The two versions have a number of subtle but remarkable differences that makes it difficult to do a side-by-side comparison. One's faster, one rotates the photographs, one bounces them around a bit upon reaching their destination. For what it's worth, running XP Pro SP 3 / FF 3, I prefer the implementation using jQuery.
On Jan 6, 3:58 pm, Rey Bango <r...@reybango.com> wrote: > They both seem to run equally smooth to me. I saw occasional jumpiness > on both demos. > > Seriously, you've been on this specific topic since early November and > just doing a Google search shows that you've asked a ton of people the > same question. If you feel that jQuery's effects could be smoother, I > urge you to help out the project by investing the time to tackle > whatever concerns you have. Doing that will not only ease your > concerns but helps out everyone in the community. > > Rey... > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Acaz Souza <acazso...@gmail.com> wrote: > > MooTools:http://www.jsfiddle.net/4vnya/ > > jQuery:http://www.jsfiddle.net/eFbwJ/36/ > > (Compare the code, the effects. You decide.) > > > Why mootools is more smooth than jquery?
