Psychedlic browsing?

I was recently farting around the interweb when I came across a blurb about IE9 and "psychedelic browsing". As a long-time fan and 6 year tour veteran of the Grateful Dead (yeah, I used to have dreadlocks down to the middle of my back and I reeked of patchouli and smoked tons of weed), anything labeled as "psychedelic" is automatically interesting. I couldn't find out much about this "psychedelic browsing" other than IE9 will have it (or already does) and it's some type of benchmark. I truly believe that the world would be a much better place if EVERYTHING was much more psychedelic than it is now, and a trippy browser seems like a good start. So, can anyone shed some light on this whole "psychedelic browsing" thing? How do I experience "psychedelic browsing"? From the little I found, it seems that both/either IE9 and/or FF4 are capable of "psychedelic browsing", and that's about all I know. Any info will be appreciated! Thanks!

Happy Holidays!

(EDIT - I've done a bit Googling, and there seems to be a "Psychedelic Test Drive" available from Microsoft: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/PsychedelicBrowsing/Default.html but I have yet to try it)

 

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/performance/psychedelicbrowsing/

 

Wow, man.
Opera (undefined) 45rpm.

 

Google Chrome 4.1
66rpm.

 

Wow. TWO rpm ?? FF 3.6.12 . Why am I so slow compared to you guys ?

 

Pale Moon 3.6.12 THREE rpm . ??????? Why is there such a huge difference between mine and you guys ?

 

PaleMoon: 7 RPM
FF4 Beta 7: 14 RPM
Chrome: 17 RPM

It didn't work on IE 8. Has to do with HTLM 5. The alternative offered didn't work either. Strange since that test is from Microsoft?

*scratching my head* how did you do that with having such high RPM's. Cool! Must be the lack of addons?

EDIT: Strange, I tried the test with PaleMoon in safemode (without addons) Result: 9
Yet the browser went faster without the addons, I swear.

 

Hmm, the testing software is from Microsoft folks, does that give you an idea why? Palemoon here @ 9RPM

 

Ummm Houston we have a problem.

Firefox 3.6.13: 12 RPM Also tried it three times with different results each time.
IE9: 1810 RPM


Also, Hallucinogenic mode is lame.

 

It is lame, yet I still wonder why the drastic speed differences between different users . . . :confused

 

to FED UP

Maybe it also has to do with the hardware?
Graphics? CPU? RAM?

 

You're probably right, running programs affect it too. After stopping all folding, PM rose to 21 from 9 on an i7@3.8GHz, 6GB and a GTX 470 on a 7.5 MB/s line.

/OT: I hated papukey oil!/end

 

I have no shortage of horsepower under the hood. Phenom II X4, radeon 4870 (1gig) .
8 gigs RAM . Windows 7 64bit .

 

You might have, but not everybody has that type of setup.
Your post #10 was asking about the speed differences between different users.
The rig that I'm using is an HP Pavilion with a Pentium dual E2200 CPU (2.2GHz), 4GB RAM and running onboard graphics.

to Augie.
My Opera went from 45 up to 57 after pausing my folding.

 

My thoughts? It's plainly rigged to spit out a low number if a browser other than IE9 is detected. I ran it three times in a row, no reboots, nothing extra running. Just firefox, pop peeper (email) and avira. It gave me 3 different results in a row 5, 12 then 7 RPM. Ran it IE9, 1810 RPM. My box is a Q9550 @3.8, 4 gig of ram and a ATI HD4850 1 gig. I doubt a computer built in the last few years could get 'stressed' by a spinning pinwheel in a browser for the results to be the varied.

 

Sounds reasonable, Buck. I tried with IE 64 bit, but don't have 9 in 64 bit, it was prompting me to upgrade to it, but since I never use IE I can't be bothered. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it's a manipulation put out to make IE shine brighter than better browsers, I get FAR more complex graphic renders in much less time on other websites. I'm done concerning myself with it. Interesting find though, OP.

 

IE7 wouldn't even run it on my machine.

 

Yes on both accounts for this reason. I think that page is just to get you to install IE9 beta, because it's only for that page that I did. Basically phishing to get you into IE9. It worked, still not gonna use it...

 

I'm voting that it's gay.

I'm running FF 3.6.13 (latest) and got a 0. ZERO!

It's completely rigged. I know my computer is ancient, but web surfing's never been an issue for me.

 

I got a 9 on PaleMoon (might not be the newest release, but it's no more than 1 or 2 back), and a 27 with Opera (using the newest here at MG). Every screen shot or result I've seen of this "benchmark" shows EXACTLY a score of 1810 for IE9, and everything else is 75 or less (and only a rare few of those are over 30). Obviously, this "test" is rigged. I have a quad core AMD 955BE (recently OCd to 3.6ghz), 6gb RAM, a pair of 896mb Nvidia GTX260's in SLI, and a 20meg broadband connection, and ALL my web activity regardless of browser is fast (actually, all my PC activity is pretty freekin' fast). I can't remember the last time any web page took more than 1.5 seconds to completely load. About 5 minutes ago I downloaded the Opera installer right here at MG and the download also took about 1.5sec. When things are really going well, I can download a 50-60mb file almost instantly (it's rare, but it happens; usually a file of 50-60mb takes about 3sec). So, I have a fast PC, I have a fast connection, and every psychedelic result I've seen for IE9 is exactly 1810. So, the "test" is skewed. But none of this answers my questions in the first post:

Psychedlic browsing has GOT to be better than a spinning rainbow pinwheel (and it's a weak spinning pinwheel at that).

If you want a T R U L Y psychedelic rainbow pinwheel, take a look at this:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5954/psychodelyk.gif

 

That's just weak that Microsoft would stoop low enough to try to pull one over on people. I'm sure plenty fall for it hook line & sinker. If you have to trick people into using your browser, that certainly says something about both your browser, and your integrity, does it not ?

 

DLB, to answer your question, I have no clue.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some not-as-cool-as-it-sounds, underused thing like Silverlight (also by MS, big surprise).