Shocking: Did the W3C Sell Out to Microsoft?

[Guest]

It’s the official HTML5 test that praises IE9's HTML5 features. The W3C has spoken, the IE9 is the best HTML5 browser. But my question is: How credible can I test be, if you discredit it yourself and if you quietly change the results?

Shocking: Did the W3C Sell Out to Microsoft? : Read more

 

[dogman_1234]

Claim to fame?

 

[awood28211]

Shenanigans! To the test and your article! So much hoopla over what? Browsers that aren't production releases... Pointing out the obvious... No test is valid until it's tested with what everyone will get... not just "beta" or "developer" versions.

Isn't there a Apple product you could be covering?

 

[Silmarunya]

Falsified test results are one of the most vile things in the world of science and computing. Kill the W3C!

 

[vant]

Anyone with half a brain would realize testing unreleased products vs released products (when their beta release is available) is unfair.

 

[andrewcutter]

i expect articles like this on SA or fud. not toms.....

 

[IzzyCraft]

Standards lol takes 10 years for something to even reach the level of close to becoming a standard.

It would take someone with alot of time on their hands just to sort though their test suite which could have been somewhat automated imo, i just think there are a bunch of lazy people at W3C

 

[dogman_1234]

I read the review with a Mozilla browser.

 

[de_com]

Guys, your missing the point. The W3C is one of the most respected benchmarks there is. If they can't be seen to be objective and above reproach then what's the point. True, they made a dogs dinner of this one and even changed results when queried on their validity without giving any explanations at all, bad form.
We need more whistle blowing of this type to keep the testers and such on their toes, they need to know they can't and wont get away with passing off biased results, even if they're useless (Beta and Developer Versions) after all.

 

[ikefu]

Inconsistent data sources used to state a finding as fact then shortly followed by a small print retraction posted after the fact...

Yep, this test is about as unbiased as Fox News and CNN are completely fair and balanced.

 

[rallende]

It's about time a Tom's Hardware reporter actually did thier own investigative journaling rather than site another site's data. You sir, have my support. But can you really test stable browers against beta browsers and still have accurate numbers? Shouldn't the test have benn done amongst all beta or alpha browsers?

 

[Ramar]

[citation][nom]wackyphill[/nom]Wow, you spend this much time trying to discredit a favorable IE standards conformance report you don;t like from the W3C?Find something better to waste time on.[/citation]

Read the article. Derp.

Thanks, wolf. I don't know if this could be called "whistle-blowing" but everyone with half a mind for technology or science should appreciate the downfall of anyone falsifying data.

 

[exodite]

Very nice article, thank you.

This is the kind of eagle-eye insight the entire online community can benefit from, hopefully preempting some of the FUD going around.

 

[Albyint]

[citation][nom]wackyphill[/nom]Wow, you spend this much time trying to discredit a favorable IE standards conformance report you don;t like from the W3C?Find something better to waste time on.[/citation]

Like writing a news article on some software tests that could have been falsified from a supposed independent third party? Possibly an organization supposed to give you accurate numbers so an uninformed person can make a wiser choice?


Oh wait..................

 

[fromage2323]

man dont compare toms to sa..... seriously

 

[kelemvor4]

It wouldn't be surprising if Microsoft was still up to foul play. They've got a long history of doing literally whatever it takes to make money. Having said that, it's far more disappointing to see an author (Wolfgang Gruener) publicly bash THG's own customers (us) for pointing out foul play in your own reviews when necessary.

I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[awaken688]

Great find. Great article. Original piece. I have to say this is nice to read versus a list of articles that I read last week when they first were printed/announced on other sites.

 

[gmarsack]

Sometimes I ask myself why I continue to do web development. Why do we have some many companies trying to invent the same wheel... for the love of God, just follow the standard and make the rendering engines open source. Enough with flaky support for something that is suppose to be a standard. Arg!!!

 

[jhansonxi]

Manipulation of benchmarks and reviewers is as old as benchmarks and reviewers.

 

[wolfganggruener]

kelemvor4, you may want to ready the article again. I actually compliment you guys as keeping us writers on our toes. I call this a case of not reading the article.

 

[Guest]

Well written article on a quality topic. Like to see more of this on Tom's. GJ.

 

[micr0be]

very nice work wolfgang, your articles tend to be well detailed as well as interesting... keep it up!

 

[rhino13]

First Ubisoft sells to nVidia, now W3C sells to Microsoft, acn we expect to see Steam sell to Apple next week?

 

[soundping]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]Falsified test results are one of the most vile things in the world of science and computing. Kill the W3C![/citation]
Agreed.

 

[hellwig]

I swear when I looked at those results yesterday evening they had Opera 11 alpha results. Maybe I was looking at the wrong section?

Anyway, many testing suites suffer this same fate. Didn't someone modify the CPU_ID on a VIA processor and get better results in PCMARK just by claiming to be an Intel processor instead of a VIA? Its the same reason no one uses Whetstone or Dhrystone anymore because people are just optimizing their products for the tests? In fact, isn't that a problem with Sunspider?