<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Microsoft “cheats” at benchmark test</title>
		<description>Discuss Microsoft “cheats” at benchmark test</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 12:44:34 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20918/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>JAB Creations says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9782</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you are in a 50 mile bike race that's a circle and ride a thousand feet through the woods finishing the course in say 10 minutes versus other people's several hours then that's cheating. What M$ did was essentially detect if a test was occurring and avoided doing the heavy work. Ars linkage: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-benchmarks-is-ie9-cheating-at-sunspider.ars]]></description>
			<dc:creator>JAB Creations</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:42:39 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9782</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Fud_u says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9716</link>
			<description><![CDATA[But the problem remain... How is MS convincing people to update their aging IE6. IE sicken me as a web developer. It so fragmented.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Fud_u</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:19:45 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9716</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>hoohoo says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9715</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Word police: 'sail' not 'sale'. (Unless that was bit of Nick Farell subtlety!)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>hoohoo</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:16:53 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9715</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>ghelyar says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9651</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you actually look at the changes, all that was added was a superfluous "true;" line, which shouldn't have affected the test at all and if the interpreter was optimising as suggested, should have even been removed entirely. Dead code optimization would not have been affected by this at all and would have still skipped over it. *if* this was the only change *and* it made a significant difference then there can be no doubt that it was cheating on the test. No software engineer worth their salt would argue that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>ghelyar</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:15:15 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9651</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>ghelyar says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9649</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So add an "alert(result)" or something similar, eliminating the dead code. There should really not be dead code in a benchmark anyway. This is actually *very* common for modern compilers and IDEs will even give warnings on the fly for this, just as short circuit evaluation is common, for example. I doubt there is much dead code in javascript on the web though. That is assuming that it is actually just optimising the dead code, and isn't cheating on one specific test, which is equally plausible.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>ghelyar</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:05:50 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9649</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reavenk says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9644</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Cheats? Really? It doesn't sound like Microsoft’s fault for having valid optimizations. Sounds like it's SunSpider's fault for not making a more thorough benchmark. No one accuses ATI or NVidia of cheating when their GLSL or HLSL compilers cut out dead code, or GCC or VC++ for doing the same (in release compiles).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Reavenk</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:24:45 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9644</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>yourma2000 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9636</link>
			<description><![CDATA[still did shit in the FutureMark PeaceKeeper benchmark compared to the likes of Chrome]]></description>
			<dc:creator>yourma2000</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:48:03 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9636</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>lucserp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9596</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So what's the news?! No surprise here! :lol:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>lucserp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:31:41 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20918-microsoft-“cheats”-at-benchmark-test#comment-9596</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
