I have questions that look at the relevance of the timeout settings to browser performance from a different angle, and which deal with browser performance both in Peacekeeper and in browsing the web. Why does FF4 use a timeout that is more than twice as long as Chrome? If it gives FF4 a disadvantage in Peacekeeper, then this disadvantage may also show up as slower performance in some aspects of web browsing - these handicaps can't be a good thing for FF4.
Originally Posted by webbles
It seems like there are two possibilities to explain this difference in timeout settings that immediately come to mind:
1. The timeout setting is somewhat arbitrary and FF4 code is capable of being changed to use a shorter timeout; a FF4 reconfigured in this way would then not have this timeout handicap and this would seem like a good and relatively easy improvement to make in FF4.If it is possibility #1, then maybe the fix should be in FF4, not in Peacekeeper. If it is possibility #2, then FF4 has a bigger problem than slower Peacekeeper scores. However, I am definitely not a software expert and will look for better minds to set me straight.
2. FF4 code actually requires this longer timeout because it does some aspect of web browsing less efficiently than Chrome, and as a consequence the FF4 timeout handicap is permanent. In this scenario, the longer timeout setting is an intrinsic requirement of the FF4 code structure, and Peacekeeper and other benchmarks would be quite right to test this limitation.