It's very deceptive because there's two completely different style of animations occurring here. The "DOM" one is doing: "Finish the animation in X amount of time, dropping as many frames as you need in order to make it happen." the CSS one is doing: "Do Y number of frames, finish whenever you can." - so the actual, perceived, speed makes no difference, since that's just an option to .animate() - the difference is in the fact that all the elements are moving simultaneously.
--John On 8/20/07, Aaron Heimlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it me, or is the DOM method a little bit faster than the CSS one (FF > 2.0.0.6 Mac OS 10.4.10 Intel)? I would think that they'd both be the same > speed. Having said that, seeing the DOM move all the blocks in unison like > that is f'ing awesome! > > --Aaron > > > On 8/20/07, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've re-done the original demo using jQuery's step function (dunno why > > I didn't think of this before). Much improved: > > http://dev.jquery.com/~john/ticket/animatetest/ > > > > --John > > > > On 7/9/07, Sean Catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 7/9/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > A big question in my mind is: On a slow machine with ONE animation: > Is > > > > doing it this way smoother than not? Does CSS manipulation of a > single > > > > animation make it smoother? What is the gating factor for a slow > computer? > > > > CPU or Ram or Video card? Or all three? How can one test this? > > > > > > On slow machines the problem is redraw speed. With the CSS method all > > > the elements are lined up together, but there is still lag between > > > each redraw. > > > > > > Since this method might be a good deal more bloated than the jquery > > > animate function I also recommend not including it in the core, at > > > least for the time being. > > > > > > ~Sean > > > > > > > > > -- > Aaron Heimlich > Web Developer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://aheimlich.freepgs.com
