Why is the web browsing experience so sub-par on Windows Phone 8?

[psudotechzealot]

Wait, WP8 has UC browser? Yes. Is dolphin browser on the way?

 

[FinancialP]

I'm scratching my head. The 521 performance should be the same as the 920 and 925 and any other Windows Phone 8 device. It has the exact same CPU and a lower resolution.

Someone help me out.

 

[anon(5346288)]

I'm scratching my head. The 521 performance should be the same as the 920 and 925 and any other Windows Phone 8 device. It has the exact same CPU and a lower resolution.

Someone help me out.

it has lower resolution AND lower ram. Other phones have 1GB of ram versus 512MB. Not sure how much that would affect performance but I'm sure it would take a hit.... Its another reason why some games that require 1GB ram won't run too well on the 520/521.
On the sidenote, I have always had a good user experience on IE10 and even in WP7.x it is still very quick and smooth. You have to keep in mind that Nokia tried to cut alot of cost on the 520/521 so some areas will suffer unfortunately but its a heck of a deal for a brand new smartphone

 

[vaultsurvivor]

The only thing i wish ie10 would do is cache previous pages (like chrome on android). This is the only thing that slows the browser as is has to re-load every page you visit. Other than that, the browser is definitely faster and more fluid that most other mobile browsers. And its not running on android so it wont randomly crash every now and then...

 

[cw1988]

The only thing i wish ie10 would do is cache previous pages (like chrome on android). This is the only thing that slows the browser as is has to re-load every page you visit. Other than that, the browser is definitely faster and more fluid that most other mobile browsers. And its not running on android so it wont randomly crash every now and then...

had to quote for your last sentence because its so true not to mention again.

Any experience i have had with android has been quite poor. Even their flagships.

 

[a5cent]

I have tried Internet Explorer, UC Browser and Nokia Express. They are all painfully slow, especially when you come from the Safari on an iPhone 5.

Hi saintforlife.

Perceived IE performance is determined primarily by three factors: data transfer rates, the speed of the trident rendering engine (CPU bound) and the speed at which the device responds to panning and zooming gestures by the user (primarily GPU bound).

Because you've provided absolutely no information on how you conducted your tests, it's impossible to give you any useful feedback. An example:

The L521 doesn't have LTE. The iP5, to which you are comparing, does. AFAIK, you might have tested over a LTE capable cellular network. If that is true, then your tests aren't demonstrating anything but the difference between 3G and LTE data transfer speeds. That shows you how much faster LTE is than 3G, but it doesn't tell you anything about the browsers.

In general, the more information you provide about your testing methods, the easier it is for people to confirm your findings or possibly tell you something is wrong. Examples:

• over what network did you test (for what you want to test, you need to be on WiFi)
• what web pages did you test with
• what exactly are you basing your assessment on (page load times? how fast you can scroll around a web page once loaded?)
• what exactly do you mean by "faster"? That means almost nothing considering it could mean 0.1 seconds or 15 seconds.

it has lower resolution AND lower ram. Other phones have 1GB of ram versus 512MB. Not sure how much that would affect performance but I'm sure it would take a hit....

Well, in this case being sure didn't get you any points. :wink: The actual affect of RAM (1 GB vs. 512 MB) on the speed of IE is zero! nada! zilch! nothing! What it might affect is how many tabs you can keep open at once.

I'm scratching my head. The 521 performance should be the same as the 920 and 925 and any other Windows Phone 8 device. It has the exact same CPU and a lower resolution.

Someone help me out.

While the L521 and the L920 do have the same CPU, the L920 is clocked 50% faster than the L521. As the trident layout engine is CPU bound, a 50% higher clock will definitely result in a noticeable performance boost (provided the data connection can transfer web pages faster than either device can render them)

 

[anon(5346288)]

Well, in this case being sure didn't get you any points. :wink: The actual affect of RAM (1 GB vs. 512 MB) on the speed of IE is zero! nada! zilch! nothing! What it might affect is how many tabs you can keep open at once.

That makes sense because now that I think about it the internet browsing on my older Radar running WP7.5 still is plenty fast and only has 512MB of ram.

 

[metalchick719]

No problems browsing the web on my 920. Likewise, I had no issues with my 810 in that area, either. I actually prefer IE on my WPs to Safari on my old iPhone 4.

 

[rob45]

I have been pleased at the browsing speed on my HTC 8x. UC is confusing so I use IE.

 

[YOLOsaurusRex]

I'm scratching my head. The 521 performance should be the same as the 920 and 925 and any other Windows Phone 8 device. It has the exact same CPU and a lower resolution.

Someone help me out.

They don't have the same CPU. The 520/521 has a dual-core 1 GHz CPU and the 920/925/928 has a dual-core 1.5 GHz CPU. As deloa84 said, they also have different amounts of RAM.

 

[a5cent]

They don't have the same CPU. The 520/521 has a dual-core 1 GHz CPU and the 920/925/928 has a dual-core 1.5 GHz CPU. As deloa84 said, they also have different amounts of RAM.

Ehem... actually, they do have the same CPU, transistor for transistor... only the clock rate is different.

 

[YOLOsaurusRex]

Ehem... actually, they do have the same CPU, transistor for transistor... only the clock rate is different.

I didn't even notice there was a second page on here with that clarified. Hah. Whoops. You're right though. My B.

 

[FinancialP]

Ehem... actually, they do have the same CPU, transistor for transistor... only the clock rate is different.

Thanks for clarifying my first question and clearing this up too.

 

[Huime]

That makes sense because now that I think about it the internet browsing on my older Radar running WP7.5 still is plenty fast and only has 512MB of ram.

really depends on which website you are browsing. Saying ram has nothing to do with website rendering just went too far.

 

[a5cent]

really depends on which website you are browsing. Saying ram has nothing to do with website rendering just went too far.

I didn't say it has nothing to do with rendering. What I did say is that it has nothing to do with the speed at which at which a web page is rendered. If you are going to dispute that then you are on very shaky ground.

 

[Huime]

I didn't say it has nothing to do with rendering. What I did say is that it has nothing to do with the speed at which at which a web page is rendered. If you are going to dispute that then you are on very shaky ground.

Eventually it comes back to speed. According to your theory we can have a minimum 64 bit high speed bus ram solder on to the CPU and everything will be fine, which is not the case. And there are tones of java tools on the web to testified your urban myth.
Love is one thing, believe in one and spreading myth another, mutually inclusive emotion.

 

[a5cent]

Eventually it comes back to speed. According to your theory we can have a minimum 64 bit high speed bus ram solder on to the CPU and everything will be fine, which is not the case. And there are tones of java tools on the web to testified your urban myth.
Love is one thing, believe in one and spreading myth another, mutually inclusive emotion.

IE is a native application which manages memory deterministically, whereas a Java application (where the amount of RAM determines how often the garbage collector kicks in) is anything but deterministic in that regard. My point is that almost nothing you could deduce from the runtime behaviour of a Java application can be applied to native software like IE. Also, nobody here was talking about memory latency or bandwidth, so I don't see how your comment about the RAM - CPU interconnect is relevant. We were talking only about memory capacity, specifically the difference between a 512 MB and a 1 GB device. Nothing else.

Maybe you're thinking about the Windows/PC world, where having more RAM allows Windows to forgo the swapping of memory pages out to a swap file? I'd certainly agree with that leading to potentially huge performance differences, but WP doesn't use a swap file.

Anyway, being a native app, IE gets the exact same amount of RAM to work with on both 512 MB and 1 GB devices. It's capped to 150 MB, meaning that as far as IE is concerned, there is no difference. So, even if RAM capacity did have an impact on IE's web page rendering performance (which it doesn't), it would only be a theoretical difference, because in practice IE gets the exact same amount of RAM to work with on both types of devices.

So either way, RAM capacity is irrelevant.

 

[saintforlife]

Your provider is probably the cause of the sloowness because browsing with IE works fine on my 920

How can the provider make a difference if both my iPhone and the Lumia 521 are on the same home wifi network? I don't even have a SIM card in my phone. I am using it solely on wifi.

The 521 is usually 3-4 seconds behind the iPhone when it comes to opening pages in IE. UC Browser isn't that much better.

 

[Huime]

IE is a native application which manages memory deterministically, whereas a Java application (where the amount of RAM determines how often the garbage collector kicks in) is anything but deterministic in that regard. My point is that almost nothing you could deduce from the runtime behaviour of a Java application can be applied to native software like IE. Also, nobody here was talking about memory latency or bandwidth, so I don't see how your comment about the RAM - CPU interconnect is relevant. We were talking only about memory capacity, specifically the difference between a 512 MB and a 1 GB device. Nothing else.

Maybe you're thinking about the Windows/PC world, where having more RAM allows Windows to forgo the swapping of memory pages out to a swap file? I'd certainly agree with that leading to potentially huge performance differences, but WP doesn't use a swap file.

Anyway, being a native app, IE gets the exact same amount of RAM to work with on both 512 MB and 1 GB devices. It's capped to 150 MB, meaning that as far as IE is concerned, there is no difference. So, even if RAM capacity did have an impact on IE's web page rendering performance (which it doesn't), it would only be a theoretical difference, because in practice IE gets the exact same amount of RAM to work with on both types of devices.

So either way, RAM capacity is irrelevant.

Do you even know what does RAM stands for? And that app memory limit doesn't apply to IE.

When I mention JAVA I am suggesting you get an web app to testified that the amount of RAM you have does play an important role when rendering object filled website.

 

[link68759]

For copying image URLs, the app "das image" will let you search for images and open the direct URL in browser, where you can then copy it. Limited, but better than nothing.
Sent from my RM-824_nam_att_101 using Board Express