Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

371 comments

Google Chrome (5, Interesting)

freakmn (712872) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883129)

Guess I must be the only one here using Chrome. No other comments yet.

But seriously, the speed difference is noticeable. When I'm on my mac, I miss using it. Plugins are hard to come by, but other than that, it's great. Quick as Firefox used to be.

Re:Google Chrome (3, Insightful)

Voice of Meson (892271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883143)

What about the time it takes to switch to Firefox because Chrome doesn't work properly with Facebook?

Re:Google Chrome (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883305)

What is this Facebook you speak of?

Re:Google Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883465)

It's worked properly for me with Facebook since the first release...

Re:Google Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883583)

What about the time it takes to switch to Firefox because Chrome doesn't work properly with Facebook?

Most of that time would be due to Firefox's glacial cold-start. Chrome's two-second cold-start is one of the biggest reasons I keep toying with it, and why I intend to set it as default (to catch external browser-launches) once they fix Issue 1520 [google.com] .

Re:Google Chrome (1)

ConanG (699649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883607)

No problems with Facebook + Chrome for me. Works just like it does with Firefox. Maybe it's something specific with your setup or something I never use in Facebook?

Re:Google Chrome (2, Informative)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883331)

Use Safari -- it uses WebKit which is the "secret sauce" of Chrome. Seriously, if you want something really fast, use the latest WebKit nightlies, which hook into the Safari shell. They are actually quite a bit faster than Chrome at the moment, which obviously uses an older WebKit build than the WebKit tip-of-tree.

Re:Google Chrome (5, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883627)

The speed advantage of the nightly web kits is caused not by the fact that they're newer than chrome's rendering engine, but by the fact that they don't use Google's V8 javascript engine. Instead, they use the much faster (and also more correct) SquirrelFish Extreme engine.

Re:Google Chrome (5, Funny)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883359)

"Guess I must be the only one here using Chrome."

Thats because its not released for Linux yet!

Re:Google Chrome (1)

PincusJr (1310977) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883409)

I laughed out loud. :)

Re:Google Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883533)

you're doing it wrong: repeat with me, LOL!!!111!!eleventyone!!

Re:Google Chrome (5, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883471)

"Guess I must be the only one here using Chrome."

Thats because its not released for Linux yet!

Busted!

Re:Google Chrome (4, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883385)

Is the rendering engine speed really your bottle neck when browsing? Because I would love to have that problem.

Re:Google Chrome (1)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883449)

haha! yes, I know what you mean. However, even if your connection is slow, it still takes time for the browser to render it when its down. In response to appleprophet, one of the main advantages of chrome is its lightning fast javascript engine, which you don't get with pure safari whatever.

Re:Google Chrome (1)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883461)

"pure safari" ? wtf, why did I write that. I just mean safari.

Re:Google Chrome (4, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883647)

Actually, while not strictly "pure safari", the nightly builds of WebKit (safari's engine, including javascript engine), have a new, much faster Javascript engine called SquirrelFish Extreme, it not only beats V8 in speed (even on the heavily biased V8 benchmark), but also correctly renders Acid3, along with getting many less-corner-case parts of javascript correct.

Not a suprise to anyone who has tried Chrome (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883139)

But speed isn't everything. The moment Chrome lets me use the 17 extensions I have to firefox and is still the fastest, I applaud. Currently I couldn't even consider having to lose all the extensions that help web development and surfing...

This thing should be clear to everyone by now.

Use Chrome if you want speed, Firefox if you want extensions, IE if you just want to annoy the hell out of all us Firefox fanboys, Opera if you want a ready package of speed and features, etc...

Re:Not a suprise to anyone who has tried Chrome (5, Funny)

isBandGeek() (1369017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883207)

And Safari's for people that don't want extensions or features. Right?

Re:Not a suprise to anyone who has tried Chrome (3, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883655)

Most people I've ever asked "exactly what Firefox extensions do you use", give me a list of features that are either in safari or easily available through plugins. Some examples:

FireBug -- already included in the web inspector, Safari 3's is FireBug's equal, while Safari 4 DP's is massively improved.
AdBlock -- SafariAdBlock, nuf said.
Full Screen Mode -- Glims
Search in address bar -- Glims

etc.

Re:Not a suprise to anyone who has tried Chrome (1)

gl12 (1164635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883741)

can you find me an equivalent for noscript?

Re:Not a suprise to anyone who has tried Chrome (4, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883311)

I've grown so attached to some extensions I'll very soon stop even consider anything not having them.

How long till they start making browsers with a "firefox plugin compatible" feature?

Re:Not a suprise to anyone who has tried Chrome (1)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883499)

that would be a very bad idea. Not only would it be one hell of a challenge, as chrome is a very different application than FF, if they did manage it they would most definitely ruin chrome's biggest advantage: speed and lightweightness.

Spyware (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883155)

Which ones were in the category of spyware? Because I can only think of one myself.

Too bad it's only for Windows. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883167)

Google's stock price deserves the 70% haircut it got this year, because Eric Schmidt is fat and dumb.

Google is the next Novell.

Dosen't change the fact that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883171)

Chrome users are morbidly obese virgin nerds who live in the basement.

If you think this is -1, you should look it up on Wikipedia. Raul654 will give the [citation needed].

Re:Dosen't change the fact that (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883233)

Nonsense. I'm using Firefox.

Re:Dosen't change the fact that (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883527)

As a rather skinny virgin nerd user of Chrome who has my own place, I take offence to that.

Safari? Safari what? (4, Interesting)

tyrione (134248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883203)

You're using a non-release Chrome and yet I'm not seeing a nightly build of Safari referenced.

The Developer Preview of Safari 4.0 trounces Safari 3.1.x.

The Safari nighly builds trounce all over Safari 4.0 developer preview.

Re:Safari? Safari what? (4, Insightful)

rawg (23000) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883239)

Yeah, I use the Webkit nightly builds. Webkit runs circles around everything else, plus it renders the Acid 3 test 100%. Yet reviewers will review beta/alpha browsers and leave Webkit out.

Re:Safari? Safari what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883823)

I haven't seen any benchmark that actually compares CSS rendering speed, or even general rendering speed of simple/average/complex web pages. All the browser comparisons published lately focus on javascript as if JS was the only thing browsers did all day long. Personally I'm quite diappointed even by Firefox 3.1's rendering performace as compared to Safari or konqueror. It just feels very sluggish due to the slow rendering times.

Re:Safari? Safari what? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883259)

And what about Firefox 3.1 pre-beta 2, if including this browser.

Re:Safari? Safari what? (2, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883265)

Btw, IE 8 beta 2 also seem to have way improved performance over IE 7, although that one will still not reach "interesting" levels in a test like this.

Re:Safari? Safari what? (1)

Voice of Meson (892271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883269)

Chrome will be 'Beta' for years, just like everything with Google. Gmail is still in beta for God's sake.

Unfortunately (3, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883205)

Unfortunately, speed is not everything. Chrome lacks a lot of functionality (and addons). Raw speed is nothing in this case. We aren't talking about 30 seconds difference here.

Interesting, but nothing really new (5, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883209)

Summary: IE is crap, Safari has some issues, Opera most compatible with Acid 3, Firefox is OK and Chrome is fast but not finished.

So, a stripped-down browser is fast. Wow.

In the real world, I'll be sticking with Firefox, with Ad blockers, Greasemnkey etc.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (-1, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883227)

In the real world, I'll be sticking with Firefox, with Ad blockers

You are a leech on the rest of society. I hope you get the bad karma you so richly deserve.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

Johnny O (22313) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883283)

Amen Bearhouse - I'll be the leech too

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (5, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883295)

You are a leech on the rest of society

Because I use ad-blockers? How about people who use TIVO? I have no problem paying for stuff, and contribute to free projects, donate to Wikipedia etc. Just because I sometimes want a less-intrusive browsing experience does not make me a leech. And who gives a shit about karma anyway?

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883329)

How about people who use TIVO?

They gain the ability to skip ads at the price of having to watch the television show at a later date.

Just because I sometimes want a less-intrusive browsing experience does not make me a leech.

Actually it does. Just like in torrenting, if you seed one torrent forever but refuse to seed any other torrents you use, your leeching.

I have no problem paying for stuff, and contribute to free projects, donate to Wikipedia etc.

Then why not contact extremetech and ask them how much your blocking the ads cost them and send them that amount? If you're willing to pay for an ad-less internet, why not actually pay for it?

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883455)

I don't care about extremetech. It is about free choice and free market. If the users do not want ads, the people offering them have a tough luck. And I pay for my internet. 30Euros/month. And i use ADblock every day: i get up from my couch when Ads are coming on tv. :)

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (-1, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883491)

Clearly you don't care about being a burden on society either. Luckily for you there are people like me who will share the burden you place on society.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (4, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883615)

Luckily for you there are people like me who will share the burden you place on society.

What do you do? Look at extra ads? What a retard.

I use adblock+, everyone who's computer I service uses FF + adblock+. I am going to make sure tomorrow I convert at least 5 new people. Just to piss you off.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (3, Insightful)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883631)

Do you really believe that looking at adds create value for the society????

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883667)

Oh STFU.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883671)

Unfortunately for you, people who aren't such tightasses have the mod points today.

Also, I get the impression that your sig is denigrating gay marriage, or attempting to. I think that your paraphrased sentence is perfectly accurate: there is indeed no difference. Probably the divorce rates are similar, too.

Why don't you take your misplaced morality and shove it up your ass? I think that would be most helpful to the community.

Yours
Tenebrousedge (1226584)

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883795)

Oh.
Will you watch my share of adverts for me, as well? That'd be super, thanks! *wanders off to do useful things*

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883489)

They don't give me the option and I don't feel obliged to go out of my way to present it to them?

It's not like the television broadcasters agreed to the exchange of time for ads. You're "paying" for adblock with blacklist updates and an install of one more piece of third-party software that could go wrong or even be an attack vector.

Also, saying "a later date" is misleading. You can start watching a half-hour program over 8 minutes later (allowing for credits and an invariant title sequence) and finish in sync with everybody else while still skimming past the commercials if it's what you want.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (-1, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883563)

Alright, you've convinced me. I'll now start blocking ads, and who cares if the websites I once loved don't exist as more and more of its visitors do it.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883743)

I'm posting anonymously because even though I emphatically, categorically disagree with you, your point is an interesting one and I used my mod points accordingly. I use Adblocker, and yet I sometimes worry about losing those websites I genuinely care about; the New Yorker online, for example. On the other hand, I don't ever click through ads I see on the web, let alone purchase the products, so it's not like anyone's revenue is affected.

On a side note, I wonder, if there were a way to determine how much revenue is actually a direct result of internet advertising, would it be greater than the total cost of that advertising? I have trouble believing that the increase in sales due to Google ads comes close to rivaling Google's advertising revenue, and this has always troubled me. You might just be looking for parasites in all the wrong places.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883625)

Who says you have to go out of your way to view the sites with ads?

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883561)

Then why not contact extremetech and ask them how much your blocking the ads cost them and send them that amount? If you're willing to pay for an ad-less internet, why not actually pay for it?

If companies don't want people to block their ads, then they shouldn't use intrusive and annoying ads. I always block animated or "flashing" ads. There's one site in particular where damn near every ad is an animated GIF that flickers red and green or some other obnoxious combination. I suspect the site owners don't know any better, but they haven't responded to my email about it so <plunk> they get adblocked.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883673)

Just because I sometimes want a less-intrusive browsing experience does not make me a leech.

Actually it does. Just like in torrenting, if you seed one torrent forever but refuse to seed any other torrents you use, your leeching.

In torrenting, if your ratio goes above 1.0, that is because you support leechers.

In websurfing, not downloading ads you do not intend to view helps reduce the congestion of the tubes.
Besides, if ads weren't all-pervasive, people wouldn't want to block them.
I do not, in general, block Google ads. Though I could do it in a heartbeat, I have not removed them from Gmail. They do not bother me, they are not intrusive, and sometimes they are worth a laugh. OTOH, the ads in Yahoo! Mail, which I saw when I opened it in Safari the other day, are way too intrusive and made me reach for the Adblock which wasn't there.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883785)

What are you thoughts on the future viability of a micropayment system? Particularly one that connects the user of a beloved site with its operator.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883559)

'And who gives a shit about karma anyway?' A very good question! I must say that I did but was finally forced to give it up. For Lent it was, in the year 1989 I think.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (3, Insightful)

huit (1285438) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883349)

A leech because we want to explore the internet without unsolicited ads? A user may be interested in exploring a sites content only to be exposed to unsolicited (and importantly here, unannounced) advertising. Seems to me like adblocker is a great service

Just because you make money from ads doesn't mean it's the only way for "society" to grow fruitfully, in fact I'd argue that it is unnecessary (though heavily relied upon because it is an option). That advertising provides disproportionate support to aspects of society that I don't want to support, and would otherwise perish or wither due to lack of social recognition and discussion

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (0, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883463)

If you don't want to visit websites that don't have ads, then don't do it. Start support for a Firefox plugin that doesn't load domains that are ad-supported.

Using ad-blocker is simply stealing. And yes I do call it stealing because you are incurring a cost on the content provider without compensating them. Its no different from stealing at a store with poor security.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883531)

In order to receive an ad, I have to actually request the ad (part of how HTTP works). Sure, my browser's default behavior is to request all images/flash/etc, but I can easily instruct it not to.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883683)

In order to receive an ad, I have to actually request the ad (part of how HTTP works). Sure, my browser's default behavior is to request all images/flash/etc, but I can easily instruct it not to.

Out of the mouths of ACs... this is the most insightful and informative thing I've read in any discussion pertaining to ad-blocking.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (5, Insightful)

Atti K. (1169503) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883545)

Using ad-blocker is simply stealing. And yes I do call it stealing because you are incurring a cost on the content provider without compensating them. Its no different from stealing at a store with poor security.

So, is using links/lynx/w3m stealing too? Is turning off images in Firefox and not installing flash stealing too?

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (0, Redundant)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883825)

Is disabling JavaScript and Flash stealing?

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

xristoph (1169159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883573)

In the real world, I'll be sticking with Firefox, with Ad blockers

You are a leech on the rest of society.

Obviously you have never experienced a truly disturbing browsing experience because of either a great number of flash(y) ads, or few flash ads taking up a large portion of the screen. (See http://www.spiegel.de/ [spiegel.de] - it's in German, though, and I'm not entirely sure if they still have the same problem.) I wouldn't mind static picture ads, but to have dozens of ads flashing each to its own rhythm...

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (0, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883831)

If I don't want to view a website's ads, I don't view the website. It is truly that simple. So I'll only be "disturbed" for a few seconds.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

karstux (681641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883273)

Adblocking can be done through the HOSTS file, and there's a Chrome build with support for Greasemonkey scripts - look up Greasemetal.

I've been using Chrome as my main browser for a while now. It's perfectly usable, the UI is a minimalist's dream and it's really, really fast.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (2, Informative)

MichaelTheDrummer (1130657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883393)

But changing the hosts file to block ads on a per domain basis is fairly basic. One of the more useful features of plugins like AdBlockPlus is you can block any particular image/flash animation on a site, whether it is an ad or not. This is great for things like flash banners that sit in front of drop down menus because of rendering bugs on Linux.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883481)

The hosts file is inappropriate for adblocking. Some sites serve ads with urls belonging to their own server and you want to block only the ads, not all the site.

FF have also other extensions like Remove It Permanently or Nuke Anything Advanced that let you remove portions of a site. They're part of a good adblocking strategy. Noscript is valuable too.

That's why I keep using FF as my main browser and I use Chrome only for testing.

Re:Interesting, but nothing really new (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883841)

I'd never heard of Greasemetal. Looks like he's making it compatible with GM scripts, too! Thanks!

Meh (1)

SchizoStatic (1413201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883221)

I don't know, I just didn't like chrome. Whether it be I am just used to Firefox now or what. When I tried Chrome out it just didn't make enough of a difference for me. So what if the page renders in a half second to a second faster. That's not like it is saving me any real time. I like Google but I saw this step as a waste of time for them. Since they kinda sponsor Firefox. But to each their own.

That's not the browser speed (4, Funny)

DreamerFi (78710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883223)

That's just the rendering engine they're testing. My browser is called "AdBlock".

If you want speed... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883261)

If you want speed, use links, elinks, lynx, links2, links-hacked, linkx, etc...

You even get graphics in the last 4. I think lynx finds the window-id of the xterm and then draws in to it. Which is unholy and scary the first time you see it.

If you want features, then, well, you might want to look elsewhere. But they're fast. Personally, I use a graphical links variant for everything I can and switch to what ever Mozilla variant of the day in installed for websites requiring javascript.

Re:If you want speed... (1)

yours truly zerocool (1409875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883363)

Lynx is not graphical at all. Its first release was in 1992, and remains the gold standard for text based rendering or website accessibility. I don't even know why all those linksian browsers exist, other than as a hobby for their creators. Is there some way they can compete with Lynx that I am overlooking?

Re:If you want speed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883567)

They support frames

Re:If you want speed... (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883637)

Try links2 -g for a graphical lynx. As for the performance, it's no doubt fast to load, but may be much slower to navigate.

Terrible journalism (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883281)

Just a quick glance:

"We tested the version of Firefox (called Minefield) that does include the V8 code"

"IE7 did not even run the test correctly and produced no final score" (along with a image of a successful run of the test, with the score "17" clearly visible)

Well, that speaks for itself. Also, terrible choice of benchmarks overall and bad methodology as usual.

Unfortunately they already won: I didn't block the ads.

Re:Terrible journalism (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883681)

Terrible Anonymous Cowarding. Just a quick glance:

"along with a image of a successful run of the test, with the score '17' clearly visible"

The image doesn't show what browser it is from, and the numbers in the image are 100, 12, 100/100, 13. Not a 17 in the lot.

Well, that speaks for itself. Also terribly choice of username and bad methodology as usual.

Unfortunately he already won: I wasted 30 seconds with this reply.

Re:Terrible journalism (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883735)

Also, why are they bothering with Acid 3? CSS3 is not yet finalised and is in working draft. Webkit (same as Chrome) uses quirks mode to do some of the tests, which is not standard compliant. Gecko used in Firefox came at the wrong time for Acid 3, their release cycle ended just as Acid 3 came out.

There is also a horrid bug with benchmarking Webkit's JS engine and V8, the timers report times as zero seconds if they are small numbers such as 20ms. This really screws up the figures.

Wrong use case (5, Interesting)

bazald (886779) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883333)

...at least for me. I don't care about optimizations that allow a page to be loaded and rendered 0.1 seconds faster. The lower bound on how fast a page loads is rarely imposed by the browser anyway.

I often like to use the "Open All in Tabs" feature of Firefox, in which an arbitrarily high number of bookmarks in a folder are opened and loaded simultaneously. I can open and load 15 sites (with adblocking) in under 3 seconds. Chrome seemed to take a second to open just one tab, let alone 15.

I'm not saying I'm the normal user, but test more than the scripting engine and the rendering system before saying a browser "tops speed tests".

Re:Wrong use case (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883701)

I can open and load 15 sites (with adblocking) in under 3 seconds

Not my firefox. It takes more like 10 seconds to load 9 tabs.

Minefield ! (1)

Jaggo (1045148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883347)

They chose to exclude Minefield from this test.

I think Minefield might be faster than Chrome.
[at-least, from my personal experience.]

Speed? (2, Interesting)

benssol (906203) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883365)

and what about the plugins and add-ons we used to in firefox ... I think a long way still ahead

They didn't bother with Webkit? (1)

Bakafish (114674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883367)

I'll leave it to others to attack the flawed methodology (although I can't resist pointing out that using a Javascript/DOM compatibility inspector as a test is seriously dumb. The thing is designed to short circuit on a matched API call, the order is going to have inherent bias by design!) My question is if you are willing to include Beta's why not include Webkit (and even IE8 just to be fair.) You could have painted a much more balanced picture...

But at east he did all the tests on the same day, we all know that network latency doesn't vary in less than 24 hour periods of time.

Not to air my own bias, but... (1)

transiit (33489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883387)

The graphs on page 2 ("Browser Extensions") don't make much sense. Look at the values shown vs. the tickmarks at the bottom.

Additionally, you might note the omission of how the timing was done in the first section, Testing Methodology. That the author claimed to use their home broadband connection for the tests doesn't suggest a controlled environment...at best, sort of a "If you happen to be on one of these machines at my house at the same time of day that I was, you might see similar results."

I'm sure everyone has a preferred browser by now, I know I've got mine. But these benchmarks strike me as bogus, regardless of the results.

Re:Not to air my own bias, but... (1)

Jeoh (1393645) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883487)

I'm surprised they didn't just put the tests on the machine.

I'll give up a few milliseconds. (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883391)

I'll give up a few milliseconds for Firefox's features...

Re:I'll give up a few milliseconds. (4, Informative)

Woldry (928749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883807)

Amen! Whatever time Firefox may lose in rendering is more than made up by features such as having a menu accessible via the keyboard, "Undo close tab", searching for text when I start typing, and extensions like Add to Search Bar, DownThemAll, Add Bookmark Here, and Uppity. Not to mention "runs in Linux"...

Safari? (1, Insightful)

herve_masson (104332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883423)

I'm surprized safari scored this bad. Anyway, Browsers are likely the most complex software to properly benchmark. Writing a tangible and useful conclusion from all those charts and numbers is nearly impossible.

I have coded a few large javascript/DOM-intensive applications and my overall feeling is that chrome rocks both on compliance and speed. It also seems much better on garbage collection than FF3, which stills badly suffers from unreleased memory. My experience with safari on those applications is good overall; faster than FF3 and a little slower than chrome.

Re:Safari? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883649)

Anyway, Browsers are likely the most complex software to properly benchmark.

You have to be kidding. These browsers are userspace applications running on desktops and have a fairly consistent set of operations to complete the task. Try benchmarking various surveying data collection software applications on embedded devices and you will notice that they all do different things. It is near impossible to determine which is "faster" as that could mean testing sensible workflows, CPU efficiency and a variety of other factors. Or try benchmarking device firmware - it is extremely difficult to determine what is going on.

Re:Safari? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883803)

No, I am not kidding. Performances is rarely where you would expect it in web application development, and this is part of what makes it so painful. Something trivial (in my sense) would take 500ms while something much more complex would run in a fraction of that time. The interdependency between all the layers (html, css, dom, js) makes it really hard to predict and measure.

Ok, you can benchmark many many things, and those guys did it, but what conclusion can you get from this ? Their words: just try multiple browsers for one app/site. That's not what I call a valuable and useful answer.

Nonsense (4, Informative)

roca (43122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883587)

There's some weird stuff in this "article". For example, what does it mean to "include V8 code" in a browser? Even choosing V8 as a benchmark is a mistake. Sunspider is the standard JS benchmark and it's much broader in scope.

Awarding 10 points for winning a category and then adding up the points to reach a final score is the most statistically bogus "methodology" ever.

It's nice to see SVG and canvas in benchmarks, but "IE8 will fix that compatibility issue"? Completely untrue, IE8 will not support SVG and canvas. This bit of ignorance makes me worry about the whole piece.

And as others have noted, comparing the Chrome beta against various-aged releases of other browsers makes little sense.

Adblock or bust (3, Insightful)

JustAnOtherCodeSerf (181281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883599)

Till it's got adblock, I don't care if it renders pages before they exist. I don't care if it makes me breakfast or does my laundry. In short, without adblock, it ain't S**T.

stop linking to extremetech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883601)

they are cocks who pack their website so full of advertising i can hardly find TFA.

Why IE7 and not IE8? (5, Insightful)

Numen (244707) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883623)

Chrome is the current browser beta from Google, and IE8 is the current browser beta from MS... so why compare Chrome in the same group as IE7?

Doctor... (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883685)

Nurse: Doctor, the tests came back inconclusive. It seems that the patient already suffered heavy memory loss. In addition to this the patient is severely obese and is likely to suffer a heart failure at any point.

Doctor: Curse that Vista! Curse it and all the suffering it has cause us!

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2335253,00.asp

Defectivebydesign

When I read comments with "no adblock".. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883697)

I can't help to to long for the days of gopher. the web browser is really the only reason do not use the terminal exclusively.

Re:When I read comments with "no adblock".. (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883817)

telnet port 80, dammit. wget if you're one of them nancy boys who wants "convenience."

Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883713)

Yeah... Chrome? Don't care. Get back to me when they give back to the open source community.

Who really cares? (4, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883751)

OK, maybe it's just me, but browser speed has absolutely not been an issue since the Netscape days. I've never said, "gosh, these pages look great, but they're just being rendered too slowly!" and then abandoned a web browser. The only thing that's an issue is download speed - rendering speed is not even noticable. Is this just me? I get the feeling that the "browser speed" issue that slashdot talks so much about is like some obscure industry metric that is rather meaningless, but still gets brought up in conversation because it's a bright shiny number that people can quote when regurgitating arguments.

Why all the browser tests are JS only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25883769)

That's only a JS engine speed test. If you test the HTML engine speed then you should include Dillo and you would be surprised who's the winner.

Why not Konqueror? (4, Insightful)

Karellen (104380) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883773)

Why does no-one include Konqueror in these tests? It's even available for Windows [kde.org] these days.

Compare beta with stable? (1)

fmrbastien (1334213) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883845)

Chrome is in beta state (maybe for the next 10 years?). I use firefox 3.1 whiwh is in beta state and seems very speedy also.

If you compare browsers, compare the betas in one side, ant the stables in other side. What you can see is that IE stable release sucks, others ares equivalents. Chrome is'nt stable thus it does'nt exists. Show me the same with the betas and we will see the fastest next-gen browser

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...