×

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!

Firefox 3.5 Benchmarked, Close To Original Chrome

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ramping-up-tracking-down dept.

Mozilla 338

CNETNate writes "The tests prove it: It's the third-fastest browser in the world, and over twice as fast as Firefox 3. In terms of Javascript performance, Firefox 3.5's new rendering engine places it squarely above Opera 10's beta and Internet Explorers 7 and 8 (based on previous benchmarks), plus it's getting on for being almost as quick as the original version of Google Chrome. Also, the new location-awareness feature was testing in central London, and pinpointed yours truly to within a few hundred meters — easily enough for, say, a Starbucks Web site to tell you where your nearest Starbucks is."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

338 comments

Web browsers, bah! (5, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#28546821)

I prefer to read the html code and interpret them myself...

Re:Web browsers, bah! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28546857)

I prefer to read the html code and interpret them myself...

You interpret web browsers?

Re:Web browsers, bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28546905)

Interpret this:

That's a tag that only works on IE8, they even patented it.

Now if only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547407)

We would be allowed to bring up the right click menu again, it would be sweet!!!

Re:Web browsers, bah! (5, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547033)

I prefer to read the html code and interpret them myself...

You young punks make me sick. Back in my day, we used Gopher and were grateful for the upgrade over the teletype!

I still prefer content distributed via mimeograph, though. Get enough enough of that sweet blue text!

Re:Web browsers, bah! (5, Funny)

doomy (7461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547275)

I'm still waiting for my last pigeon or else I'd have responded faster.

Re:Web browsers, bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547075)

Bah! I lick the network cable and decode the web page through the electrical pulses!

Re:Web browsers, bah! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547777)

It's true. He also licks my asshole clean after I take a shit and tells me what I ate for dinner yesterday.

Another thread, another flamewar (5, Funny)

dasuser (1173323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28546875)

Well, I guess we're in for a thread about how Firefox is still the (greatest|worst) browser in existence because of its (extensions|javascript performance|standards compliance|support for HTML 5). Looks like I need to go and get some snacks and pull up a recliner.

Re:Another thread, another flamewar (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547041)

I'm very much looking forward to the <video> element - because every other solution tends to suck bigtime under Linux. There's a huge market for flash to do flash games and whatever but I really look forward to watching embedded video without it. I'll install x264 and not care about the codec wars as long it "just works". Opera is late to the party here, won't even be in 10.0 initial release :/. Too bad, because for various reasons I like it even better than Firefox...

Re:Another thread, another flamewar (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547477)

I'm very much looking forward to the element - because every other solution tends to suck bigtime under Linux.

I'm looking forward to it because every other solution tends to suck under every OS. Flash is a resource hog and crashes frequently-- and besides, why should I need flash just to view a video? I don't understand that one.

AFAICT, the only reason we're all using Flash is that it was a stop-gap measure to deal with the fact that normal video support in web browsers wasn't what it should have been. It's like all the various mutli-column HTML/CSS tricks that people use because HTML just doesn't directly support columns. It works well enough for now, but it should be seen as "something to be fixed".

Re:Another thread, another flamewar (4, Insightful)

DdJ (10790) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548273)

I'll install x264 and not care about the codec wars as long it "just works".

So far I haven't been able to get this to just work. If I point Safari at the YouTube HTML5 video demo, it all just works. But Firefox 3.5 doesn't have the x264 code, and fails silently, and I can find no mechanism to install that codec.

So, any pointers?

We're #3 (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#28546895)

We're #3 - wow that's something to boast about.

According to Nike, this means that your the second loser.

Not even 1st loser... (3, Funny)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547003)

It's like my dad use to tell me, "If you're not 1st your last!" Shake and Bake Baby!!!

Re:Not even 1st loser... (3, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547551)

I was high when I said that!
What the hell does that even mean?
You could be second, you could be third, hell you could even be fourth!

Re:We're #3 (2, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548031)

We're #3 - wow that's something to boast about.

Number three always gets the chicks in high school!

"Hey baby, I'm on the bench!"

Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28546903)

What about opera? Where does that rank?

Re:Opera (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28546931)

Somewhere between "crashes every 5 seconds" and "can't render anything correctly".

Will it be fast enough to view slashdot? (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28546923)

The new benchmark in Javascript performance - slashdot.

...and I wonder if it will be powerful enough to get the line breaks right in "plain text" mode so I don't have to insert "br" tags manually.

Re:Will it be fast enough to view slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547225)

Maybe it will also fix the bug where preview strips out all the line breaks, but they're still there when you submit.

But I won't know until Ubuntu updates us from 3.0.11.

Re:Will it be fast enough to view slashdot? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547425)

Will it fix the belief that there's people out there who think in HTML tags? What's next? Automatic conversion to SMS-speak so us old fogies can look trendy...

Re:Will it be fast enough to view slashdot? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547589)

Or maybe make Anonymous Cowardon go away?

Re:Will it be fast enough to view slashdot? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547881)

You mean he isn't just a prolific asshole with no uid?

Re:Will it be fast enough to view slashdot? (1)

gfody (514448) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547529)

If the javascript performance were anywhere near chrome's you would be able to tell from running some of the examples here [chromeexperiments.com]

pffft (5, Funny)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 4 years ago | (#28546945)

I just did my own test and lynx is faster than firefox and chrome.

Re:pffft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547165)

I concur this.
Lynx is way faster, if everything is configured earlier. For eg- Cookie acceptance, etc,
Why we not look forward for such a amazing browsers.

Re:pffft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547795)

I know you're trying to be funny, but in the brief highly un-scientific test that I just did...neither lynx nor links are any quicker than Firefox.

If you really want to big lynx up against Firefox, just point out that it doesn't make a balls-up of rendering slashdot due to the fact that it doesn't do javascript or css....

Sickeningly biased. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28546957)

I'm trying to think of some way to write this article that would be MORE blatantly biased in favor of Firefox, but it's just not coming to me.

Re:Sickeningly biased. (4, Insightful)

albedoa (1529275) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547237)

The article is about Firefox, and yet it is shown, in the only quantifiable test that the author conducted, to rank third in a three-horse race against its two speed competitors.

Big Brother... (2, Interesting)

dfxm (1586027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28546977)

Why is it when the government can keep tabs about where we are it's "draconian" or "orwellian," but when a web browser does it, it's "cool"?

Re:Big Brother... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547077)

You must have missed the New Labour "Cool police state bro" campaign.

Re:Big Brother... (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548143)

You must have missed the New Labour "Cool police state bro" campaign.

I'm afraid I haven't missed it at all. I would LOVE to miss it, fondly.

Re:Big Brother... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547091)

Because it's my choice who I give the information to and it gives me some benefit.

Me explicitly telling a search service my location right now so that it gives me more useful results: good

The government tracking me at all times for who knows what reason (of no benefit at all to me): bad

Re:Big Brother... (5, Insightful)

Kurusuki (1049294) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547099)

For one, the government usually doesn't ask for permission first. Not to mention that the information used to determine your geolocation is also derived from something already passed to the web host, your IP, assuming you're not using the WiFi option. Generally speaking web pages can achieve a similar result already with a little effort. As it stands this new feature isn't making new information available to the public, it's just making old information a bit more friendly.

Re:Big Brother... (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547163)

You have the option of not using the web browser.

Beyond that, I tried one of the location demos. A Firefox prompt opened at the top of the window: "${site} wants to know your location: Share Location, Don't Share" with a checkbox to remember the settings for that site. Go ahead and explain how you could possibly be offended by that.

Re:Big Brother... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547803)

An extention that pings a private website every few minutes whenever it has a connection, combined remember sites that I have identified as ok could lead to problems. It would take a bit of work, but if I were say a victim of domestic abuse married to a hacker, I might hesitate to bring the laptop with me when I finally took off.

Re:Big Brother... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548007)

An extention that pings a private website every few minutes whenever it has a connection,

There are easier ways to implement this, like a cron job (or the Windows equivalent) that does the same thing whether or not a browser is open.

Re:Big Brother... (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547191)

Probably because:

1. You can turn the feature off in the browser. (At least, I'd hope so.)
2. The browser doesn't have the ability to pass laws that make you a criminal.
3. You don't pay taxes to your browser, only to have it track you in return.
4. ????
5. You get the picture.

Re:Big Brother... (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547789)

Why is it when the government can keep tabs about where we are it's "draconian" or "orwellian," but when a web browser does it, it's "cool"?

Yep. This "feature" sounds as welcome as the Awesome Bar. Can it be disabled? Cos it's definitely a deal breaker.

Re:Big Brother... (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548055)

I believe it can be, so in that sense it's far better than the 'awesome' bar. It seems that the default option is to pester you with requests until you turn it off, though.

Re:Big Brother... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547963)

Because the Mozilla people don't have guns and don't have the legal authority to throw me into a cage. Plus, I can choose to turn this feature off, or use another browser if I so desire.

that's nice, but (1)

Sum0 (1245284) | more than 4 years ago | (#28546981)

...how fast are all the plug-ins that are inevitably add-on?

Re:that's nice, but (2, Insightful)

qortra (591818) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547465)

In FF3.5, some of my add-ons actually make my browsing experience faster (like flash-block). Rendering an animated gif is significantly faster than launching a 32-bit instance of Flash.

This is such great science... (3, Funny)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547047)

.. I know 92% of time statistics are made up, but if you read the article you'll see they have a pretty graph, so I think the data is good.

Re:This is such great science... (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547625)

No. 84% of time statistics are made up.

Detailed Studies Show (2, Funny)

DJ_Adequate (699393) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548075)

In academics: 43.9% of statistic are made up.
In business: 72.3%, although banks were slightly higher than average.
In politics: 99.991%, although it's possible the .009% were a sampling error.

Now if I could just make this a pretty graph.

Opera 10 not benchmarked in either link (3, Insightful)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547101)

"Firefox 3.5's new rendering engine places it squarely above Opera 10's beta and Internet Explorers 7 and 8 (based on previous benchmarks)" Opera 9.6 =! Opera 10 Beta, or am I missing something here?

Re:Opera 10 not benchmarked in either link (4, Informative)

albedoa (1529275) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547361)

Yes: "Opera 10b1 wasn't fast enough to appear in this chart I'm afraid. It scores just under what the original Firefox 3 achieved."

Re:Opera 10 not benchmarked in either link (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547653)

Because it's not good practice to include betas in these sorts of tests. A proper beta is going to have debug code and such activated making the results not necessarily accurate. As a result there's really no guarantee that the final product will behave in a similar fashion.

If it were an article speculating on what Opera 10 is going to be like, that would be fairly reasonable, but otherwise I don't see any reason to include an unfinished browser.

Using Chrome now, but.... (3, Interesting)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547113)

Having used Chrome now for a little while after becoming irritated with FFX's memory utilization in particular, I'm going to have to admit that while it is quantifiably better than FFX (and Opera) in many ways, I don't find the speed difference compelling. Indeed, I find myself occasionally wondering if Chrome is actually slower than FFX in some ways. I am still using it, as the memory utilization is significantly better, but the little inconsistencies in presentation and the weird sensation that it feels slower makes me really want to switch back to Firefox. If Mozilla can get off their ass and really plug the memory leaks and utilization, I'd probably switch back today.

That's not to say that Chrome is bad. It's 100% usable, and its much more compatible with sites I use than Opera is. (I tried Opera first after I started looking around). The problem is that it still breaks some sites that aren't broken in IE or Firefox. And whether or not you blame the browser or the non-standards compliant webmasters, the reality is that I cannot switch their sites, but I can switch browsers that I am using. That means I have opened IE 7 windows more while using Chrome, than I have with Firefox.

Re:Using Chrome now, but.... (1)

TornCityVenz (1123185) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547339)

I do occasionally find myself opening FFX windows while using Chrome. Mostly for links that are supposed to go to files for download. Chrome has an odd tendency to not like those. Other than that Chrome has pretty much taken over my browsing experience since within about week of the first launch. So it's nice to know that my back up is almost as fast as the original chrome...

Re:Using Chrome now, but.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547591)

You might wanna recheck your preconceptions - a lot has changed in the past few releases for Firefox: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

It's too bad a lot of people still think Firefox is such a memory hog when really they've refined it to be one of the most quick and efficient browsers available.

That said, your mileage may vary depending on the add-ons you choose, but as long as you don't go overboard there's no reason your memory usage should be significantly different than those in the benchmark.

Re:Using Chrome now, but.... (1, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548257)

You might wanna recheck your preconceptions - a lot has changed in the past few releases for Firefox: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory [dotnetperls.com]

It's too bad a lot of people still think Firefox is such a memory hog when really they've refined it to be one of the most quick and efficient browsers available.

That said, your mileage may vary depending on the add-ons you choose, but as long as you don't go overboard there's no reason your memory usage should be significantly different than those in the benchmark.

I have the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome and my switchover was not all that long ago (a month, maybe two). I tend to use both browsers in the same way, about 6-10 tabs open at the same time, with all of them getting some use, and many of them being used at almost the same time.

After having stared at the task manager and seen FFX taking up over 400MB of RAM while I see Chrome using 150-170 to do the same things, I can pretty much tell you that there's no preconceptions involved, only data. I am not incredibly enthusiastic about the alternatives, but the facts are staring me in the face.

Perhaps my mileage varies. I am a very heavy browser user and I freely admit to being the guy who has all those tabs open. I'm not really complaining about FFX taking up a lot of memory, I'm more concerned that it takes up more to do the same things that other browsers seem to do for less.

Re:Using Chrome now, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28548179)

Am I the only one who read FFX as final fantasy 10?

Firefox 3.5 freezes loading background tabs (2, Interesting)

Ex-Linux-Fanboy (1311235) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547137)

I posted a blog about this [blogspot.com] yesterday. I tried Firefox 3.5 in a Windows XP VMware Virtual machine yesterday and quickly web back to Firefox 3.0.

The problem is that FF 3.5 freezes while loading a background tab. In Firefox 3.0, I have no problem clicking on some link that looks interesting, loading the link in a new tab, and continue reading the article I'm reading or what not.

This doesn't work in 3.5. When I load a page in a background tab, the entire Firefox client freezes up when it's processing Javascript, HTML, or whatever in the background tab. I can't scroll up or down in the foreground, write a posting or email (typing in text freezes and the letters I'm typing in aren't buffered), or do anything else with Firefox as it parses the page in the other tab.

Because of this issue, I quickly moved back to Firefox 3.0. I hope the Mozilla developers address this issue in the next six months, because if this issue isn't resolved in Firefox before they EOL security updates with Firefox 3.0, I will probably have to move to another browser.

Any modern browers besides Firefox with a "always use this font for text" option? Neither Opera, Safari, nor Chrome had this option last time I tried those browsers. (Don't get me started on IE8, which forces me to use anti-aliased text)

Re:Firefox 3.5 freezes loading background tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547293)

I just opened your post in a new tab to type this reply. Worked for me. No freeze.

Re:Firefox 3.5 freezes loading background tabs (2, Interesting)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547307)

I don't see that problem here...neither do about a half dozen of my coworkers. Are you sure that your install wasn't boinked in some way?

Because for me at least, it's blazing fast and one tab does not bring the other tabs down like it did sometimes in the past...

Re:Firefox 3.5 freezes loading background tabs (4, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547939)

I suspect some configuration problem on your end, to be honest. I'm running FF3.5 on XP SP3 inside of VirtualBox. I do not see that behaviour. Using snaplinks, I just opened six tabs, and the current tab remained responsive while they loaded in the background.

Whether the configuration problem is in your VM, within Windows, or in Firefox, I couldn't even begin to guess. In my case, I have 1 gig of memory allocated to the VM - if you have less memory, that might be something to look at.

Of course it's possible that my FF is different than yours in some subtle way. I upgraded from FF 3.5 b4 to FF 3.5 RC1 and then to FF 3.5 final. I really wouldn't EXPECT there to be any real difference, but crap happens, right?

SunSpider says it all... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547143)

I ran the SunSpider [webkit.org] JavaScript benchmark on Chrome 2.0.172.33, Firefox 3.5, and IE8. Firefox was almost 7x faster than IE, and Chrome almost 8x faster. Of particular interest are the contraflow and recursive tests. Chrome: 4.4ms. Firefox: 55.4ms. IE...? 218.4ms. Chrome is fifty times faster than IE in those benchmarks. Embarassing!

Re:SunSpider says it all... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548039)

Not embarassing at all - to Microsoft, at least. They just don't care. So long as they have the lion's share of the market, they are perfectly happy with any sad performance that people are willing to settle for.

Spread the word far and wide. Tell your family, tell your freind, tell your enemies, IE sucks. When they stop using it, everyone will benefit, including MS. If MS wants to keep market share, they'll invest time and money into making a better browser. If they don't want to keep market share, they'll just drop IE into the deep hole they dredged it out of.

THIRD PLACE!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547169)

USA! USA!

"As good as chrom used to be" (1)

smallshot (1202439) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547235)

...almost as quick as the original version of Google Chrome

What a comparison. It's almost as fast, but not quite as fast, as a much earlier and slower version of the fastest browser.

Does it really matter? (2, Interesting)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547291)

I tried to do something pretty seemingly simple [ark42.com] with Javascript (1 draggable line to redraw the background colors of the table), and it drags its ass on IE8. It is fast and smooth in FF/Opera/etc, but with so many people using IE still, it hardly matters.

One pice of advice for users (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547309)

If you want to install the new Firefox 3.5, you are well advised to remove all traces of previous versions. Otherwise your new install will have bizarre behavior like failing to open up links from websites like digg [slashdot.org] and being slow.

What I did was to uninstall it through the Windows XP control panel and delete all instances of Mozilla and Firefox in the registry. This is one bit of info developers should have informed us about.

Does anyone know how to use its geo-location feature?

By the way, it does not score 100% on the ACID 3 test and some links are returned as invalid but on clicking the "back" button, the sites load! I am also surprised that Yahoo Search is the engine that reports the error. Why, I do not have an idea. Could it be my ISP?

Starbucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547335)

within a few hundred meters â" easily enough for, say, a Starbucks Web site to tell you where your nearest Starbucks is

If you live where I live, then there are several Starbucks within a few hundred meters radius. A little more percision never hurt anyone.

I don't care... (5, Insightful)

cyberjock1980 (1131059) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547409)

I don't care how fast it loads webpages. What I want to see is a browser that isn't riddled with bugs and easy ways for badware to end up infecting my machine. I'll gladly surf on the slowest browser in the world if it really is proven to be the most secure. So what if I save a few seconds surfing web pages. That is nothing compared to the hours spent trying to get rid of a virus/trojan/keylogger/etc.

Re:I don't care... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547515)

Browse inside a VM. It will be slower, and if you do want to download a file you have to jump through hoops to copy it outside, but it's very secure.

Re:I don't care... (1)

valinor89 (1564455) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547719)

Certainly. I hardly make use of pages that take long to render or else. What I dont' like is to wait 1 minute for the browser to start or to block itsels every time it stumbles on a flawed page that contains some bucle ( multitreading would help). Does the new version fix all this?

Solid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547411)

Only problem I have with 3.5 is that my work Proxy doesn't like it...

Gecko FTW (1)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547431)

From just poking around the web with gecko and webkit browsers I found a bunch of pages that looked fine rendered by gecko, but had elements in the wrong place or other visual problems rendered with webkit. The majority of sites render fine in both, but not all and other then acid tests I haven't visited any that rendered better in webkit.

I'd rather have the page look good than be super fast, so I'll stick with firefox until sites render as well in webkit or firefox becomes unusable slow.

Re:Gecko FTW (2, Funny)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547549)

From just poking around the web with gecko and webkit browsers I found a bunch of pages that looked fine rendered by gecko, but had elements in the wrong place or other visual problems rendered with webkit. The majority of sites render fine in both, but not all and other then acid tests I haven't visited any that rendered better in webkit.

I'd rather have the page look good than be super fast, so I'll stick with firefox until sites render as well in webkit or firefox becomes unusable slow.

Yes, but the Acid3 scores and JS benchmarks show that webkit is better. Now just stop using the internet and switch to using Acid3 and JS benchmarks for all your computer needs and you'll be fixed.

So report them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547677)

Both Gecko and WebKit have excellent standards support, so I'm guessing the pages you're talking about are Quirks Mode pages. Gecko probably has a more battle-tested Quirks Mode.

Both Safari and Chrome have "Report bug on this page" options. If you're of a helpful mind, use them.

Javashit sucks no matter how fast it goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547467)

Disable it in your web browser for better performance and user experience.

IF YOU AREN'T FULLY SATISFIED, YOUR GET YOUR MONEY BACK, GUARANTEED!

The downside is... (1)

hacker (14635) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547471)

The downside is... that almost nothing works with it; hardly any code has been ported for themes, plug-ins or add-ons, so you're basically starting back at square one again.

I tried it here on 64-bit Linux, using the Adobe flash plugin and got dozens of crashes/hangs (even the bug-reporting feature hung, and had to be xkill'd off). It's faster, but it crashes a LOT more than 3.0.11 for me, given my current use of the browser as a productivity tool.

Those crashes were with no plugins installed at all. My 3.0.11 browser has 32 plugins installed in it, and it is ROCK solid.

It's getting there, but it's not quite ready for prime-time just yet.

Okay ! but is it tested with extensions,plugins ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547519)

I used FF before safari3, one thing noticeable about FF is it slows down proportional to use and numbers of extension on board, though some of extensions are really helpful.
After all, One of the major USP of FF is its extensions.

How come (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547689)

Home come these "news" deserve to be on /.? I'm feeling sick of this "Wow! We have a new who-the-hell-knows-what test. Out browser of choice is better at it than others! Boo-hoo!" And hear I thought browsers are for well... browsing. Apparently I was wrong.

In the real world... (0, Flamebait)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547723)

I'm not sure these benchmarks make much difference. The advantage of Chrome and IE is that they are multi-threaded.

Sure for one or two tabs open maybe Firefox does well. But if you are someone who opens 5 or 6 tabs routinely, and those tabs reload in the background, then Firefox is a total dog. Not to mention the whole not releasing memory thing that makes it unusable after a long browsing session.

So, fine, 3.5 is an improvement. But until Firefox is multi-threaded it's still not good enough. It's still far behind the competition on this.

Bias towards graphical browsers (2, Funny)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547733)

I'm sorry, but Lynx is still faster than all of the above. When will we see fair treatment of all browsers? That's racist.

Loses your passwords.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547741)

Sadly Firefox3.5 already has a bunch of bugs logged and complaints on the fora because people are finding their saved passwords have gawn AWOL after the upgrade.

Mozbackup can't help, so I've already downgraded. It's fast and shiny, but utterly useless to me without my saved passwords.

Not only faster pages but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28547799)

Man, the experience is like I if bought a new laptop.

Since Firefox's GUIs and extensions are entirely assembled in JavaScript, the new javascript engine not only optimizes page rendering, but in fact, the entire browser experience in faster.

Seattle (3, Funny)

verloren (523497) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547821)

Presumably in Seattle it could tell you where your nearest 100 Starbucks are...

Re:Seattle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28548071)

Presumably in Seattle it could tell you where your nearest 100 Starbucks are...

no kidding... a quick look at google maps shows 10-20 coffee shoos within a 300 meter square block over most of the downtown area.

Still my baby (0, Offtopic)

decrypted08 (1574619) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547909)

Opera is still my baby- I'll take any browser that includes precustomized user interfaces that allow me to connect to international irc channells and "chat" bot style.

Huh? Safari is faster, and the benchmark proves it (-1, Offtopic)

TheBigDuck (938776) | more than 4 years ago | (#28547985)

I benchmarked all the Mac Browsers using Peacemaker as a benchmark.
http://www.iheinrich.com/blog/?p=1054 [iheinrich.com]

Safari 4.0 and iCab 4.5 were the fastest.

I also benchmarked the Windows Browsers using Peacemaker (on PC).

http://www.iheinrich.com/blog/?p=1093 [iheinrich.com]

Safari 4.0 was much faster than Firefox.

Re:Huh? Safari is faster, and the benchmark proves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28548185)

Firefox 3.5 is the topic of the discussion here.

Talking javascript (1)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 4 years ago | (#28548093)

Compared to the current Chrome 2, Firefox 3.5 with JIT enabled gets 1/2 the speed here [jupiter909.com] , 7/8th the speed here [jupiter909.com] , but about 2x the speed here [jupiter909.com] . That's a much better result than ff3.1!

Well done, guys.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...