Menneisyys
09-14-2006, 12:44 PM
Both AJAX and CSS support are very important with any Web browsers. As they are pretty complicated to support, not even desktop browsers support them entirely, let alone Pocket PC-based ones. Therefore, it’s always worth devoting some (?) time to test the alternate solutions to see which one is the best.
In these tests, I strived to find out in what extent the (most) current Pocket PC and desktop Windows Web browser versions support both AJAX and CSS. The results can be found in the comparison chart below (don’t forget to click the links there to see the screenshots) in a tabulated form – it should be the first thing you check out.
CSS
For this test, I’ve used the well-known Acid2 test (http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top). This is a very complex CSS + PNG + other page marker tests with very-easy-to-evaluate results. It's really thoroughly explained here (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/guide/) (you won't need to understand what this page is all about though). Also see this reference (http://www.tomrafteryit.net/a-browser-standards-compliance-test/) and, in addition, the somewhat older reports here (http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/04/29/safari-passes-the-acid-test/), showing how other (older and no longer current!) browsers render this test page.
I’ve also given a try to the old, pre-Acid2 test (http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS1/current/sec5526c.htm) to find out more about the CSS1 compliance. Note that this test is superseded by the Acid2 test and, therefore, you should pay much more attention to the results presented by Acid2. It was, however, nice to see for example that, while both the WM2003 and the WM2003SE browsers crash at trying to display the old test (as with several other – it can’t be stressed enough that most PIE crashes are caused by CSS constructs like this, as I also have thoroughly elaborated on for example here (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&p=387&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1)), unlike WM5, in which this bug has also been fixed. (Yeah, WM5 has a LOT of advantages like this. Don’t believe people that say the opposite. People that mock and ridicule WM5 don't obviously know how more stable it is.)
As can be seen, on the desktop, you can expect the most of the Opera browser. On the Pocket PC, Mozilla and Opera Mobile have the best CSS compliance.
Note that while the desktop 9.0.1 Opera is able to render the page flawlessly (it’s the ONLY Windows browser to be able to do so – check out the screenshots showing how the other browsers fare), the 8.6 Windows Mobile version still has some problems with it. These problems will surely go when Opera Mobile is updated to the current, 9.x core. (Opera Mobile uses the same core as the desktop Opera browser. This is why it has the same numbering. This also means the next Opera Mobile version can be expected to be based on the 9.x core, which will also means really flawless CSS support.)
While the browsers had no major problems with this test, the other, pre-Acid2 test sometimes caused major problems with them (see the screenshots and comments). Once again, this test isn’t as sophisticated as the Acid2 test and, therefore, the sometimes absolutely negative results (except for for example the WM2003(SE) crashes, which are important because they do show the WM2003(SE) Pocket Internet Explorer is really sensitive and can crash really easily) obtained aren’t as important as with Acid2.
AJAX
I’ve also thoroughly tested the Ajax compliance; this time, unlike with my previous, not that thorough Ajax tests (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&p=869&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1), paying special attention to running all kinds of tests, not only ones requiring a big screen estate.
The tests I’ve made are as follows (feel free to click the links from for example your desktop browser to see what happens):
This (http://www.w3clubs.com/mozdev/httprequest_test_xml.html) and this (http://www.w3clubs.com/mozdev/httprequest_test.html) page linked from AJAX: Getting Started (http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/AJAX:Getting_Started).
Google Image Labeler (http://images.google.com/imagelabeler/)
Simple Ajax Address Book version 1 (http://www.easy-designs.net/books/WDN3/27/Ajax1/) and version 2 (http://www.easy-designs.net/books/WDN3/27/Ajax2/) linked from Getting started with Ajax (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/gettingstartedwithajax)
As can clearly be seen, both (the latest, current, 09/13/2006 nighly build of) Minimo and Opera Mobile have excellent Ajax support. The other browsers fared much worse in this respect: NetFront only offers partial support and Thunderhawk / Internet Explorer Mobile (almost) none.
Note that I’ve used a pre-AKU 3.0 WM5 Internet Explorer Mobile in the tests (please read this article (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&p=1236&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) for more information on what AKU's mean). As soon as I get a REAL AKU 3.x ROM for any of my WM5 devices, I re-test their Ajax compliance. (No, bepe’s/Ktamas’ cooked 3.2 RC1 HTC Wizard ROM (http://forum.xda-developers.com/viewtopic.php?t=62099) does NOT contain any kind of AJAX support – yes, I’ve tested this and am absolutely sure. I’m not sure about the similarly “cooked” HTC Universal 3.2 ROM (http://forum.xda-developers.com/viewtopic.php?t=57483).)
All the current versions of desktop Windows Web browsers passed all the Ajax tests.
The comparison chart can be found here (http://www.winmobiletech.com/092006CSSAjaxCompliance/table.html) (CLICK THE LINK!)
Verdict
If you really want the best Ajax and/or CSS compliance possible, go for Opera on the desktop (it has the best CSS compliance) and either Opera Mobile, or, if you find it fast/stable/powerful enough, the latest nightly build (http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/minimo/nightly/) of Minimo (scroll down to the bottom to see the latest, most up-to-date directory, go into it and get one of the installers). Unfortunately, now, none of the other browsers support CSS, let alone AJAX, as good as these applications.
(Again, I'm speaking about pre-AKU 3.0 IEM's. Hope the Ajax support in AKU 3.0+ IEM's will prove at least as good as that of Opera Mobile / Minimo!)
Recommended links
The Web browser category (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&cat=61) in the Smartphone & Pocket PC Magazine's Expert Blog (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs) - needless to say it’s full of my other, similar articles. Note that I’m pretty sure you will find answers to ALL your Web browser-related questions in there – I’ve published hundreds of Pocket PC Web browsing related articles so far.
You may also want to check out Microsoft’s own Ajax-related tips (http://ajaxian.com/archives/ajax-on-the-pocket-pc) and Does AJAX Threaten Java ME in the Mobile Ecosystem? (http://wireless.sys-con.com/read/256695.htm). Note that there are a LOT of very cool other Ajax-related pages on the Web - use Google.
In these tests, I strived to find out in what extent the (most) current Pocket PC and desktop Windows Web browser versions support both AJAX and CSS. The results can be found in the comparison chart below (don’t forget to click the links there to see the screenshots) in a tabulated form – it should be the first thing you check out.
CSS
For this test, I’ve used the well-known Acid2 test (http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top). This is a very complex CSS + PNG + other page marker tests with very-easy-to-evaluate results. It's really thoroughly explained here (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/guide/) (you won't need to understand what this page is all about though). Also see this reference (http://www.tomrafteryit.net/a-browser-standards-compliance-test/) and, in addition, the somewhat older reports here (http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/04/29/safari-passes-the-acid-test/), showing how other (older and no longer current!) browsers render this test page.
I’ve also given a try to the old, pre-Acid2 test (http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS1/current/sec5526c.htm) to find out more about the CSS1 compliance. Note that this test is superseded by the Acid2 test and, therefore, you should pay much more attention to the results presented by Acid2. It was, however, nice to see for example that, while both the WM2003 and the WM2003SE browsers crash at trying to display the old test (as with several other – it can’t be stressed enough that most PIE crashes are caused by CSS constructs like this, as I also have thoroughly elaborated on for example here (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&p=387&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1)), unlike WM5, in which this bug has also been fixed. (Yeah, WM5 has a LOT of advantages like this. Don’t believe people that say the opposite. People that mock and ridicule WM5 don't obviously know how more stable it is.)
As can be seen, on the desktop, you can expect the most of the Opera browser. On the Pocket PC, Mozilla and Opera Mobile have the best CSS compliance.
Note that while the desktop 9.0.1 Opera is able to render the page flawlessly (it’s the ONLY Windows browser to be able to do so – check out the screenshots showing how the other browsers fare), the 8.6 Windows Mobile version still has some problems with it. These problems will surely go when Opera Mobile is updated to the current, 9.x core. (Opera Mobile uses the same core as the desktop Opera browser. This is why it has the same numbering. This also means the next Opera Mobile version can be expected to be based on the 9.x core, which will also means really flawless CSS support.)
While the browsers had no major problems with this test, the other, pre-Acid2 test sometimes caused major problems with them (see the screenshots and comments). Once again, this test isn’t as sophisticated as the Acid2 test and, therefore, the sometimes absolutely negative results (except for for example the WM2003(SE) crashes, which are important because they do show the WM2003(SE) Pocket Internet Explorer is really sensitive and can crash really easily) obtained aren’t as important as with Acid2.
AJAX
I’ve also thoroughly tested the Ajax compliance; this time, unlike with my previous, not that thorough Ajax tests (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&p=869&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1), paying special attention to running all kinds of tests, not only ones requiring a big screen estate.
The tests I’ve made are as follows (feel free to click the links from for example your desktop browser to see what happens):
This (http://www.w3clubs.com/mozdev/httprequest_test_xml.html) and this (http://www.w3clubs.com/mozdev/httprequest_test.html) page linked from AJAX: Getting Started (http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/AJAX:Getting_Started).
Google Image Labeler (http://images.google.com/imagelabeler/)
Simple Ajax Address Book version 1 (http://www.easy-designs.net/books/WDN3/27/Ajax1/) and version 2 (http://www.easy-designs.net/books/WDN3/27/Ajax2/) linked from Getting started with Ajax (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/gettingstartedwithajax)
As can clearly be seen, both (the latest, current, 09/13/2006 nighly build of) Minimo and Opera Mobile have excellent Ajax support. The other browsers fared much worse in this respect: NetFront only offers partial support and Thunderhawk / Internet Explorer Mobile (almost) none.
Note that I’ve used a pre-AKU 3.0 WM5 Internet Explorer Mobile in the tests (please read this article (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&p=1236&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) for more information on what AKU's mean). As soon as I get a REAL AKU 3.x ROM for any of my WM5 devices, I re-test their Ajax compliance. (No, bepe’s/Ktamas’ cooked 3.2 RC1 HTC Wizard ROM (http://forum.xda-developers.com/viewtopic.php?t=62099) does NOT contain any kind of AJAX support – yes, I’ve tested this and am absolutely sure. I’m not sure about the similarly “cooked” HTC Universal 3.2 ROM (http://forum.xda-developers.com/viewtopic.php?t=57483).)
All the current versions of desktop Windows Web browsers passed all the Ajax tests.
The comparison chart can be found here (http://www.winmobiletech.com/092006CSSAjaxCompliance/table.html) (CLICK THE LINK!)
Verdict
If you really want the best Ajax and/or CSS compliance possible, go for Opera on the desktop (it has the best CSS compliance) and either Opera Mobile, or, if you find it fast/stable/powerful enough, the latest nightly build (http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/minimo/nightly/) of Minimo (scroll down to the bottom to see the latest, most up-to-date directory, go into it and get one of the installers). Unfortunately, now, none of the other browsers support CSS, let alone AJAX, as good as these applications.
(Again, I'm speaking about pre-AKU 3.0 IEM's. Hope the Ajax support in AKU 3.0+ IEM's will prove at least as good as that of Opera Mobile / Minimo!)
Recommended links
The Web browser category (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/index.php?blog=3&cat=61) in the Smartphone & Pocket PC Magazine's Expert Blog (http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs) - needless to say it’s full of my other, similar articles. Note that I’m pretty sure you will find answers to ALL your Web browser-related questions in there – I’ve published hundreds of Pocket PC Web browsing related articles so far.
You may also want to check out Microsoft’s own Ajax-related tips (http://ajaxian.com/archives/ajax-on-the-pocket-pc) and Does AJAX Threaten Java ME in the Mobile Ecosystem? (http://wireless.sys-con.com/read/256695.htm). Note that there are a LOT of very cool other Ajax-related pages on the Web - use Google.