an even faster iPhone 4.
I disagree that the Nokia flagship phone will be the N8, it's now going to be their mid range phone, with Meego devices supplying the "flagship"(I hate that geeky word flagship). The price of the phone purchased as handset only will be below the ones with 1GHz in to reflect this.
When the N8 is released, I think it will take over the reigns from the N97 as Nokia's flagship. I think it'll be a while before we see a consumer-ready Meego smartphone on the market.
I personally (like the vast majority of buyers) couldn't give a flying fig about the number on the CPU and I will only judge a phone by how it works for me.
While I somewhat agree with that statement regarding tech specs, most buyers do care about the useability of the device and if web browsing is an important aspect, a device that renders the full Facebook page in 32 seconds is going to look rather poor compared to one that does it in 14 seconds (Anandtech's comparison of the 3G to the 3GS).
I take your point about the CPU but bear in mind the rendering will be done by the GPU on the N8. It's not as simple as more clock cycles.
The webpage rendering engine (WebKit) and the Javascript engine cannot be executed on the GPU. Zooming and scrolling may be smoother on the N8 (assuming the browser gets GPU acceleration) but rendering a webpage will still be magnitudes slower than current Cortex-A8 or Snapdragon-based device.
Will81 wrote:So we should compare the N97, Nokia's current "flagship" consumer smartphone (and no I don't count the N900 as a consumer phone) to the iPhone 3G, a phone which was superseded by the significantly faster iPhone 3GS, which was in turn superseded by an even faster iPhone 4.
Well yes, that's what I wrote. It's acknowledged that N97 was a f*** up and Nokia haven't yet recovered with a faster model. I really don't understand that there is any point.
Will81 wrote:
When the N8 is released, I think it will take over the reigns from the N97 as Nokia's flagship. I think it'll be a while before we see a consumer-ready Meego smartphone on the market.
It will be significantly cheaper than the 1GHz. Desire and 800MHz iPhone 4, so it is not being pitched directly against those phones.
Will81 wrote:
While I somewhat agree with that statement regarding tech specs, most buyers do care about the useability of the device and if web browsing is an important aspect, a device that renders the full Facebook page in 32 seconds is going to look rather poor compared to one that does it in 14 seconds (Anandtech's comparison of the 3G to the 3GS).
Yes, that's what I said: "I will only judge a phone by how it works for me". Have you timed he N8 rendering of an full facebook page (not that I ever do that when I have a perfectly good app).
Will81 wrote:
The webpage rendering engine (WebKit) and the Javascript engine cannot be executed on the GPU. Zooming and scrolling may be smoother on the N8 (assuming the browser gets GPU acceleration) but rendering a webpage will still be magnitudes slower than current Cortex-A8 or Snapdragon-based device.
Most phone CPUs are waiting for the data over the connection anyway. Most consumers aren't anally retentive enough to go looking at split times for page rendering. I admire the power of your crystal ball.
Saying that the cpu(the whole SoC is important really) isn't important is just ridiculous when all you have to do is look at the iphone 3g vs 3gs. Same software, better cpu and easily twice the speed.
Tenkom wrote:Saying that the cpu(the whole SoC is important really) isn't important is just ridiculous when all you have to do is look at the iphone 3g vs 3gs. Same software, better cpu and easily twice the speed.
I didn't find my 3GS was twice as fast as my old 3G, it's faster but not anywhere near twice.
People aren't saying that CPUs aren't important, they are saying that just numbers (the clock speed) means nothing to most buyers, actual use in the hand is more important.
Otherwise the 800MHz iPhone 4 would be embarrassed by the (older) 1GHz handsets, but it clearly isn't.
The iphone 4(800mhz a4) is noticeably slower than than the ipad(1 ghz a4). I know. I have them both. And please check out this review of the iphone 3gs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2790
122% speed increase when loading web pages is even more than twice as fast.
Saying that hardware isn't important is like saying "I don't care about the size of the engine, I just want the car to go fast." These things go hand in hand.
It will be significantly cheaper than the 1GHz. Desire and 800MHz iPhone 4, so it is not being pitched directly against those phones.
Really? Currently Nokia Italy has the N8 for pre-order at �469. Amazon Germany has it for �482.
In the UK, Play.com has it listed at �419.99 while Clove has it for �417.12.
On the other hand, the HTC Desire with its 1 GHz Snapdragon is �387.75 inc VAT on Clove.
Most phone CPUs are waiting for the data over the connection anyway. Most consumers aren't anally retentive enough to go looking at split times for page rendering. I admire the power of your crystal ball.
This might be true if you're stuck on a 2G connection or a ridiculously congested 3G network but it certainly isn't true for most people with decent 3G coverage. Anand tested the iPhone 3G vs the 3GS over AT&T's 3G network and found "the 3GS looks to be around 114% faster than the iPhone 3G - definitely worth the upgrade if you do a lot of browsing on your phone."
He then went on to say:
It is important to realize what we're talking about here. These phones, particularly ones that are using old ARM11 based SoCs, are CPU bound while loading web pages. Even while browsing over a relatively slow < 1Mbps cellular network, the CPU still ends up being a significant bottleneck to web page rendering performance. Compare that to how things work on the desktop - when was the last time you felt your PC was too slow to browse the web? The Cortex A8 is a huge step forward here, and once again, there's no excuse for putting any ARM11 in a high end smartphone today.
He said that in July 2009. It is now August 2010.
This is why I prefer Opera Mini on my s60 phone. Opera Mobile brings the phone to a screeching halt trying to render complex sites. Like Opera said, "By using Opera Mini, our servers do most of the work (rendering the page), so it works well with less- capable phones."
Otherwise the 800MHz iPhone 4 would be embarrassed by the (older) 1GHz handsets, but it clearly isn't
That is because the 800 MHz iPhone 4 is using a Cortex-A8 CPU. The 1 GHz Snapdragon devices have approximately 1.25x more CPU power. Noticeable difference? Maybe. Huge difference? No.
BUT, the N8 has a 600 MHz ARM11 CPU. The 1 GHz Snapdragon devices have approximately 3.33x more CPU power than the N8. The iPhone 4 has approximately 2.66x more CPU power than the N8. Noticeable difference? What do you think 😊
Will81 wrote:Really? Currently Nokia Italy has the N8 for pre-order at �469. Amazon Germany has it for �482.
In the UK, Play.com has it listed at �419.99 while Clove has it for �417.12.On the other hand, the HTC Desire with its 1 GHz Snapdragon is �387.75 inc VAT on Clove.
Have you been following new phone releases? When they do eventually appear they always come to market much cheaper than these early prices. In every case where I have bought one this has always been true. I don't know if it's dodgy marketing to make people think they are getting a bargain, or just early conservative pricing but that's the way it has always worked.
Will81 wrote:
This might be true if you're stuck on a 2G connection or a ridiculously congested 3G network but it certainly isn't true for most people with decent 3G coverage. Anand tested the iPhone 3G vs the 3GS over AT&T's 3G network and found "the 3GS looks to be around 114% faster than the iPhone 3G - definitely worth the upgrade if you do a lot of browsing on your phone."
This is assuming the last mile is the only bottleneck. It's not.
Will81 wrote:
He said that in July 2009. It is now August 2010.
What planet are you on? That was so irrelevant.
Will81 wrote:BUT, the N8 has a 600 MHz ARM11 CPU. The 1 GHz Snapdragon devices have approximately 3.33x more CPU power than the N8. The iPhone 4 has approximately 2.66x more CPU power than the N8. Noticeable difference? What do you think 😊
QED the cost of the iPhone 4.
TENKOM wrote:
Saying that hardware isn't important is like saying "I don't care about the size of the engine, I just want the car to go fast." These things go hand in hand
Very poor metaphor. It's not the size of the engine but the power output, and it's not always related to displacement size. BHP per ton works better, because a lighter car can accelerate faster with a smaller engine.
But, Nokia haven't produced or shown any phone that they intend to compete at the high end, presumably this is being kept quiet. As previously discussed to exhaustion Symbian OS is intended for Nokia low to mid range smartphones with Meego at the top.
Horses for courses. What processer will be in the Meego phones? Nobody knows but the Aava developer prototype has Intel Moorestown Atom at 1.5GHz. Presumably this is to provide the developers with the right sort of performance parameters for the developers for the type of phones that will appear in Nokia's high range.
So why are people bleating on about Nokia's mid-range smartphone offering with enhanced photo capability?
Tenkom wrote:The iphone 4(800mhz a4) is noticeably slower than than the ipad(1 ghz a4). I know. I have them both. And please check out this review of the iphone 3gs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2790122% speed increase when loading web pages is even more than twice as fast.
.
Irrelevant. As said before, real world use and geeks with stopwatches are miles apart.
You don't need a stopwatch to spot that difference.
