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!

How Do Browsers Scale?

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the depends-where-you-drag-your-mouse dept.

Firefox 141

An anonymous reader writes "Benchmarking browsers is a somewhat silly exercise, since scores cannot be replicated on a variety of hardware, and it is not uncommon for even the same system to fail to replicate benchmarks scores, especially in JavaScript tests in two succeeding runs. The guys over at ConceivablyTech have an interesting approach, running browsers through multiple tests on different sets of hardware (including an Android smartphone), and showing the scaling differences between browsers when you are using a dual-core netbook on the low-end and a six-core desktop on the high-end. They also tested HTML5 on Firefox mobile and found the browser has better HTML5 support than the current Firefox 4 Beta 6."

cancel ×

141 comments

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

SLOW AND HEAVY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920648)

All browsers are slow, and heavy!

Re:SLOW AND HEAVY (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920656)

just like americunts.

Lynx (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 4 years ago | (#33922022)

Lynx is rather nimble!

Re:SLOW AND HEAVY (2, Funny)

psergiu (67614) | about 4 years ago | (#33922098)

There's that word again; "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?

(Dr. Emmett Brown, Back to the Future part 1)

Bring Firefox 4 already (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920666)

It's in dire need of being able to do HTML5 uploads like Safari and Chrome. Opera is also trailing behind on this matter.

As for IE.... fuck IE.

Re:Bring Firefox 4 already (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 4 years ago | (#33921422)

Hey, look what happened when they released FF14 before it was ready...

1 word: TRAINWRECK.

Re:Bring Firefox 4 already (1)

EricX2 (670266) | about 4 years ago | (#33921448)

Firefox 14? Do you mean Firefox 1.4? I don't even remember that version.

Re:Bring Firefox 4 already (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 4 years ago | (#33921704)

Final Fantasy...

Fast enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920676)

They scale fast enough for me, except for IE on JavaScript heavy sites. Once you hit a particular point, does it matter? OK, it matters in a "cycles spared cause your chips to run cooler, not saving you much but better for the planet" sort of way.

Am I missing something, or are people firing up 1000 browsers and running from screen-to-screen.

Re:Fast enough (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33920752)

Actually the whole "scaling" measurement is pretty much a bogus issue, because at any one time you have the machine you have.

You can easily get another browser but you can't quickly or cheaply run out and get a different computer just to obtain more cores.

Further, the results are bogus (by their own omission) because the one browser that should make the best use of multiple cores (Chrome) was not able to do so because of a flaw in the benchmark in use. When the tool is broken, what is the point of publishing results?

Re:Fast enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33921482)

Further, the results are bogus (by their own omission) because the one browser that should make the best use of multiple cores (Chrome) was not able to do so because of a flaw in the benchmark in use. When the tool is broken, what is the point of publishing results?

"due to coding flaw in the Sunspider benchmark that holds back the processing horsepower of the Phenom II X6 processor in general."

Article is incredibly weak on details, but I don't see any reasonable explanation for why Firefox and Safari can scale linearly while Chrome doesn't. It's probably more to do with V8 not being a multithreaded JavaScript interpreter... it can only be interrupted at certain points (method calls, ?) and only cooperatively, so each Chrome 'tab process' can only run JavaScript in one core. With enough tabs open, you can get a situation where multiple pages are running in the same process and their JavaScript fights over one core instead of running simultaneously on separate cores.

Re:Fast enough (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | about 4 years ago | (#33921976)

the one browser that should make the best use of multiple cores (Chrome)

Since you said "should", I have to say that other browsers should also be able to do that using multi-threading, assuming your reason is because of Chrome's multi-process approach.

Dual core netbook is low-end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920684)

Sheesh, kids these days with their dual cores and 4 gig of RAM. In my day, low-end was an 8080 w/ 512k.

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 4 years ago | (#33920832)

Dual core netbook is low-end?

I was surprised by that, too. Dual-Core is my high end, with a PIII on the low end.

Chromium > Minefield on that system, btw.

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (5, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | about 4 years ago | (#33920872)

I was surprised by that, too. Dual-Core is my high end, with a PIII on the low end.

Cool. So what's the weather like in Uganda, this time of year?

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (3, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33920954)

Wet with a chance of noisy lines & 24k dialup.

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 4 years ago | (#33921010)

Dunno. But central California is in the 90's.

The PIII has a longer battery life than the dual-core laptop, and much longer than the desktop. ;-)

Otherwise, it'd be in the garage next to the Apple II

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33921322)

You must have a really shitty dual core laptop then.

My C2D laptop has better battery life than my old P3 laptop ever did, by about a full hour.

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (1)

froggymana (1896008) | about 4 years ago | (#33922140)

Bah! just you wait till I get my UPS fitted into my back pack, along with my desktop and then a tray kind of like thing for my monitor, keyboard and mouse. Oh wait... you would still beat me in battery life... but mine would some much more awesome!

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (0, Redundant)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33922688)

"Cool"?...simply normal. And no reason for jokes.

There's a lot of perfectly fine older machines out there, making sure how well the browsers "scale down" would be much more worthwhile than swapping one fast setup for another ridiculously fast setup, with a few more factors than claimed "number of cores" and comparing each browser only to itself.

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#33922700)

I hate to break the news to you, but working PC repair I can tell you the average person's desktop is NOT a dual core, but a late model P4 running XP. Why? Because as the PC manufacturers are finding out for the things that most folks do on a PC...going to FB, playing flash games, watching Youtube, etc, a 2.6GHz P4 is spending most of its time twiddling its thumbs. Just add a cheap $30 RAM stick and it'll keep right on purring. Hell the PC I'm typing this on is a circa 2003 1.8GHz Sempron, and for the above tasks it is quite nice, whisper quiet and doesn't heat up my apt like when I'm slamming the quad. And for the above tasks frankly a quad core doesn't really change anything, not enough to notice.

Personally I think this is a failure in the software developers of late. Back in the day developers knew machines weren't getting changed out every year, so they wrote their code to be light and responsive. Now I guess the software developers are sitting there with huge piles of RAM and multicores out the butt and just not bothering with lean or fast anymore, instead falling for the age old "throw moar power at it!" meme. I was kinda hoping when netbooks came out they would change their ways, sadly not.

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 4 years ago | (#33921370)

Yup, I need to know how they perform on a dual hexacore Gulftown!
Heh. But seriously, logging into one of the lab machines makes the dual core laptop feel slooow.

Re:Dual core netbook is low-end? (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | about 4 years ago | (#33922202)

Well there's dual core, then there's dual core. A regular "pentium" dual core is pretty low end, then there's dual core Atom chips, Core2 Duo, i3, i5 and i7 dual core processors. A Core i7 620M is not the same as an Atom dual core processor, but both are dual core. The number of cores is not, by itself, a good measure of cost or performance at least as far as the dual core processors go.

Fx 4 beta 6 is months old now (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920696)

Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across cores (3, Informative)

PatPending (953482) | about 4 years ago | (#33920698)

Rather than read a three page comparison, here's the conclusion:

Firefox 3.6 scales best across cores

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33920768)

Nope.

The only takeaway you need is:

Chrome 8 had the smallest gain, which, however is due to coding flaw in the Sunspider benchmark that holds back the processing horsepower of the Phenom II X6 processor in general.

Translation: Our results are totally bogus because our tool was broken but rather than fix that, we are just going to shovel these results out there anyway.

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33920910)

Nope. The only takeaway you need is:

Nothing is as fast as Links.

-and-
Chrome v. Firefox Browser fanboys today are as silly as Atari v. Commodore fanboys back-in-the-day.

-and-
I like Netscape/seaMonkey. :-)

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (-1, Troll)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33920952)

Links?

Did you mean http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser) [wikipedia.org]

Seriously, if you are going to start your argument frofrom there I see no point in continuing, since you seem trapped in the prior century.

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33921036)

No, Links [jikos.cz] .

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (1)

psergiu (67614) | about 4 years ago | (#33922088)

Try Links2 [twibright.com] , now with Javascript and graphics support (no X11 needed, it even has framebuffer support)

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (1)

Urkki (668283) | about 4 years ago | (#33922132)

-and- Chrome v. Firefox Browser fanboys today are as silly as Atari v. Commodore fanboys back-in-the-day.

No, not as silly. With ST vs Amiga, they at least run different software, so there's some sense in trying to advocate the chosen platform. With Chrome vs. Firefox, not so much...

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33922592)

Underlying methodology was also curious, to say the least. All the browsers were judged based only on their own improvement when going from slower to faster setup. Well...what if, hypothetically, some browser is already fabulous on the slower one, already close to some ceiling fundamentally limited by factors external to its code? What if some other is absolutely horrible on slower machines and it essentially relies on much faster hardware for improvement?

All the while ignoring huge architectural and clockspeed differences between the two CPUs. With such testing scenario, going from 2 to 6 cores can have a negligible impact for all we know.

Generally, who cares about the improvement on a monster of a CPU? (except for "does getting it make sense at all already? Oh...") That's not what vast majority of people use, shouldn't be targeted, generally isn't and hence provides performance way in the area of "good enough". Performance on real low end, like some machine from 5 (or more...) years ago, is where this makes a huge difference. How well it scales down, how long it remains pleasant and usable.

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (1)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33922640)

Exactly.
Well said. This measures nothing useful about the browsers themselves because we are told nothing about current performance. (Although we already know that from other sources).

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33920794)

Wouldn't surprise me. The folks doing the development have spent a lot of time working on it and have avoided the temptation to just make each tab a completely different process.

Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core (1)

n0-0p (325773) | about 4 years ago | (#33920808)

Except their data doesn't actually show that, and Firefox 3.6 has far worse absolute performance than the other browsers. So, the effect they're seeing is probably just the other browsers (including Firefox 4 beta) performing much better, but hitting a wall due to cache pressure and/or IO bottlenecks. Whereas Firefox 3.6 is slow enough that it appears to be scaling well, but really just runs slower than the system can perform.

Need a better client-side scripting language (4, Interesting)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | about 4 years ago | (#33920704)

Why, oh why did javascript become the defacto client-side scripting language for the browser
If you want to scale horizontally across multi-cores, you need a language that allows easy multi-threading and concurrency
About the only thing JS offers for concurrency is that horrid settimeout function

What we need is a better scripting language
Why not incorporate a Python interpreter into browsers, and develop a stripped down sub-set of python for use on the web
I see no technical issues in doing this, only trying to battle the inertia of JS

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920760)

Why not a VM that runs bytecode, and JIT compiling, so your favourite language can be used?

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920806)

Why not a VM that runs bytecode, and JIT compiling, so your favourite language can be used?

You mean like this [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33920972)

Why not a VM that runs bytecode, and JIT compiling, so your favourite language can be used?

You mean like this [wikipedia.org] ?

Microsoft Silverlight runs only on Windows and Mac. Moonlight is good for displaying "This applet requires a newer version of Silverlight" messages. I think AC was referring to either JVM bytecode or ActionScript bytecode.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33921058)

No, like this [parrot.org] .

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 4 years ago | (#33921388)

Amen! And there's an impressive list of languages that can be compiled for Parrot, including ECMAscript.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (5, Interesting)

kripkenstein (913150) | about 4 years ago | (#33921432)

Why not a VM that runs bytecode, and JIT compiling, so your favourite language can be used?

Several reasons. First, all such VMs - the JVM, .NET, Mono - have far worse startup performance than JavaScript. That's why Java applets never took off. While those VMs improved in that respect, they still lag far behind JS in startup time. They are optimized for long-running processes, not small client scripts that should get going instantaneously. Different goals here.

Second, there is no clear open standard for such a VM anyhow. The JVM and CLR are known to have various patents around them; we have recently seen Oracle sue Google, and Microsoft execs have admitted that Mono is only free from risk because it is licensed by Microsoft. So neither is a good foundation for something meant to be truly open and free, like the Web should be.

Third, existing JavaScript engines are, by far, the fastest implementations of dynamic languages out there (much faster than such languages running on the JVM, .NET or Mono - Jython, IronPython, etc.). IMHO it makes sense to have a low bar for writing scripts for websites. You shouldn't need to do C/C++ memory management, or write lots of static typing definitions, to add a little scripting to your website. So something like JavaScript, Python or Ruby makes sense. But again, this last point is clearly debatable, that's just my opinion.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (0)

icebike (68054) | about 4 years ago | (#33920782)

Good point.

And with Oracle suing everyone in sight, something like that might just happen. Especially if were smart enough to read the javascript and do the right thing.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (3, Informative)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | about 4 years ago | (#33920792)

Javascript != Java
Oracle has no sway over javascript

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 years ago | (#33921932)

That's probably not true, if Javascript runs in an efficient virtual machine with JIT compiling and other optimizations, then Oracle has a lot of the patents on that stuff. That's why they were able to sue Google at all, because Google didn't violate any copyright.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (2, Interesting)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 4 years ago | (#33922844)

The name was actually chosen by netscape to get on the bandwagon.

Java was THE cool new language to come out at the time, and Netscape decided that if they call it "Javascript" it'd make people think they're connected.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920804)

durrrrr javascript has as much to do with java as the i,robot movie had to do with the book

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about 4 years ago | (#33920922)

why did javascript become the defacto client-side scripting language

I think it had something to do with the Normans invading England in 1066. The Normans liked coffee, and the English were writing all these scripts, which would ultimately become Shakespeare's plays. Then the French and some Latins got involved. After that they built a navy and used it to create a global empire which spread--what? Javascript you say? Not English? Sorry. Nevermind.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (4, Insightful)

rantomaniac (1876228) | about 4 years ago | (#33920998)

Wait, what?

Python as a choice of multithreading-enabled language? You are aware that CPython has a global lock and only one thread can execute Python code at once?
Javascript will be more multicore friendly than Python when web workers [wikipedia.org] get widely implemented.

And what's the point of developing a brand new sub-set of python with a brand new interpreter and set of libraries? You might as well just compile python to javascript, there's not a lot of impedance mismatch between them. Python is mostly useful because of its wealth of libraries, other than that it's just a generic dynamically-typed language with a certain syntax.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (3, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33921068)

You might as well just compile python to javascript

Some people do [pyjs.org] .

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (3, Informative)

nairb774 (728193) | about 4 years ago | (#33921460)

And Jython does not have a GIL. In much the same way there are multiple implementations of JS (tracemonkey, spidermonkey, v8, ...) there are multiple implementations of Python (CPython, Jython, PyPy, ...)

In the end, multithreading support is not a language limitation in either language, it usually is a implementation limitation.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (4, Informative)

spinkham (56603) | about 4 years ago | (#33921084)

Javascript runtimes are way faster then most other scripting languages at the moment.

If you go to the benchmark game [debian.org] you'll see v8 is about 6.5x faster then python and tracemonkey is 3.8x faster.

The only credible "scripting" language runtime that is faster then Javascript is LuaJIT, and Lua has nowhere near the features that JavaScript does.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | about 4 years ago | (#33921398)

Why, oh why did javascript become the defacto client-side scripting language for the browser If you want to scale horizontally across multi-cores, you need a language that allows easy multi-threading and concurrency About the only thing JS offers for concurrency is that horrid settimeout function

setTimeout has nothing to do with concurrency. That stuff runs on the main thread. In other words, that's asynchronicity, not concurrency.

But JavaScript does support concurrency, you can access native OS threads using web workers.

Why not incorporate a Python interpreter into browsers, and develop a stripped down sub-set of python for use on the web

I love Python, but JavaScript has better support for concurrency than Python at this point. Python's main implementation also has the Global Interpreter Lock.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33921498)

Javascript is a very powerful language which is really very elegant if you understand how to use it. The trouble is that most people treat it as a bastardized child of C.

What the world really needs is several books describing the zen of javascript. Perhaps there is also a need for an application compiler for JS as well.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (2, Informative)

cyfer2000 (548592) | about 4 years ago | (#33921558)

mozilla/firefox support python in the chrome layer (UI layer, not to be mistaken with Chrome browser from Google.), for more information please read this [mozilla.org] .

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1)

PuercoPop (1007467) | about 4 years ago | (#33921646)

Except that Scaling python across multiple cores is also a problem... CPython actually downgrades performance across multiple cores.

see http://wiki.python.org/moin/GlobalInterpreterLock [python.org] for more information.

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 4 years ago | (#33921846)

Google has made a change and now locks up firefox so that you cannot do anything, even go to another tab, until the search is complete. I suppose I should look at greasemonkey or something.

There are plugins for TCL/TK, basic, etc, try getting them adopted without being world nuclear dictator,

Re:Need a better client-side scripting language (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33922096)

Because Netscape offered it, then Microsoft had to offer it to keep up. Then anyone else had to offer it to be in the race.

See First Browser War

What a waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920730)

Seriously, if you care about your browser's performance, you care about it on a particular system. Maybe if you regularly use different system you can try different ones to see which works best and then you'd want such information.

More likely though, you will get used to a particular interface and just end up using it, regardless of any performance merits others may offer.

It's true, people are creatures of habit, and habits are hard to change, even for the better.

Re:What a waste of time (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33920822)

But that would mean that trolls would have to stop claiming that Firefox is constantly leaking huge amounts of memory and unusably sluggish.

Which is a bit odd, considering how easy it is to be fast when you're not fully featured and how all of those browsers seem to be getting features that Firefox has had for some time now.

Re:What a waste of time (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33920924)

(checks)

Right now my FF 3.6 is only using 185 megs with 9 tabs plus 1 floating window (radio). That's smaller than what IE8 or Opera 10.5, which use about twice as much.

Re:What a waste of time (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33920944)

P.S.

Of course I don't overload Fiefox with a lot of crap. My only addons are PornZo... er, I mean ImageZoom, NoScript, and 1-click Youtube Downloader. (I used to have WOT but grew tired of false blocks of harmless sites like foxnews,com.) Fewer addons equal leaner memory usage.

Re:What a waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33921164)

Which is a bit odd, considering how easy it is to be fast when you're not fully featured and how all of those browsers seem to be getting features that Firefox has had for some time now.

Memory leaks are not a feature!

Re:What a waste of time (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 4 years ago | (#33922230)

Firefox is not full featured when it relies on plugins. Comparing the features included in the base install, Firefox is not highest on the list of features. What I see for comparisons is where people compare the features of Firefox with all possible plugins to the other browsers with no plugins. And then compare the performance of Firefox with no plugins to the others.

I don't think it's a troll to claim that Firefox leaks huge amounts of memory. I have no doubt that there are lots of people running Firefox with that problem. If you are going to claim that a problem introduced by the plugins don't count, then you can't claim the features they add. I don't mind if you do or don't include them, but to list them as features without accepting the problems they sometimes introduce is dishonest. You get them as benefits with their drawbacks, or you don't get to claim them.

Thrash for several hours before benchmarking (1, Redundant)

Mandrel (765308) | about 4 years ago | (#33920734)

I find that Firefox gradually slows down with use, requiring me to re-start it at least once per day to avoid second-or-more delays when scrolling or typing.

So I'd like to see benchmarks that test a browser's speed after several hours of simulated use, benchmarking while many other windows and tabs are open. This can also be done in several different memory-restricted VMs to see how the amount of memory affects the speed.

Perhaps my problem is due to one or more of the plug-ins I use. So Mozilla should make it easy for plugin developers to test their releases on a benchmark like the one described above.

Re:Thrash for several hours before benchmarking (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33921202)

Perhaps my problem is due to one or more of the plug-ins I use.

No, it isn't. I don't *use* plugins.

Going back several millennium - I've consistently had this problem with FireFox. On Windows (2000, XP, Vista), Linux, and OS X. It's not a specific version. It has nothing to do with platform.

Firefox has speed and memory issues that have been there for eons, that keep getting brushed off with, "Oh, plugins!"

Re:Thrash for several hours before benchmarking (1)

Targon (17348) | about 4 years ago | (#33921278)

The problem you have sounds like a memory leak. What you have not told us is what version of Firefox you are using, since memory leaks ARE found and fixed, but there are still more.

Re:Thrash for several hours before benchmarking (1)

Mandrel (765308) | about 4 years ago | (#33921580)

Targon, in the hope of improvement, I always keep up with the latest stable FF release (currently 3.6.10). FF's memory management has definitely improved over the years, but is still the biggest negative of an otherwise excellent browser.

I noticed FF slowed down much more rapidly when I was using a website with a lot of popup windows. So the the memory leak may be related to window creation or destruction.

If my experience isn't universal, the leak is likely in a plug-in I use. That's why I'd like to see Mozilla make it easier for plug-in writers to test for leaks.

Re:Thrash for several hours before benchmarking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33922008)

Second that. I'm always at the latest official version, currently Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10) Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.10, and have the problem for years. It does look like a memory leak and it did get better, but it is still there. I bounce Firefox every morning.
I don't think I've the problem on Linux, but not sure. (I use Linux box for work only so it gets much less browsing activity)
I also don't believe I've a pure Windows leak. I used to, but it looks good for quite awhile. (I successfully tried to stay without reboots for weeks)

Re:Thrash for several hours before benchmarking (3, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | about 4 years ago | (#33922718)

It can also be poorly-coded websites.

The BBC's news page used to have an annoying javascript news ticker that ran across the top of the page. As it ran it built a slowly larger and larger array of something or other and memuse would slowly creep up. When I stopped having that as my home page my ff memory problems stopped.

dual-core netbook on the low-end? (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 4 years ago | (#33920836)

That's NOT low end. Funny how marketing is so skilled in manipulating peoples perceptions.

Re:dual-core netbook on the low-end? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920852)

hahha you're poor

Re:dual-core netbook on the low-end? (1)

RajivSLK (398494) | about 4 years ago | (#33920938)

It is low end relatively speaking. And that's all that matters for this test. One lower performing setup compared to another higher performing setup.

Re:dual-core netbook on the low-end? (2, Insightful)

fucket (1256188) | about 4 years ago | (#33921192)

Low-end should be a phone.

Re:dual-core netbook on the low-end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33921168)

A netbook is very much low end. The Atom it is popular for its power efficiency -- not speed.

Well of course it does (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 4 years ago | (#33920950)

They also tested HTML5 on Firefox mobile and found the browser has better HTML5 support than the current Firefox 4 Beta 6.

Um, yeah. The first beta of Firefox Mobile is based on newer code than FF4b6, which came out a WHILE ago. Beta 7 hasn't been released yet because of a lot of crashes as well as it being considered the "feature freeze".

Results are meaningless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33920976)

Not just because the benchmark program was broken, but because there are no absolute numbers. If Browser A completes benchmarks in 50% of the time browser B does on a netbook, B is going to need a hell of a scaling advantage to win on the 6-core machine. These graphs are mildly entertaining, but on the whole worthless without the actual data.

Yay bench (5, Insightful)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about 4 years ago | (#33920992)

Another meaningless benchmark that claims to replace all the previous meaningless benchmarks. Yawn.

Re:Yay bench (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33921420)

You are right. Besides, I don't care about browser scalability right now. On most systems they are fast enough. The only time I notice a slow browser is the 6+ year old P4 machines at work our data entry people use. What typically slows down my experience is Flash. I'm not even talking about download times, but resource usage of flash. When the web is slow, it's adobe's fault.

CTRL + Mouse wheel (3, Informative)

Shmpoo (1405005) | about 4 years ago | (#33921088)

Hold CTRL and scroll your mouse wheel to scale your web browser...

Re:CTRL + Mouse wheel (3, Insightful)

corychristison (951993) | about 4 years ago | (#33921364)

I use the keyboard Ctrl plus +/- keys to using the mouse you insensitive clod!

Re:CTRL + Mouse wheel (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33922086)

If you hold the CTRL key down while in FF and then you can use the mouse scroll wheel to control zoom.

What we need (3, Insightful)

metrix007 (200091) | about 4 years ago | (#33921344)

Is 64 bit versions of browsers. Proper session management. Proper Adblocking. An extension framework. Configurability.

At the moment, IE and Firefox are the only ones with their head in the game. If Chrome and Opera want to get ahead, then fix what lacks.

Re:What we need (1)

shugah (881805) | about 4 years ago | (#33921982)

If "the game" happens to be played up their ass, then yes, Microsoft has it's head in the game.

I'll take full implementation of current standards and a commitment to rapidly adopt emerging standards. Designing websites for IE is like putting a designer gown on a turd.

And who thought up that UI?

Re:What we need (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 4 years ago | (#33922110)

The IE9 UI is pretty similar to the rest at the moment.

It is currently the most secure, the only one with hardware acceleration and is standards compliant. Do you have any problem with IE9 that isn't based on your past experiences, which no longer apply? Oh, and they have a 64 bit version. Big plus.

Re:What we need (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 4 years ago | (#33922618)

It took MS how long? And they still only develop for 1 OS.

IE9 is useless for me as I use Chromium at home and IE 6 (don't have a choice) at work. The only way IE9 will be relevant for me is if websites take the opportunity to actually work based on standards compliance rather than browser ids.

For example, when I try to pay my time warner bill with chrome, I get a page that says I can only use firefox or IE.

http://sparkbrowser.com (1, Flamebait)

chrisreevesofficial (1923036) | about 4 years ago | (#33921396)

sparkbrowser is going to be the next web browser for download, if you currently have both firefox and chrome, why do you have both?? Sparkbrowser Uses both Gecko and Webkit Elements for the fastest and best browsing experience, it will be available for download on http://sparkbrowser.com/ [sparkbrowser.com] in the coming months it is significantly faster than forefox, and google chrome,

Re:http://sparkbrowser.com (2, Informative)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 4 years ago | (#33922624)

Sparkbrowser, unlike Internet Exploere and Firefox has every feature that is needed on the control panel, Sparkbrowser tracks your clicks, and search preferences to give you a better more personalized browsing eperience.

If you are weary of your privacy and believe that sparkbrowser has invaded your privacy, you probably should have read the terms of use before you downloaded it.

At least they are upfront about it but since there is no "do no evil" pledge, I will have to pass.

FUCK JavaScript (-1, Troll)

Massacrifice (249974) | about 4 years ago | (#33921426)

Sing along :

If you love your dad,
Like I love your mom,
FUCK JAVASCRIPT

If your browser fails
To wear a condom
FUCK JAVASCRIPT

Oh, Stroustrup what have you done?
You knew it all along!
Tim Berners-Lee got it all wrong
Gopher, it was the one!

FUCK JAVASCRIPT
FUCK JAVASCRIPT
FUCK JAVASCRIPT

Re:FUCK JavaScript (1)

PatPending (953482) | about 4 years ago | (#33921474)

In Soviet Russia, JavaScript FUCKS YOU!

Re:FUCK JavaScript (3, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 4 years ago | (#33921700)

This post is proof that there is no lower age or lower intelligence limit on who posts on Slashdot.

Re:FUCK JavaScript (1, Troll)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 4 years ago | (#33922066)

What makes you think that somebody who remembers what gopher was would be young? What makes you think that someone who thinks that mixing content with code is a bad idea is of lower intelligence?

If these two posts were all that I were to go on, then I'd be forced to conclude that the GP is older and more intelligent than you. Your UIDs only help to reinforce my conclusion.

Re:FUCK JavaScript (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 4 years ago | (#33922144)

Hmm. Well, generally when using computers 'or' means logical or, so the compound statement is true if either of the clauses is true. And I did say "lower age or lower intelligence". You know, like when you do an advanced search on Google.

Now 'age' can refer to chronological age or mental development age. Here on Slashdot, as far as I have observed, the mental development age is around 12. I have no idea what the chronological age average is, but I assume that it skews to a younger demographic. Certainly under 40 and most likely under 30. But you can't tell that just by reading what people type.

Take me, for example. I have been programming since 1968, and I have been paid to do it full time since 1974. I have programmed every thing from what used to be called minicomputers (with teletypes and paper tape) and main frames (with punched cards) to what used to be called supercomputers (Cray-1/TM-2 from Thinking Machines). I predate the internet, and I actually remember hearing about the IMP going on line at UCLA for one of the first few nodes on what was then know as ARPA-NET. It is extremely likely that I have been programming longer the you have been alive. So when I hear you say that I must be a newbie because of my UID, it is just another one of those judgment problems that seem to be so prevalent here on Slashdot.

Now take a look at my SIG and if you think about what you wrote you might understand why I chose it.

Re:FUCK JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33922190)

Very convincing, but you made one mistake - only newbies say 'newbie'.

Re:FUCK JavaScript (0, Troll)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 4 years ago | (#33922340)

tl;td;dr (too long, too drunk, didn't read)

your point is invalid.

Forget firefox (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33922082)

as a long time user of firefox, and for a number of years now, chromium, let me say: chromium appears to work much better than anything else on the low end - largely due to its sane memory utilization when not much is available.

ironically it would appear that chromium/chrome's current limitation is actually one they inherrited from firefox. the cache engine slows firefox, and chrome, to a fucking crawl. ironically, google just took ff's engine and scaled it way out - to the point where it's architectually poorly suited. apparently, this is being fixed - and has been fixed in firefox 4.

Lets start with basics... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33922164)

I just want my browser to render a large table with hundreds of thousands of rows without having to wait forever.

After Mosaic (2)

kstahmer (134975) | about 4 years ago | (#33922360)

After Mosaic [illinois.edu] , it's been all downhill.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?