4 ms·
I think it's odd that the author chooses to leave accleration on, despite having just proven that it's detrimental. That, and the fact that you're proxying all
by laconian 15y ago
I think it's odd that the author chooses to leave accleration on, despite having just proven that it's detrimental. That, and the fact that you're proxying all of your browsing traffic through a third party, seems like it's all cons and no pros. If I was him, I'd keep it off until there was more of a balance between pros and cons (though the potentially privacy issues alone would probably be nigh-impossible to overcome.)
- r00fus 15y agoWhy is this confusing? I've seen numerous iPad vs. Android browser comparisons, but yet to see an in-depth Silk test (other than the many reviewers who said it was slower). Silk (and whether it lives up to it's billing) is the most interesting part.
- laconian 15y agoDid you read the article? In it he benchmarks Silk (accel) vs. Silk (no accel). He's proven to himself that the acceleration system doesn't work, using his own testing methodology, which, given that he produced the results, he should be biased into believing. Nothing is keeping him from turning it on later in the future, when it's objectively proven to be faster. But he keeps it on now, basically because of his optimism in Amazon.