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!

IE9, FF4 Beta In Real-World Use Face-Off

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the it's-a-walk-off dept.

Firefox 358

An anonymous reader writes "Most browser benchmarks are isolated, artificial tests that can be gamed by browser vendors optimizing those specific cases. With only those benchmarks to go on, the folks at LucidChart were skeptical that the IE9 beta would actually outperform other modern browsers in real-world applications. To separate hype from reality, they built their first browser benchmarking tool, based in LucidChart itself. This benchmark is to SunSpider what a Left4Dead 2 benchmark is to 3Dmark Vantage. Product specs don't matter, only real-world performance on a real-world application. The results were surprising. IE9 held its own pretty well (with a few caveats), and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last."

cancel ×

358 comments

Too late for a film at 11 joke... (4, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617436)

Browser makers design for tests, real world data shows exact opposite results to what you expect. We've got a crew working on the story overnight and will have a full update for you on the weekend edition of Wicked Early News, we start before normal people wake up.

Re:Too late for a film at 11 joke... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617522)

Your comment doesn't really apply. Microsoft is the only company with enough balls to ignore certain aspects of Acid 3 that aren't official specifications of HTML/CSS/JS.

Re:Too late for a film at 11 joke... (5, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617896)

Actually, these results look very similar to the ones the WebKit guys (both chrome and safari teams) publish. They're almost always saying chrome and safari are similarly fast in the lead, firefox lags slightly, and IE8 is way slower... These are the same results as here. It just appears that IE9 is now added to the pile, and added at the top.

So what have we learned
1) Mozilla are good at lying about benchmarks (actually, we already knew that, they've been claiming the next big firefox release would be faster than everything for a while now)
2) IE9 is quick

The question is... is IE9 correct. I'll take works correctly but takes time over doin it rong quickly any day.

Fuck this shit (5, Interesting)

Massacrifice (249974) | more than 3 years ago | (#33618002)

Really, fuck it. I've had it with corporate-sponsored dick-fighting contest about which browser is the fastest. I really, really couldn't care any less. Features, openness, security, standards compliance, yeah. But If I want a fast app, I'll go native, thank you. Maybe I'm too old, but I've always thought HTML sucked as a programming paradigm. As an information distribution mechanism, sure. But for interactivity? Please. It's about time somebody called bullshit on this. Hell, a goddamn Visual Basic app from fifteen years ago kicked the butt of most modern web sites in usability, performance and ease of maintenance. The only thing that makes the web so attractive is the barrier to entry : free, nothing to install, immediate access to the average brains of millions. Just like TV. No thanks for dumbing it down to this. And now you wanna make it faster? Piss off. Go write real code that does something, not just another abstraction layer.

dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (3, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617446)

I'd like to see Chrome 7 results in there...

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617598)

Me too.

Its odd how both the summary above and the linked article sort of over look the fact that Chrome just blew the doors off of every other browser and the compared the production version to the latest and greatest of the others.

Chrome really deserves top billing, but the story is about the who is going to come in dead last.

Yawn.

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617804)

You mean like how they didn't test with Opera 10.70 beta? Or how they didn't even use the latest release version of 10.62?

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (2, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617846)

You mean like how they didn't test with Opera 10.70 beta? Or how they didn't even use the latest release version of 10.62?

That's not surprising - Opera hasn't caught on, and probably never will. You know the difference between Opera and technologies like Amiga and OS/2? Me, neither. "You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability." And lemme tell ya, being an Opera user doesn't make you Neo. *shrug*

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (1)

TheSeaCucumber (1866692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617870)

Look, apart from the fact that it was a little too heavy on my ram (FAR less than FF btw) Opera was ok, BUT i thought it was unfortunate that they filled it with superfluous crap. Like the massive toolbar on top, the animated tab switch thingo (which you could disable mind), and that annoying dialer thing. Seemed like they could have squeezed more horsepower out of getting rid of that.

Have to agree with Tumbleweed though, Opera is a decent browser, but compared to IE's default shipping, Firefox's pseudointellectual fanboy support and Chrome lurking in the shadows with its high speed appeal, it just doesn't have anything really distinct you know?

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617904)

They forever screwed themselves because they used to charge people to use it. When there's a ton of competition, and it's free? Yeah.

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (4, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617922)

They forever screwed themselves because they used to charge people to use it. When there's a ton of competition, and it's free? Yeah.

So did Netscape, which eventually turned into Firefox. I don't think that has anything to do with it. Opera has great technology, and no understanding of what most users want in a (default) user interface. They also seem to have no clue that most users never change default settings, so it doesn't matter how configurable it is.

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617850)

Modern browsers are so fast that the difference is miniscule. If you're looking at using IE6 or using Chrome, then obviously Chrome needs to be praised. If you're comparing several browsers that are all fast enough that there's no strong difference between them in real world use, then mocking the loser is just more fun :D

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617890)

Fast enough unless you need to work a major portion of your day using one. Then you find out there are significant and meaningful differences in speed that affect your ability to get things done.

Fast enough for someone who checks in once a day to look at email is easy.

Browser? For email? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617982)

Fast enough for someone who checks in once a day to look at email is easy.

Whoever looks at email with his/her browser deserves whatever they get.

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (3, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617998)

Absolutely. I find it humorous how I will occasionally hear coworkers cursing:

1) The speed of their browsers. "Render, god damn it!" echos down the halls.
2) The ability to quickly switch tasks/tabs within the browser (ie responsiveness vs. speed). "Fucking flash!"
3) The stability of the browser. I don't really care so much if a single tab crashes; I'll just reload it. Someone with 40+ tabs in firefox, however, is stuck waiting a minute or so while whatever they were doing crawls back from the dead. (Users who don't have session management in their browser are even less fortunate.)

Meanwhile, I sit there contentedly working away, not distracted by such things, due to using Chrome and a lightweight window manager on Linux. I only start noticing a slow down when I'm being inefficient, anyway - IE, doing too much at once, getting distracted, and not getting anything done.

Of course, the slow users don't complain all that much, either. Seems they can't quite keep up with much of anything. :P

A little speed in the right places makes a huge difference.

Re:dev IE9 and dev FF vs release Chrome? (1)

TheSeaCucumber (1866692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617844)

Beat me to it. Personally, I think FF is almost as bloated as IE. I think the only good, usable part of FF is the extension support. In the end, Chrome beats them all in speed _and_ speed, yet we only ever hear about how FF just managed to beat IE or the other way around.

REAL MEN USE WEBKIT DAMMIT!! =P

Real test? (5, Funny)

haystor (102186) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617450)

Unless the test contains porn and all the accompanying popups, it's not a real world test.

Re:Real test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617556)

You have the idea.

Re:Real test? (4, Funny)

gerardrj (207690) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617694)

Isn't a popup the point of porn?

oh, come on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617456)

to be honest, firefox, the darling of the FOSS movement is starting to get a little tiring.

it is lagging wayyyy behind...and it's a pain in the ass to manage in fleets. honestly, there is no point to installing it in the enterprise anymore.

the old argument...unpatched days, well who gives a fuck. if users run unprivileged, firefox can't update anyway (and don't tell me to make the directory writable, what about registry edits?)

it's just worth it anymore.

Re:oh, come on. (3, Interesting)

Potor (658520) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617468)

I must say that I have pretty much totally switched to Chrome. FF 3 and 4 are really dragging my system down, and often fail to load sites I depend on (gmail passwords are now randomly rejected in FF, but work in any other browser).

Re:oh, come on. (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617658)

Same here. I can't completely ditch FF, though, since it has all my webcomic RSS feeds set up just so, and Chrome doesn't do Live Bookmarks. And trying to recreate that list in another RSS reader would take days.

Re:oh, come on. (5, Interesting)

feepness (543479) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617712)

(gmail passwords are now randomly rejected in FF, but work in any other browser).

Yeah, that would be the phishing malware screwing with you.

Re:oh, come on. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617726)

FF 3 and 4 are really dragging my system down, and often fail to load sites I depend on (gmail passwords are now randomly rejected in FF, but work in any other browser).

You've fucked up your installation somehow. That ain't the default behavior, if it were even close to the default behavior it would be all over the news.

Re:oh, come on. (1)

TheSeaCucumber (1866692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617906)

Let me assure you, the bloat is inbred, default, ingrained and well-integrated into FF. That being said, the extension support is good. Oh, and the speed does actually have a bearing in that FF doesn't flush its cache terribly often. For windows this is fine, but on linux where a system could be up for weeks, it can get annoying closing and re-opening so many tabs. Browsing the internet almost exclusively from within a virtual machine, really eccentuates the effects of a bloated browser, particularly with the limited ram issue.
Chrome has beautiful WebKit integration, and suffers none of the shortfalls of Midori :D

Re:oh, come on. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617494)

what about registry edits?

Portable Firefox?

Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617508)

from Linux this month after using Linux since 1993, I think this applies to all of FOSS.

Somehwere around 2000-2006 FOSS was basically head-and-head with commercial software in practical usability and maintainability, with its own distinct advantages and a relatively small learning curve.

Then there was this veer into "if you ever want all the Windows users to switch..." thinking, and in an effort to eliminate the learning curve FOSS threw away pretty much all of its advantages as well. If FOSS is just Windows/Mac OS/IE by another name, why choose FOSS?

Particularly when Windows/Mac OS/IE win on the polish, compatibility, and accessibility fronts by virtue of their being cathedral-built software?

With Firefox slow and cumbersome, Thunderbird choking on Gmail IMAP continuously while Apple's Mail.app sails along happily, and KDE4/GNOME3 being emblematic of the many ways in which FOSS has lost its way, I just decided I'd had enough of the nonsense. I'm ready to be able to walk into Best Buy, purchase any device, and expect that it will work seamlessly with the current generation of computing devices, without options, without Bugzilla (and condescendingly dismissive developer retorts), and without lots of consulting Google to find out how the gconf infrastructure has changed in the last two years or how HAL has been replaced by DeviceKit or policies moved from /etc tree A to uneditable dynamic filesystem B (but just use this easy command line management tool to set options...)

It just plain saves me a boatload of time and headache to use something else, like OS X plus Google apps plus Chrome. The pending desktopization of FOSS has fizzled thanks to the politics of the bazaar.

Re:Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617554)

Hear, hear. I'm right there with you.

As an example along similar lines, a user at my office reported a bug in Thunderbird to me. I tested and found it was definitely a Thunderbird bug. I made a test case file and submitted it to Bugzilla. A few days later my reported bug is deleted, to be merged with the same bug report from *2005*

Nobody who works on Thunderbird felt like working on the bug. It's not a sexy bug, probably doesn't hit too many people, and has work arounds...so it's stayed in the software for ~6 years.

And yeah I know, I should go in and fix it myself. Maybe one day I will. In the meanwhile I'll keep using Mail.app and I'll move more users over to new versions of Outlook that actually seem somewhat decent, and we'll go from there.

Is there any quality email app for Windows??

Re:Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617742)

Let me see if I understand your complaint - a rare bug with workarounds is given extremely low priority and that's indicative of a general problem with FOSS software? What do you propose as a change to the FOSS model of development to improve the engineering?

Re:Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617866)

Pegasus Mail

Re:Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (3, Interesting)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617892)

submitted it to Bugzilla

Test case + bug #, or it didn't happen.

Okay, so it's entirely possible that you ran across a bug, but absent us actually looking at the particular bug and seeing how relevant it is to how many users, it's hard for us to judge how "fair" it was for the bug to have existed but not been fixed since 2005.

Or are you going to tell us that every bug found in Mail.app since 2005 has been fixed? (if Apple even has a public bug tracker and never redacts it...)

Re:Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (5, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617944)

I made a test case file and submitted it to Bugzilla. A few days later my reported bug is deleted, to be merged with the same bug report from *2005*

Nobody who works on Thunderbird felt like working on the bug. It's not a sexy bug, probably doesn't hit too many people, and has work arounds...so it's stayed in the software for ~6 years.

And yeah I know, I should go in and fix it myself. Maybe one day I will. In the meanwhile I'll keep using Mail.app and I'll move more users over to new versions of Outlook that actually seem somewhat decent, and we'll go from there.

How have Apple and Microsoft handled your bug reports for Mail.app and Outlook? Did the handle them like Mozilla, where you enter the bug directly in their internal bug databases, monitor the progress, participate in discussions with the developers, and even contribute development yourself? Or do you have no idea what the status is, no influence on the outcome, and no ability to contribute at all? Were the bugs even submitted to development? Were you able to find a way to submit them to Apple and Microsoft at all -- could you communicate with anyone beyond level 1 end user support technicians?

Every application has bugs as old as its first release-- have you seen the age of some Windows security vulnerabilities, going back over a decade? -- and your particular concern won't necessarily get fixed. But if you compare the experience of handling end user bugs at Mozilla with the same thing at Apple or Microsoft, well, there really is no comparison.

Re:Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617994)

Outlook.. pretty much all versions including the Expresses, all have issues.. some that have not been fixed.. Do a Google search for "Outlook will not save my password" .. Don't know about "quality" but as far as least number of support calls, actually that would be Windows Mail, or Windows Live mail.. I absolutely hate Outlook calls.., because although it should be a simple matter of filling in the boxes, and checking the right check boxes, it rarely turns out that simple.

Re:Speaking as someone that switched to OS X (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617824)

You are just getting old. There are distros that do the same as 5 years ago, you just don't care about "freedom" anymore, not now that you can afford a Mac.

Linux on the desktop is farther than ever after selling its soul to proprietary software.
A regular user doesn't use Linux without nVidia, Adobe and a DVD player. They are encouraged to do so as well. They grow in an environment where using proprietary software is acceptable and the only reason to use a free alternative is that it costs nothing.

Old corrupted people like you will assert that using the shortcuts allows for more free software to be used, but the fact is like you people will leave the boat after justifying that they can also use free software on MacOS X or Windows 7. An Ubuntu memory space is mostly filled with proprietary crap anyways.

Switching to Mac only highlights your elitism as the reason to use Linux in the first place. Anyone with any technical knowledge would know that Windows 7 is the best OS hands down, both in technology and in features. If I was to sell my soul to the devil I would certainly buy a Windows 7 machine. The only thing worth MacOS has is Objective-C.

4th post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617458)

from ff beta 6 of course

Re:4th post (2, Interesting)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617474)

I've had the prebeta for 7 for awhile, and it scored over twice as well as 6 did on Kraken. I would have liked to see them test that, especially since 6 did a little worse than 5 did for me.

Re:4th post (2, Interesting)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617520)

Yeah, I just ran the test myself, and I went from: FF4b6: Average FPS: 14.388 JS Time: 10.667ms Frame T: 57.500ms FF4b7pre: Average FPS: 24.841 JS Time: 1.683ms Frame T: 38.568ms This is on a 5 year old HP prebuilt (Core2Duo @ 1.86 Ghz, 2 GB DDR2-533, etc.)

Maybe time to move to Chrome? (2, Interesting)

Shyfer (1875644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617462)

I have been thinking about using Chrome for some time, it seems faster and already has a respectable community around it. But I also would like to avoid google stuff and I'm already used to Firefox, not sure if it is worth the trouble.... Any opinions?

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (4, Informative)

FutureDomain (1073116) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617506)

Try one of the Chrome forks, such as ChromePlus, SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon, or a pure Chromium build. They're just like Chrome, but without the questionable Client-ID and RLZ modules that Google put in Chrome. I typically use ChromePlus since it has several features that I like builtin, but I've been trying the IE 9 beta and I like that as well. It's faster than Firefox in my opinion and I absolutely love the UI layout.

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (1)

Shyfer (1875644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617562)

Will google some Chrome forks (I should stop using google...) and see how good they are. IE 9 is not an option, closed source, no linux support, no portable version, etc.

From your experience, what is the best Chorme fork? They work with Chrome extensions without problems?

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (3, Informative)

oddfox (685475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617966)

SRWare Iron was created for the sole purpose of earning the "creator" some money on ad revenue. To borrow from my previous post on the subject:

Everyone mentioning SRWare Iron should know about this little tidbit: The story of Iron [neugierig.org] . The article and the linked IRC log [neugierig.org] tell a very interesting story about a guy less concerned with having a good reason to fork and more concerned with making money off of adsense and publicity for creating a "privacy-respecting" Chrome which is basically a perpetually outdated Chromium with a few checkboxes in "Under the Hood" defaulting to off.

The guy who runs that blog does not try to hide the fact that he's a Chrome developer, and he admits that there is the highly unlikely possibility that the person who was asking these questions was not the person who went on to release Iron. I was skeptical as well until I checked out the log file itself and quite honestly it would have to be an incredible coincidence for this guy to be asking such questions and providing the information that he does in his attempts to glean information on the right way to advertise his product as well as how to go about renaming the executable. There's more that makes it very reasonable to believe this is the guy who went on to release Iron, so please don't dismiss it until you've checked out the log file in detail. If this was a supremely unnecessary and elaborate hoax it sure is pulled off convincingly.

Using Iron after reading this information made me feel like I was supporting the wrong guy here and I couldn't do it anymore, it was just too uncomfortable seeing that this guy was looking for adsense revenue and to make a name for himself. The attitude of this developer is not one I would encourage at all.

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617524)

Chrome is open source, and you're not alone in not wanting it to talk to google. So as you might expect, there are several derivatives that strip out the google-centric stuff. The first one that comes to mind is Iron.

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (2, Informative)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617532)

If you're concerned about Google eavesdropping on your browsing habits, you might try the SRWare Iron [srware.net] browser instead. It's Chrome minus the snooping built-ins [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617912)

If you're concerned about Google eavesdropping on your browsing habits, you might try the SRWare Iron [srware.net] browser instead. It's Chrome minus the snooping built-ins [wikipedia.org] .

Why would you trust the SRWare people more than Google? Or at all for that matter?

If you get Chromium from say a trustworthy distro, I would rely on that. Or if I compiled it myself. But who exactly are SRWare?

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617536)

Try it, seriously you won't go back.

Chrome now has many extensions including some great adblocking extensions.

If you are paranoid about Google, SRWare Iron is Chromium without all the privacy implications.

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (1)

Shyfer (1875644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617586)

Oh, also does Chrome and its forks work nicely with linux? I plan moving to linux soon and want to avoid future problems.
And how customizable is it without messing with the source? Does it have decent extensions? And I heard somewhere that now Chrome has native flash support... Is this right? Can it be completly disabled?

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617610)

Switch. It is faster and more stable. When flash goes crazy, Chrome kills just flash without the whole browser dying. It is a better experience in every way.

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (1)

Shyfer (1875644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617648)

Wow, so many people saying that Chrome is so much better that I might use it this week to see how good it is.

Re:Maybe time to move to Chrome? (3, Informative)

rmcd (53236) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617696)

I use Ubuntu 10.04. I have mostly switched to chrome (not completely; there are still sites that don't work properly with it). My problem with firefox was memory usage. I tend to have *lots* of tabs open and I often don't reboot for weeks. Firefox memory usage creeps up over time and my laptop slows. I keep reading that this is no longer supposed to happen, but it happens to me. Chrome with a comparable number of open tabs does not slow everything else down.

If Firefox were better behaved I would stick with Firefox.

no sir, i didn't like it. (5, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617476)

No native Gopher support?

From my cold, dead hands!

About that link (0, Flamebait)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617582)

Your country functions by having a huge cheap workforce of illegal immigrants so of course nobody in Federal Government is really going to do anything to stop that - not Democrat and not Republican. Also whoever wrote that stuff needs to learn how to use English and what a dictionary is for - "communist" means something completely different instead of just being a generic swear word.

Re:About that link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617600)

Your country functions by having a huge cheap workforce of illegal immigrants so of course nobody in Federal Government is really going to do anything to stop that - not Democrat and not Republican. Also whoever wrote that stuff needs to learn how to use English and what a dictionary is for - "communist" means something completely different instead of just being a generic swear word.

?

Re:About that link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617640)

?

I know, right?

Re:About that link (-1, Offtopic)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617684)

Oh yeah, that. It's not my blog.

However, anyone who think it is okay to take property from group A and give it to group B is a communist. You can't take it from group A unless you believe property is yours to take.... held in common.

And to be honest, quite a few of Obamas appointees and czars are self-described communists.

Re:About that link (1, Offtopic)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617756)

Well lets talk about my country for a minute. 200 years ago group A (the English) were over here taking property from group B (the Aboriginals). I don't think that was communism. And now that some members of group C (descended from group A) want to give some property back to group B, I don't that that is communist either.

Re:About that link (-1, Offtopic)

ryanov (193048) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617826)

To be honest, but also full of shit at the same time.

Name one appointee who's a "self-described communist." No, reading a pamphlet or writing a paper 20 years doesn't count.

Secondly, who gives a shit? Is this seriously stuff we need to be worrying about anymore? The red scare was nonsense even when it was happening.

Re:About that link (-1, Offtopic)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617862)

A millionaire slum landlord is a communist? As I said, dictionary time.

Re:About that link (0, Offtopic)

wavedeform (561378) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617868)

But if you take property from group A and keep it, you're either a capitalist or a thief, depending on your PR person and/or lawyer.

Frames per Second? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617504)

Frames per second seems like pretty much the opposite of "real-world" for how 99% of users use their browsers.

Re:Frames per Second? (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617842)

and it looks like Chrome was the only browser not syncing to screen refresh

When do you declare a browser dead? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617510)

Can we stop including Opera in browser statistics? It has hung in that 1-2% usage range for years. Its claim to fame? tabs? speed? gestures? Nothing unique anymore. It's not open, it's not fast, it's not growing, it's not really used.

It's dead Jim.

Yes, I know, Linux has a low market share as well. It has a real niche though.

Re:When do you declare a browser dead? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617534)

Netcraft has to confirm it first.

Re:When do you declare a browser dead? (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617716)

Firstly, the only thing including more samples in a test does is give you clearer results. It doesn't cost the tester that much time or money to simply run a web browser.

Furthermore, even if someone were to accept your claims and assertions, the matter is simply that the selection of browsers in the article covers all the actively developed rendering engines currently in use. No one would argue to include Seamonkey, Flock, or Galeon, even if they had a higher usage share than Opera, since Firefox already represents Gecko.

If anything, Safari or Chrome should be dropped, since they are both based on Webkit.

Re:When do you declare a browser dead? (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617738)

The thing with "real-life" benchmarks is that "based on Webkit" only gets you so far. Safari and Chrome use totally different JavaScript engines, for example. They use totally different drawing libraries. Heck, Chrome on Windows uses totally different drawing library than Chrome on Mac (which makes a difference in "real-life" benchmarks, since drawing is anywhere from 30% to 80% of the total benchmark time).

The less synthetic the benchmark the more silly details (exact browser, not just rendering engine, exact graphics driver version, exact Xorg version on Linux, exact graphics hardware, etc) start to matter...

Mozilla needs to get Jamie Zawinski back... (1)

slyborg (524607) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617512)

...to ragequit again.

"Real World"? (4, Insightful)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617516)

I'm not sure what is "real world" about spinning a UML box around another UML box in a giant (presumably) canvas-based javascript app.

For me, "real-world" means: is gmail fast enough? is opening a new tab fast? is image rendering fast enough? is html video fast enough? is the occasional embellished html5 animation fast enough? is typing into the address bar fast enough?

I'm sure their diagramming app is cool and everything, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone use anything like it, so I'm not sure what is "real world" about using it for a benchmark.

They even said that they altered the test in the middle to fix IE's performance problem. Come on.

Re:"Real World"? (2, Insightful)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617642)

For me, "real-world" means: is gmail fast enough? is opening a new tab fast? is image rendering fast enough? is html video fast enough? is the occasional embellished html5 animation fast enough? is typing into the address bar fast enough?.

I use gmail in basic HTML mode. It takes away some of the things I never use and, in my opinion looks much cooler (none of that modern looking nonsense). I also barely ever type into the address bar.

Re:"Real World"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617992)

Gmail is an example of a "nearly everything is javascript" type of an app. More and more, people are adhering to such a philosophy, similar kind of application development is gaining lot more traction. This has had some interesting effects for e.g. people have started building things like Aves Game Engine [dextrose.com] . Going forward, being performant/efficient in areas such as rendering might become crucial.

I guess what I am trying to say is "This may not be the real world of today, but it could be the real world of tomorrow". Does it justify the tests as being critical at this point? Meh, no! All it says right now, is chrome can do some shit better than firefox, but in my opinion firefox still has time and dedicated userbase to play catch up (or move beyond). Hopefully, it wont end up being our next IE.

Translated from Redmondese this means... (0, Flamebait)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617518)

... it took Microsoft to finally produce a web browser that performs as well as other browsers were doing in their previous generations, and meanwhile the one they actually have in production (IE8) sucks eggs. So what else is new? Have they got a modern filesystem yet?

Re:Translated from Redmondese this means... (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617540)

Er, correction: "it took Microsoft this long to..."

Re:Translated from Redmondese this means... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617566)

Too busy spreading anti-MS FUD to proof read? You suck an ass. LOLZ!!!!!

Re:Translated from Redmondese this means... (2, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617930)

What features do you think needed to be added to NTFS to make it a modern file system?

Ugh, poor benchmarking (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617542)

Firefox 4 beta 6 doesn't have the new JavaScript engine in it. Beta 7 will have it. But there's no particular need to wait for beta 7 as they could benchmark a nightly now. They also don't mention what kind of video card they've got in that laptop. IE9 and Firefox 4 can take better advantage of a good video card on Windows 7 than the other browsers tested and that may significantly influence a charting benchmark like this one.

Figure of Speech (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617546)

I love how a difference of a few milliseconds (looks to be 5ms) means a browser "tanks" and its position, when compared to other browsers, can be described as "dead last." Oh no, we're not painting a bias picture here.

Not Surprising (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617548)

The results were surprising. IE9 held its own pretty well (with a few caveats), and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last.

No. Not surprising at all... but I still prefer Firefox for everyday use.

How comprehensive ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617570)

It's a beta. Don't waste your breath.
Also, 2 charts?

jaegermonkey (2, Informative)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617576)

I'd be much more interested to see it being done with the builds of FF 4 that have jaegermonkey enabled. Though that should be merged into the main branch fairly soon with any luck.

http://www.conceivablytech.com/2673/products/first-look-firefox-4-jaegermonkey/ [conceivablytech.com]

Re:jaegermonkey (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617622)

It has been, already. Trunk builds of Firefox have it, as will Firefox 4 beta 7.

Broken time measurements of the inter-frame time (5, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617588)

The way this benchmark measures "intra-frame time" is broken. In particular, it uses a setInterval with a 1ms delay. No browser actually respects that 1ms. Chrome clamps it to 5ms; others clamp it to 10ms, all to avoid the website thrashing the CPU pointlessly.

The upshot is that Chrome's interframe delay in the graph is about 5ms and Firefox 3.6's interframe delay is aboug 10ms. Which this particular benchmark can't tell apart from "no delay at all", given its methodology.

Firefox 4 beta, IE9 beta, Safari, and Opera seem to have delays greater than 10ms, so they're clearly doing some work they can't finish in 10ms.... or have slightly buggy timer implementations. Or both.

Of course in practice frame rates above 60fps or so are pointless since the screen doesn't redraw that often. ;)

On the other hand, on Mac, on modern hardware, I get 4.5fps in Chrome 7 dev on a random trial document I just tried, with JS render tiems on the order of 7ms (with a 7ms standard deviation) and "intra-frame time" of 224ms with a 900ms standard deviation (yes, those numbers are nuts). Firefox 4 beta comes in at about 11s for the JS (with 3ms stddev) and 125ms for the "intra-frame time" (with a claimed stddev of 0, which looks really suspicious).

It'd be nice if there were non-obfuscated source for this benchmark so its number-crunching could be evaluated; that 0 stddev is ... highly improbable.

Bullshit Slashvertisment (5, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617616)

This benchmark can be run by anyone in LucidChart. First, sign up for a free account here.

Nuff said

Re:Bullshit Slashvertisment (1)

inflex (123318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617784)

Agree++

Always makes me wonder how these people manage to push the 'articles' through when you see a lot of other vastly more decent articles get voted down on the Firehose.

Useless (0)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617632)

I think if it were truly a test of "real world" use, they would find that all of the browsers have the same performance level and none of this matters.

Odd definition of "dead last." (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617644)

TFA (yes, I actually read it) says: "Firefox 4.0 Beta 6 came in behind all other browsers except for IE8". That's quite different from "dead last".

Re:Odd definition of "dead last." (1)

Vandilizer (201798) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617744)

Well they were comparing modern browsers and I don't know any one who considers IE8 in that category.... Personaly I think it was there just to show how much the IE team has really improved performance, to be homiest I am impressed. As for beating chrome, just keep in mind that you are going up against a bunch of PHD's who probably work on it for fun...

Re:Odd definition of "dead last." (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617758)

Not really. Come on... IE8 is paleolithic technology.

Re:Odd definition of "dead last." (2, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617810)

IE8 counted as "braindead last"... so the next place was that one for FF4

FF (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617662)

"and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last."

Probably because they screwed around with the interface and nobody could figure out how to fucking use it.

GPU acceleration (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617782)

Now, will IE9 scale with a faster GPU? I'd like to see some benchmarks with different video cards.

Who cares? (5, Interesting)

Goonie (8651) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617792)

I use Firefox and IE regularly, have played with Chrome, and occasionally use Safari on the Macs at work.

I honestly can't notice any difference between any of them in rendering speed.

99.99% of the time, web browsing performance is network-limited anyway.

Surely standards support and browser stability are more important features, at least on platforms with more grunt than an iphone?

Why take a 6 month old built of opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617798)

He seem to have used the most recent build of all browser, but he uses a 6 month old built of Opera when 10.62 was release just a couple of weeks ago.
Doesn't seem fair to me.

But then again maybe he just didn't want Opera to best the fastest

Intel Graphics? (1)

vandan (151516) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617864)

The story doesn't mention the GPU in use, but it does mention it's an i7 processor. So I assume it's using an i965-class GPU. These aren't exactly known for speed or stability on linux. I believe FF4 uses Cairo, which in turn uses XRender, and my experience with integrated Intel GPUs and XRender is that pure software ( ie X on FBDev ) is faster. I would have liked to have seen a system used which could actually accelerate the drawing operations.

Chrome: Very Beta (0, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617872)

I read the article. I thought, "Hey, I should try Chrome". I try to install. I get "unknown installer error".

Color me impressed.

Re:Chrome: Very Beta (2, Informative)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617934)

I'm impressed with your ability to get an unknown error installing something that hundreds of thousands of people can install with no problem.

Not Surprising (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617882)

The results were surprising. IE9 held its own pretty well (with a few caveats), and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last."

Why is this surprising? Firefox has been the slowest of the current crop of browsers (IE8 excepted) for quite a while now.

FF4 was not dead last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617888)

According to TFA, FF4 was not "dead last", IE8 was. From thier charts, IE8 was far inferior to all the other browsers. Of course, you might be able to argue that IE9 is the new IE, so that wouldn't be fair, but IE8 is still the one being used. If you want to use the latest browser, what about the FF nightly builds? Once again, even with a bias, MS products don't beat the free ones.

Re:FF4 was not dead last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33617950)

They tested Firefox 4 Beta 6. That came out one day earlier than the IE9 Beta. That's not a bias, that's fairer than you can usually expect. The stars have to align for such fairness. Nightly builds are generally poor comparisons except when under lockdown in the runup toward release, but here, we don't have to when comparing Firefox to IE9.

In fact, it's that Beta of Firefox that lost the comparison, not the "old" version.

Lag and latency (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617948)

And once again I see no mention of lag or latency behind everyday controls, one of the real factors which affect a user's perception of speed and responsiveness. The kind which gets them to say, "It feels faster, but I don't know how". I'm talking about switching between tabs, closing tabs, clicking the browser's back or forward button, and general UI navigation. You want hundredths of a second or less for these kind of actions.

useless benchmark, horrible summary (5, Interesting)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617952)

I'm not sure how they get off calling this a "real world benchmark", as it seems to bear almost no resemblance to what people normally use web browsers for: "The benchmark works by simply dragging a part of the diagram around the page for five seconds." WTF?

It certainly doesn't seem to be any more useful than the other browser benchmark being touted these days, and arguably it's much less useful, because it measures a single very narrow aspect of browser operation, one which has little connection with typical browser usage.

Moreover, the slashdot summary seems to go to great lengths to emphasize how "badly" FF4 did on this (useless, remember) benchmark, and to pump up IE9: "The results were surprising. IE9 held its own pretty well (with a few caveats), and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last" -- but if you actually look at the results that emphasis is misplaced: almost all the browsers were quite close to each other, with a few outliers, but in no cases was FF4 an outlier, and indeed was pretty much identical to IE9 (on this test).

The only clear result I can see is: When doing a certain very specific type of javascript rendering, most modern browsers have pretty much identical performance, though chrome's particularly fast, and IE8 particularly slow.

Of course, that isn't very interesting to anybody except LucidChart users, of course, nor very likely to generate any controversy...

Test is pointless (1)

Trerro (711448) | more than 3 years ago | (#33617956)

Chrome is faster because it massively favors speed over customization and features. FF is slower because it favors customization, and assumes, correctly, that no one actually actually gives a flying fark if it needs slightly more than a 1/50th of a second to render a page that Chrome can do in 1/100th of a second. This isn't a problem, nor is it news. Now of course, you may do the occasional task where those milliseconds actually matter because your browser is processing something enormous, but then just install both browsers, use Chrome in those rare instances, and use FF for a primary browser.

Frame rate isn't really an issue either. You can point out that the human eye sees at roughly 60 FPS, so going under 60 is undesired, but let's be realistic. Those Flash games are usually built at 20-25 FPS, because running at 60 would make them freaking huge. Video on the web likewise runs at 60 FPS roughly never, because it needs to stream. Downloaded video WILL run at 60, but your browser isn't playing that.

This doesn't mean there isn't a couple of very specific tasks that FF is abnormally slow at and could use a code cleanup on, but for the most part, FF's speed difference vs. Chrome is utterly negligible in actual use.

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...