Beta
×

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!

Chrome 4.0 Vs. Opera 10 Vs. Firefox 3.5

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the three-enter-but-only-three-leave dept.

Software 354

Jim Karter writes "In a three-way cage match, LifeHacker threw Chrome 4, Firefox 3.5, and Opera 10 into the ring and let the three browsers duke it out to see which would emerge as the fastest app for surfing the web. Quoting: 'Like all our previous speed tests, this one is unscientific, but thorough. We install the most current versions of each browser being tested — in this case, Opera 10, Chrome's development channel 4.0 version, and the final Firefox 3.5 with security fixes — in a system with a 2.0 GHz Intel Centrino Duo processor and 2GB of RAM, running Windows XP.'"

cancel ×

354 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Safari (2, Interesting)

rallymatte (707679) | about 5 years ago | (#29339083)

It would have been interesting to see Safari in this test as well.

Re:Safari (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339119)

If you read the article you'd see safari is in most of the tests.

Why? Why? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339121)

oh please! This is for real browsers only.

BTW, is there any discussion where apple fanbois wont jump in touting their beloved products? Give us a break.

Re:Safari (5, Informative)

abhi_beckert (785219) | about 5 years ago | (#29339137)

Safari is in the test. It's just that they focused on the three new kids on the block, of which safari 4 is not among.

TFA does list results of Safari and IE, as well as other browsers, for every test in a separate graph.

Re:Safari (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339215)

The "three new kids on the block"? What the fuck are you talking about?

Google Chrome was first released on September 2, 2008.

The original release of Firefox (still called Phoenix then) was on September 23, 2002, but based on code that goes back to that released by Netscape in 1998.

Opera was first released in 1996, but was in development for several years before then.

Safari was first released on January 7, 2003.

So I'm not really sure why you're spreading bullshit, but you are. Firefox and Opera are older than Safari by decades.

Re:Safari (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339663)

New versions you fucking moron. Opera 10, Firefox 3.5 and Chrome 4.0 are all newer than Safari 4.

Re:Safari (1, Redundant)

rallymatte (707679) | about 5 years ago | (#29339231)

Since when did people start reading TFA here?

Re:Safari (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339559)

Yeah, the latest major release of Safari (the 64-bit 4.0.3 that shipped with Snow Leopard) came out a whole 10 days ago. That's old news!
And it's only half again as fast as the last released version due to 64-bit optimizations for the javascript engine. That's no big deal!

Re:Safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339885)

And you are saying Opera is a new kid on the block?
Where have you been the past 10+ years?

speed (4, Insightful)

mdwntr (1367967) | about 5 years ago | (#29339127)

I just can't get all that concerned about the speed of my browser. Extra speed never hurts of course but it's hardly a factor in which one I choose.

Memory (5, Interesting)

NoYob (1630681) | about 5 years ago | (#29339167)

I made a bee line to the memory tests and based on my browsing habits, Firefox is the winner.

Re:Memory (5, Informative)

hattig (47930) | about 5 years ago | (#29339305)

Of course using Windows Process Monitor to get memory usage for a application like Chrome which has different processes per tab/plugin leads to horrendously incorrect results, which the article acknowledges in an edit, without any attempt to get the correct figures. Shame really, as this functionality is built into Chrome...

Re:Memory (5, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29339679)

One thing these tests don't take into account is the UI responsiveness, in which Opera really owns the other browsers - everything just seems fast and responsive. Chrome isn't that far, but you can still see how things like opening new tabs takes some time and isn't "instant". Firefox is also behind on UI responsiveness, and I probably dont have to mention IE (3-5 secs to open new tab, seriously?).

This is what MS tried to improve in Win7 too. Even if its not really faster technically but just feels so, it improves usability a lot.

Re:Memory (3, Interesting)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | about 5 years ago | (#29339813)

IE 8's multiprocess architecture hurt its tab opening responsiveness. Most of the plugins apparently have to be reloaded for each tab and some of them take forever. I discovered that if I turned off some stuff like Macfee scriptproxy and Java SSV helper, I could make new tabs open .5 sec. Still, if Chrome can do it fast, I have no clue why IE 8 can't do just as well.

Re:Memory (5, Funny)

whoop (194) | about 5 years ago | (#29339887)

everything just seems fast

So true. More benchmarking tests need to include seems per second. I mean, come on, it's the 21st century and all! At least, it seems to me they should. That way their reports will seem much more seemingly accurate to what I want them to seem. ... I think.

Re:Memory (5, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 5 years ago | (#29339897)

Please bear in mind they tested on the latest stable version firefox, not the latest alpha 3.6 which has various speed improvements. Yet Chrome they used a development branch. Seems a bit biased in Chromes favour.

Firefox is unstable. (4, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 5 years ago | (#29339753)

The results about memory use were nonsense, as now mentioned in a revised version of the article.

Also, Firefox has bugs in its event handling, apparently. If you open a large number of Window and tabs, and keep opening and closing tabs over a period of hours, eventually Firefox will crash. Firefox has had that problem for many years.

Firefox also apparently has problems with its cache handling, apparently. For example, here is a comment to the Lifehacker.com story referenced in the Slashdot summary:

"Firefox 3.5 seems to get slower for me over time. It was really crawling the other day so I got the latest chrome and it seems blazing fast.

"I'll have to try some of the tricks to clean up FF. I'm sad to see it falling behind in speed because I like so many FF features."


If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus, I'm guessing that people will abandon Firefox. There seems to be no hope that Mozilla Foundation will ever be managed well.

(I like seeing ads, I just don't like flashing, moving ads. "Marketing" people are amazingly ignorant, in my experience; they often don't realize that annoying people is not a good way to get customers.)

Re:Firefox is unstable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339831)

If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus, I'm guessing that people will abandon Firefox. There seems to be no hope that Mozilla Foundation will ever be managed well.

And I would've never switched away from IE when i tried ff 0.6-or-whatever if IE had had the necessary features at the time.

Re:speed (1)

derspankster (1081309) | about 5 years ago | (#29339193)

I must agree. Of course, being a Linux user, my current choices are limited to Firefox and Opera. I use both, Firefox about 85-90% of the time.

Choices? (2, Insightful)

WED Fan (911325) | about 5 years ago | (#29339381)

Of course, being a Linux user, my current choices are limited to Firefox and Opera.

So, what you are saying is that if you used XP, you wouldn't be limited by those choices. Windows gives you more choice?

Well, it does, unless you limit your choices by placing preconditions.

Re:speed (4, Informative)

PouletFou (1221320) | about 5 years ago | (#29339801)

You can use chromium on linux. I prefer it to firefox now because when flashplugin crashes (often on x86_64), chromium does not have to be restarted, a simple refresh works.

Re:speed (5, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | about 5 years ago | (#29339201)

Agreed. How many more stories about browser-speed do we need, given how insignificant the discrepancies are? For most end-users, browser lag is completely dwarfed by restricted bandwidth.

In my case, judicious application of AdBlock and NoScript make this a complete non-issue. I'm far more interested in standards compliancy and security.

Re:speed (2, Informative)

abshnasko (981657) | about 5 years ago | (#29339863)

In my case, judicious application of AdBlock and NoScript make this a complete non-issue. I'm far more interested in standards compliancy and security.

Reality suggests exactly the opposite. Adblock, Noscript, and whatever other browser plugins you use, in addition to most of the UI code on web pages, is written in JavaScript. Browser speed, and particularly JS execution speed, does matter. In fact, since you are running these applications, which run Javascript to customize your viewing experience, you probably depend on speed more than you think.

Re:speed (2, Insightful)

noundi (1044080) | about 5 years ago | (#29339349)

I agree, this hype about speeds has gone too far. Sure I admit I'd prefer a faster browser, but I hardly feel the need to make a thorough investigation in order to gain a few seconds. Something rather predictable is that Chrome is loading slower by the version. I got the feeling that Chrome was rather optimized when released, but optimized naturally means that whatever added content will also add to loading time, in contrast to FF which became rather bloated with a lot of, still useful, content. Thus allowing for such performance increases between version 2 and 3.5. Now that Chrome is actually gaining content I can't help wondering whether it will be such an outperformer or not. Still nothing beats adblock. The single most important extension for FF. Until there are worthy equivalents (and no privoxy doesn't quite cut it for this purpose) I can wait patiently for my browser to load.

Re:speed (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 years ago | (#29339447)

You're not concerned about the speed of your browser because historically your browser is something that's run too slow for anything interesting to be done with it. If browsers were faster (as they are becoming) they could do things that would suddenly make you care about how fast your browser is. Rendering full blown 3D using just Javasript is one example, and we've seen some demonstrations of this being feasible with some of the newer browsers in recent times.

I followed the same line of thought as you previously until I realised the problem with the browser speed debate isn't how fast browsers do the things they do now, but how slow they do the things we want them to be able to do in the future.

Re:speed (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | about 5 years ago | (#29339853)

I'm more concerned with availability, stability, security and the ability to fail gracefully.

When firefox crashes - everything goes poof. Worse, firefox does NOT let me launch separate firefox processes to workaround that stupidity. It is ironic that I can run separate instances of IE but I can't do that with firefox - an application that should be more "unixy" than IE.

When I tried Google Chrome on Win XP, it did not allow me to launch it as a different user. I prefer to run my browsers using different users - e.g. login as User A, but launch the browser as User B. That way it's a lot harder for the browser as User B to touch my User A stuff. The OS has to be exploited too.

javascript whitelisting ? (3, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | about 5 years ago | (#29339131)

It's simple : i want javascripty whitelisting. so FF+Noscript : only thing i can use.

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29339203)

Or just use site preferences in Opera....

Site preference in Opera laggy (1, Troll)

improfane (855034) | about 5 years ago | (#29339547)

My computer has 3GB memory and that dialogue takes ages to disappear and appear.

It's very slow for some reason. The Opera preference panel sometimes freezes when I press Ok. ...wonder if having 100s of tabs open has anything to do with it.

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339223)

Or pera , browse to a page right click and choose "Edit site preferences" You can control if you want scripts running , content blocked, cookies accepted, enable or disable sounds and a few other things on a site by site basis.

I just switched and I am finding the adjustment from FF rewarding but not as smooth as I would think. I believe Opera is a better browser which needs a little more polish than it currently offers. Not in features but in small UI tweaks and additions.

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (0)

gnud (934243) | about 5 years ago | (#29339225)

Opera lets you turn off javascript globally, and then whitelist individual sites. Without any extension.

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (1)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | about 5 years ago | (#29339245)

When was the last time you tried browsing without Noscript? What happened?

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (1)

Barny (103770) | about 5 years ago | (#29339395)

Like on one of the virtual machines I use to test sites my customers suspect might be giving them spyware? Uh, yesterday we picked up 3 different infections of "smitfraud" based scareware...

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29339557)

So you visited a site that you expected to give you malware and it gave you malware?

That isn't quite the same thing as browsing. FWIW, the only attacks I have been hit with (running with javascript on) are some pdf exploits (none of them have succeeded).

Are FireFox Users Really That Fucking Stupid? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339839)

Listen to the dimwits still clinging to the stinking pile of fail that is Firefox is hilariously ironic since it was IE users who made the same retarded rationalizations to cling to the browser the had for whatever fucking reason personally identified with.

"It's simple : i want javascripty whitelisting. so FF+Noscript : only thing i can use."

Hey dipshit, if you used a browser that didn't have a braindead relic of a Javacript implementation you wouldn't NEED hacks like Noscript to have a lighting quick browser with massive numbers of tabs open.

It's simple. You're a fucking moron.

Keep clinging to your tecnological turd of a browser Firefox. No one gives a shit.

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | about 5 years ago | (#29339883)

The lack of NoScript and Adblock Plus are the only things keeping me from using Chrome. They allow for quick and easy permissions to be allowed, there is no editing a text file or reading the source code of a page to find domains, just a couple clicks.

Re:javascript whitelisting ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339983)

That should make the now all-javascript web really usable for you.

Versions (5, Interesting)

Fri13 (963421) | about 5 years ago | (#29339149)

Google Chrome 4.0? I just one hour ago upgraded to latest Google Chrome beta of coming 3.0 version from Google labs. (3.0.195.10). If 3.0 has not come yet out, how can they test 4.0?

Re:Versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339177)

I think v4 is the developer builds.

Re:Versions (4, Informative)

nycguy (892403) | about 5 years ago | (#29339195)

Re:Versions (4, Interesting)

Barny (103770) | about 5 years ago | (#29339433)

So they compare the current, stable release of firefox against dev builds of other browsers?

And as others are saying, the fastest way to render a page that has a ton of scripting is of course firefox + noscript.

AdBlock (4, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | about 5 years ago | (#29339155)

In my experience, the fastest browser is the one that's running AdBlock, with flash, java, and javascript disabled.

Re:AdBlock (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 years ago | (#29339235)

You've obviously never run Lynx [wikipedia.org] on a beowulf cluster.

Re:AdBlock (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339683)

Neither have you. Lynx cannot be used on most websites made in the last 6 years or so.

Re:AdBlock (1)

robot_love (1089921) | about 5 years ago | (#29339875)

Thank you, Captain Pedantic.

Re:AdBlock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339399)

It's also the most useless browser, you idiot.

Re:AdBlock (5, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | about 5 years ago | (#29339435)

Well no shit Sherlock ... how long does it take to render an empty page ?

Re:AdBlock (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#29339527)

RTFA, dammit, it depends on the browser!

Re:AdBlock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339915)

render an empty page

I browse 95% with flash off, java off, and javascript off, and I get by just fine. In fact, I'm posting to slashdot with all of that disabled right now. I don't know where you got the idea "the web doesn't work without flash and javascript". Again, I find that only 5% of the time I need to turn these features on (and usually this isn't for a good reason, but simply because of poor website design choices, such as the brilliant "flash-only site").

And yes, everything runs much faster and smoother with flash and javascript disabled. For easy on/off configuration, use the firefox extensions flashblock and quickjava (better than noscript IMO).

Re:AdBlock (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#29339989)

Hey, you forgot to disable that pesky HTML. Let alone all images!

How can you surf that way? Everything but plain telnet is way too cluttered, slow, and has too many holes in its parser!

And don't dare to use and ANSI colors on me! Even if my client could parse them, I'd still have to buy one of those useless color displays!

But I'm thinking about just connecting the Ethernet cable to my headphones and listening to the noise of the packets...

Thorough? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | about 5 years ago | (#29339157)

>> Finally, we take a Windows Task Manager measurement of how much memory is being used at startup and after those eight tabs are loaded. The eight tabs are the same as in the last set of tests--basically, each browser's home page, and then the Google home page, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, and YouTube thrown in for good browser-dragging measure.

Not sure how that would make any measurement thorough.

Summary: (1, Informative)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 5 years ago | (#29339165)

Google Chrome is generally faster, but seems to use more memory than either other browser at start up. However, the performance difference between the browsers is negligible.

Personally, speed isn't everything. The reason I've stuck with Firefox, even through the Awful Bar debacle of 3.0.x, is the functionality it offers via it's add on system. Opera and Chrome simply do not offer this. Until they do, I don't have a good enough reason to switch.

Re:Summary: (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 5 years ago | (#29339205)

Agreed on the extended functionality - I hate the 'Awesome Bar', but no other browser offers keyword searches or the ability to easily add search engines to the search box (save for IE which I dont want to use).

Give me something to replace 'wp rabbits' and I will dump Firefox in an instant for Chrome or Safari.

Re:Summary: (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 5 years ago | (#29339289)

Agreed on the extended functionality - I hate the 'Awesome Bar', but no other browser offers keyword searches or the ability to easily add search engines to the search box (save for IE which I dont want to use).

Give me something to replace 'wp rabbits' and I will dump Firefox in an instant for Chrome or Safari.

In Opera: tools, preferences, search.

Wikipedia is already in there as a default though ("w rabbits").

Re:Summary: (4, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | about 5 years ago | (#29339375)

Agreed on the extended functionality - I hate the 'Awesome Bar', but no other browser offers keyword searches or the ability to easily add search engines to the search box (save for IE which I dont want to use).

Start Opera. Go to a website not included by default in its search options. Right click on the search field. Choose "Create Search".

Give me something to replace 'wp rabbits' and I will dump Firefox in an instant for Chrome or Safari.

Built into Opera before Firefox had it.

Re:Summary: (1)

xorsyst (1279232) | about 5 years ago | (#29339405)

no other browser offers keyword searches

Like most cool browser features, Opera had it first.

Re:Summary: (1)

hjrnunes (1135957) | about 5 years ago | (#29339991)

I'm not sure what you're saying but Chrome allows you to do that from the very first version. In fact, I'm not sure if it wasn't the first to come up with it. While I used Windowz, I instantly switched to Chrome from Firefox exactly because of the search shortcuts.

From your sig I infer you use OS X, so you might wanna try OmniWeb. It's a very good browser that has become freeware and recently updated with the new Webkit engine. It offers site preferences since god knows when... It's actually the most feature complete browser I've ever seen. You don't need a lot of the usual add-ons because there is similar built-in functionality. And it has that "wp rabbits" feature you like so much - as do I. Oh and vertical tabs which in my opinion rock. And the plugins to do that in Firefox suck.

Re:Summary: (2, Interesting)

Erik Hensema (12898) | about 5 years ago | (#29339251)

What debacle are you refering to? The awesome bar is fast and useful. I rarely click bookmarks these days, I just type the name in the location bar and it will pop up soon enough. It's possible to search through pages titles instead of urls. It's never failed me. So what debacle?

Re:Summary: (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 5 years ago | (#29339345)

What debacle are you refering to? The awesome bar is fast and useful. It's never failed me. So what debacle?

You can't disable it - thats the debacle. A lot of people don't like it, but the Firefox devs have essentially told us to shut up and live with it.

Its a fairly fundamental change to browsing habits, and quite frankly I don't wish to change my habits on the whim of someone else.

Re:Summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339473)

about:config
set browser.urlbar.maxRichResults to 0

Not exactly the way it was, but closer.

Also, try extensions:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227 [mozilla.org]

Personally I like the awesome bar, but having choices are a good thing.

Re:Summary: (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 5 years ago | (#29339513)

The problem is, none of those suggestions (and the myriad of other suggestions people have come up with) actually revert the address bar to the FF2 behaviour - they simply massage the current address bar in various ways, and it shows.

Re:Summary: (2, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 5 years ago | (#29339503)

You can't disable it - thats the debacle. A lot of people don't like it, but the Firefox devs have essentially told us to shut up and live with it.

Pretty much.

Although at least you can disable some of the more annoying aspects of it via Tools - Options in 3.5.x. Basically, I jumped from 2.20.x to 3.5.x after getting frustrated with 3.0.x and deciding to stick with the 2.20.x version for a good long while.

While I don't think we will ever get the proper revert to the 2.x style URL bar that SHOULD happen, as long as we can easily disable the crap parts of the Awful Bar without having to dig in about:config I'm satisfied.

Re:Summary: (2, Informative)

macshit (157376) | about 5 years ago | (#29339507)

You can't disable it - thats the debacle. A lot of people don't like it, but the Firefox devs have essentially told us to shut up and live with it.

C'mon, they haven't really said that -- you can actually config it in various ways, e.g., setting "browser.urlbar.matchbehavior" to 3 (using about:config), and using "browser.urlbar.maxrichresults" to control the display. There's also some more configuration being added in newer versions, e.g., see this bug [mozilla.org] .

Re:Summary: (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 5 years ago | (#29339681)

Yes, they have.

The general user base was NOT included in the discussion about the Awful Bar during development. Now, the only way to communicate with the Devs is through the incredibly obtuse and confusing bugzilla system by bugging a problem. After FF 3.x was released, ANY "bug" of the Awful Bar has been immediately and rudely closed as "not a problem, will not be fixed".

So basically, the FF Devs created the Awful Bar in a vacuum, and have refused to listen to any criticism in the only communication channel available to the public.

That sounds VERY much like "Shut up and live with it" to me.

Re:Summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339937)

I keep hearing a few loud people complaining about the awesome bar, but I can't for the life of me figure out what they don't like about it. It works fine for me, and I would imagine works fine for most people which is probably why the devs put it in and kept it in. I think the standard slashdot answer to the "well I don't like them changing my browser habits" is: go fork the project. Or just grab the code and do it yourself. Or use Konquerer or some other browser.

Re:Summary: (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 5 years ago | (#29339797)

I don't want to configure it in various ways, I want to disable it entirely. Wheres that option?

Re:Summary: (1)

Siberwulf (921893) | about 5 years ago | (#29339821)

Are we talking about the searching, or just the look and feel of it? If it is the latter, I've always just run the oldbar addon to revert back to the FF2 feel. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227 [mozilla.org] YMMV though

Re:Summary: (0, Offtopic)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 5 years ago | (#29339549)

Why the heck was my comment marked "Offtopic"? It's EXACTLY on topic, it's a SUMMARY OF THE FREAKING ARTICLE!

Sounds like I got a FF Dev's panties in a bunch with my follow-up comment. Can somebody mod my comment http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1360227&cid=29339165 [slashdot.org] up please? That was an unfair and inaccurate mod.

Safari 4? (1, Informative)

Val314 (219766) | about 5 years ago | (#29339179)

What about Safari 4 with its fast JavaScript engine?

Re:Safari 4? (-1, Flamebait)

daveime (1253762) | about 5 years ago | (#29339465)

What about a computer that isn't neon pink and shiny ?

Raw speed is probably a moot point.... (4, Interesting)

gadget junkie (618542) | about 5 years ago | (#29339187)

Having read the article, I found two things particularly interesting:

1. the author did not put any version of MS internet explorer in the Arena. Now that's understandable, all windows system come with IE installed, so the rationale, as I see it , is that there's no point in benchmarking a program that no one has to choose on its own. I only wonder what will happen if Europe goes forward in forcing MS to sell OEM copies of Win7 without IE installed.

2. the whole "speed" thingy is rather moot in my view. I've been using Firefox for some time now, and I DO appreciate the fact that fewer resources are used, even at the expense of a couple of seconds of starting and/or loading time. After all, it's not a multiplayer game where milliseconds seem to count.

Re:Raw speed is probably a moot point.... (4, Funny)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | about 5 years ago | (#29339329)

After all, it's not a multiplayer game where milliseconds seem to count.

You forget you're on Slashdot. The Windozers will race to post XKCD 619 on every Linux-related story, and it gets neck and neck for the karma boost that "+5 Insightful" offers.

Re:Raw speed is probably a moot point.... (2, Funny)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 5 years ago | (#29339809)

The Windozers will race to post XKCD 619 on every Linux-related storyWell, first I misread your post as talking about http://xkcd.com/629/ [xkcd.com] and wondered what the hell you had been smoking.

But are you claiming that http://xkcd.com/619/ [xkcd.com] is somehow a completely silly point?

Exactly, the question is now why should I change? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339401)

I think that is the main point these days; browser speed has long been "good enough".

I have yet to see a compelling reason to move from Firefox since I moved from IE many years ago. Memory was getting a little out of hand with version 2 but that seems to be have been nailed now and so much so according to that article it's still better than the others.

* Decent developer plugins - check
* Quickly patched - check
* Automated Updates - check
* Standards compliant - check (I admit could be better though)

I was interested in syncing bookmarks etc and Mozilla already have a working solution with Weave which seems to work well between my work desktop & laptop.

Re:Raw speed is probably a moot point.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339411)

It's not moot. without this speed war launched by Chrome, you couldn't say something like "I DO appreciate the fact that fewer resources are used"...

Re:Raw speed is probably a moot point.... (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | about 5 years ago | (#29339823)

the author did not put any version of MS internet explorer in the Arena. Now that's understandable, all windows system come with IE installed, so the rationale, as I see it , is that there's no point in benchmarking a program that no one has to choose on its own.

Without a benchmark for IE, how do you know whether to replace IE on the computer you just bought with one of the above browsers? IE might be the quickest browser there is. *

* Hahahahhahahaha!

all browsers slow on robbIE's site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339191)

mynuts won; so advanced it's like moleasses.

And the irony is... (1)

memphis.barbecue (1402253) | about 5 years ago | (#29339239)

... according to NetApplications, the most popular browser version [hitslink.com] (IE 6) wasn't considered for the test.

How about that thar ActiveX blocker, eh?

--

Yesterday, I walked out to my car with a bag of trash in one hand and my laptop in the other. When (after stopping by the dumpster), I made it to my car with the trash, something was wrong.

Graphing Fail. (1)

hattig (47930) | about 5 years ago | (#29339267)

Ugh, graphs like this review has should start at 0.

It's incorrect to start them at higher figures, it exaggerates the actual difference in results.

It's basic stuff this, you're taught it at school early on.

Re:Graphing Fail. (2, Insightful)

AmaranthineNight (1005185) | about 5 years ago | (#29339449)

You're assuming they don't want to exaggerate the difference in results.

XP, 2 Gigs RAM (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about 5 years ago | (#29339321)

I'd be more interested on the speed tests on machines with smaller memory, since a big win in browser development for me is bringing older kit back into play by making it more comfortable for websurfing. (I'd also be interested in seeing browser comparisons under Linux instead of XP too)

For gods sake (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339413)

Just find a fucking browser that you like and use it. Stop with the lobbying. Stop with the benchmarks. Just use it and shut the fuck up. /rage

"Centrino Duo Processor" (4, Informative)

Timosch (1212482) | about 5 years ago | (#29339421)

Sorry guys, but Centrino is not a processor. It is a platform, specifying a certain processor, graphics chipset etc..

same functionality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29339439)

Was it "clean and clear" installation of each browser?
Opera offers lots and lots of functions at standard, which have to be added to FF via many plugins. And plugins makes FF slower.
Don't know about chrome, but probably it will be similar to FF.

I need mouse gestures, popup blocker, content/ad blocker, better pagebar, preferences for each page, password manager, built in grammar check (new in opera10) and some more... I don't care if clean FF is faster or slower then opera. I cant work with clean FF. I need browser with same functionality, and than we can speak about speed.

Evil Overloards (0, Flamebait)

ynohoo (234463) | about 5 years ago | (#29339455)

They obviously ignored how long it takes Chrome to send all your personal information to their "Evil Overlords"(TM Google inc.)

Re:Evil Overloards (1)

unick (1105511) | about 5 years ago | (#29339697)

Parent isn't flamebait. This happened to a friend (he installs networks, firewalls, etcetera for a living, so I suppose he knows his stuff): installed a new webserver on a new dns that was never on the internet before. To test firewall settings he surfed to a URL on that webserver using chrome (it happened to be installed on that client's pc). Half an hour later he sees google spiders hitting exactly that rather obscure URL... Freaks me out!

Fabulously useful Firefox speedup (5, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | about 5 years ago | (#29339531)

on Unix, anyway. Exit Firefox, then do:

for i in ~/.mozilla/firefox/*.default/*.sqlite; do sqlite3 $i "vacuum;" ; done

FF3.x does everything in sqlite. Some of the tables fill with crap 'cos deleted rows are marked "deleted" rather than actually being deleted and compacted. I hope future versions will run a vacuum automatically every now and then.

On this Ubuntu 9.04 box I had to apt-get install sqlite3.

Re:Fabulously useful Firefox speedup (5, Informative)

mindcorrosive (1524455) | about 5 years ago | (#29339783)

Or use the Vacuum Places Improved (what kind of name is that anyway) addon from AMO:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13878 [mozilla.org]
Available for FF 3.5+. Labelled experimental at the moment, but works just fine. Works magic with the "awesomebar" suggestion speed: fetching suggestions has never has been so snappy.

Re:Fabulously useful Firefox speedup (2, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | about 5 years ago | (#29339881)

Yep! Until someone suggested this (compacting the tables), I'd assumed the only way to fix this was to delete my profile. An extension is a good place to put it, with a view to it going into the base.

Memory usage vs. memory efficiency (1)

johnnysaucepn (1263108) | about 5 years ago | (#29339543)

Why do people insist on saying 'X browser is using memory more efficiently' when all they can really conclude is that 'X is using less memory'? If that memory is being used to appropriately cache resources, speed up history navigation, etc., etc. then it's not being wasted. Freeing up memory that you're going to be wanting to re-allocate and re-fill in a couple of minutes is truly wasteful. When you only test how fast a page is ON INITIAL LOAD, you get no idea about how effectively memory is being used.

How incredibly important! (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#29339565)

We don't care about security. We don't care whether the browser hogs half a gig or more. We don't care whether it can render a page correctly or makes CSS look like a 5 year old had a field day with some sharpies.

We care whether a page renders 0.223 seconds faster.

Sorry if that sounds like flamebait, but do I care about speed in a time when speed difference is measured in fractions of seconds? Even if it's seconds. Does that really matter? I'm not too convinced that the browser speed plays any significant role in the loading speed of a page when you have crappy servers crammed into farms that oversold their capacity hundredfold and ISPs doing the same.

Poor tests (2, Insightful)

mariushm (1022195) | about 5 years ago | (#29339567)

It's obvious Chrome would be faster becuase of its simplicity...

What always bothers me is that these "testers" don't test the browsers after some "normal" or "not quite so normal" use.
People don't just start a fresh install of a browser and open eight tabs, people have lots of bookmarks, passwords, saved forms in browsers and after a time, these affect the speed and performance of a browser.

A good tester should bookmark about 200 sites in various categories, save passwords for about 20-30 sites, have some forms saved, and then he should see how much latency browser has from the moment you start typing an URL in it's address bar and bringing URL's or suggestions from its separate SQLite databases that hold bookmarks and previously accessed websites history (it shouldn't matter but in reality users usually stop from typing when they see something changing on screen and check the url and suggestions and time is lost)

Also, in my case I work with various web apps that basically make me access hundreds of url's like site.com/page.php?id=[number] , so all these are saved in the history and after about a week, I basically have to clear the database because Firefox becomes too slow to load, it takes up to a second from the moment I start typing a website in the address bar and so on, I have to empty the history to make it work properly again...

I use Firefox and it's not perfect and not the fastest, but I still prefer it over Safari or Opera simply because of extensions like Firebug or Live HTTP Headers or even Screengrab, which make my life way easier.

Chrome memory? (1)

Stooshie (993666) | about 5 years ago | (#29339619)

Although Chrome appears to do badly on the memory tests, they fail to mention that it is, effectively, a black box, has it's own task manager and garbage collector. To some that may seem a waste, but it means that if a page/plugin crashes chrome, then only chrome is affected. Very useful!

My metricts.. (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | about 5 years ago | (#29339661)

Browser requirement checklist:
    * Comes with the distribution repositories and is stable, maintainable and patched
    * Has effective script control (white-listing, base-domain)
    * Has effective ad blocking capability
    * Does surf the web and performs adequately on my system

When the browsers have a check for all these features, than I will start to even consider these performance tests. Until then, there is not much choice except Firefox, ergo this is a complete waste of time.

/ 2ct

Re:My metricts.. (1)

stompertje (927012) | about 5 years ago | (#29339979)

Browser requirement checklist:
* Comes with the distribution repositories and is stable, maintainable and patched

How is it then, that everybody and their aunt complains about the fact that the Windows distributions have included a browser for ages? Aah, you mean because of the stable, maintainable and patched part of the requirement...

Google 3.0 (1)

erica_ann (910043) | about 5 years ago | (#29339731)

After reading this, I went to Chromes site and downloaded the latest BETA which installed and shows 3.0. If 3.0 is Beta now, where is 4.0 at? I have to admit I did see a major difference between 2.0 and 3.0

Memory hogs (2, Informative)

Theovon (109752) | about 5 years ago | (#29339893)

Firefox still has lots of problems. (For instance, preventing sleep on the Mac and using excessive CPU for completely idle tabs.) But the first reason I keep using it is memory. It uses less memory than any other browser for the same set of open tabs. Also, it has PROPER built-in crash protection and session restore. Safari doesn't unless you install Saft, and Saft costs money and keeps breaking every time Apple upgrades Safari.

Unscientific = useless. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#29339909)

'Like all our previous speed tests, this one is unscientific, [...]'

That's where I stopped reading TFS. Because it's now not only clear, but proven, that the whole point is, to pull out another "VS." story of useless dichotomy, to create page views.

Apropos: Who cares for some little speed difference? Any browser that hasn't got AdBlock, Greasemonkey, DownloadHelper, mouse gestures, TagSifter, (and for me FireBug and the Webdev toolbar), is not winning any contest anyway. ^^

Chrome dev version vs. FF/Opera release versions? (2, Insightful)

MikeUW (999162) | about 5 years ago | (#29339961)

I don't know about Opera, but as far as I am aware, FF has preview versions 4.0 already. So if we're going to be testing the not-even-beta version of Chrome, isn't it fair comparison to do the same with the other browsers? I realize that TFA has results for FF 3.5.99 and a beta of Opera, but these are relegated to a less prominent position in the results...in contrast, Chrome's 4.x dev version is highlighted with the 2.x version is being downplayed in the results, and no mention is made of the (perhaps more relevant) Chrome 3.x beta. Not that I really care, it just seems like a bit of favouritism is playing into the presentation of this analysis...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>