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!

The Latest Web Browser Grand Prix

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the render-fast-turn-left dept.

Chrome 207

An anonymous reader writes "The latest browser benchmarks are in... again. This is one of the better 'browser battle' articles, though. Chrome 13, Firefox 6, IE9, Opera 11.50, and Safari 5.1 are put through 40-some tests on both Windows 7 and Mac OS X Lion. As a PC guy, I was pretty impressed with the performance of Safari on OS X, and the reader feature looks awesome too. The author also uncovered a nasty Catalyst bug that makes IE9 render pages improperly and freeze up under heavy loads of tabs. The tables at the end pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of each browser, which is nicer than a 1-10 or star rating. The tests are more thorough than most browser comparisons I've seen."

cancel ×

207 comments

Noscript? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240450)

There is only one important question; Does it run Noscript?

Re:Noscript? (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240578)

Sure, I'm not sure I'm aware of a modern browser other than IE that can't run a javascript blocker.

Re:Noscript? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240930)

except that noscript in chrome will make chrome actually run slower... not to mention heavier addons like adblock

Why does this matter? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240460)

Okay, we're no longer in the days where your 486SX with 2MB of RAM would suffer greatly if your code was interpreted versus compiled in hand-crafted ASM.

For the average user who has more RAM and CPU cycles than what they know what do with; does it matter that a page will load in 1sec or 2sec? Seriously, 99% of the consumers won't care.

Look at the computer from the next casual person you have? You'll notice that they're using 5% of their RAM and 2% of their cpu(s).

Efficiency matters in an enterprise environment or for power users (gamers, video/audio, new ways to create shell sorts).

Re:Why does this matter? (4, Interesting)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240548)

Look at the computer from the next casual person you have? You'll notice that they're using 5% of their RAM and 2% of their cpu(s).

If only. Try firing up Firefox with 10-12 tabs and see it slowly, but steadly, eating you memory up. A browser is one of the many apps i run on my systems, so good peformance and memory handling has a definite impact on my user experience.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240770)

Try firing up Firefox with 10-12 tabs and see it slowly, but steadly, eating you memory up.

Good! RAM is made to be used. This means your computer is working as intended.
Stop watching system graphs and just use the computer.

Re:Why does this matter? (4, Insightful)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240826)

It's hard to use the computer when you find up the damn browser is eating half of your 4 Gigs of RAM :) I like Firefox overall, but they really need to start addressing their memory management issues.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240902)

Upgrade to 8gb.

With two browsers (firefox and chrome), pidgin, teamspeak, world of warcraft, msi afterburner, and a dozen other apps running, I've never seen my machine top about 6gb of ram usage.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241060)

I usually get along using way less than that. For example, this is my (crappy) desktop at work, right now [google.com] ...

Re:Why does this matter? (-1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240948)

It's hard to use the computer when you find up the damn browser is eating half of your 4 Gigs of RAM

No it isn't. Stop watching the graphs and you won't even know.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241258)

Is that so? Why does my computer start to crawl and become unresponsive when I've left Firefox on for a few days? Freeing that memory by closing Firefox makes it become responsive again. The only reason I ever look at graphs is to find out why my computer is no longer usable.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241596)

If I stop occasionally looking at the graphs and restarting the browser every so often, I tend to notice when Firefox randomly ties up the entire system in a swapping hell. It is a little late to close browser when the mouse becomes non-responsive and logging into a text terminal times out because of the excess swapping. Stuff like that means I tend to know how much memory it is using without looking at a graph, when the system is brought down by just clicking on a link, opening a blank tab, or even scrolling down on a page in a browser with flash and most javascript disabled.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241616)

False. Unused RAM is used for caching hard drive accesses. Even if you use an SSD, you get a performance boost from that, but if you've got a regular platter drive? The performance you lose when RAM is being gobbled up instead of used for HD caching just because of your browser is extremely annoying.

Re:Why does this matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241222)

WTF? I dropped 16GB of DDR3 1333 of ram in for $150. I could double that for another $150.
Buy more ram, you wanna use modern apps, use a modern system. Ram is cheap, i can't speak for a Mac though, that is probabally a ripp-off as with everything with Mac.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241246)

So? Does your computer suffer from that? Do other programs crash or run out of memory?

Free RAM is useless, Firefox is just addressing it and leaving it addressed for future uses. If the computer needs more RAM for other applications, it just releases it THEN, instead of leaving RAM unused.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241444)

I don't think you understand how memory management works.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241362)

Firefox on my MBP (4 gig of ram) doesn't use half of the memory and my Ubuntu work machine has 2 gigs of ram and there is no difference in performance when I have a ton of tabs open which will include flash apps (NPR radio) and javascript intensive sites (slashdot/ reddit). If you genuinely have problems with Firefox on 4 gigs of ram then the problem probably isn't Firefox.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241482)

I wouldn't care, but Firefox becomes unusable once it hits 2GB or so.

http://stthomasminnesota.universityhotelnetwork.co (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240782)

"If only. Try firing up Firefox with 10-12 tabs and see it slowly, but steadly, eating you memory up. A browser is one of the many apps i run on my systems, so good peformance and memory handling has a definite impact on my user experience." so true, so true!

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240960)

If only. Try firing up Firefox with 10-12 tabs and see it slowly, but steadly, eating you memory up. A browser is one of the many apps i run on my systems, so good peformance and memory handling has a definite impact on my user experience.

Fire up 10-12 tabs and chances are you have multiple instances of Flash bogging down your computer. If not flash then you still have 10-12 DOMs, 10-12 JS sessions with random timer events, image animations and so forth going on in the background. I think Firefox should probably ship with something analogous to a Task Manager where you could see how much CPU each tab "consumed".

I don't even blame Flash for the problems of CPU consumption. Flash gets a lot of hate but its really a victim of its own success. Any piece of code which had so many instances running would hog CPU.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241090)

I mentioned Firefox specifically because i can open a crapload of tabs on other browsers without these issues. I've posted a pic of my workstation upper in the thread, where Opera is shown behaving very nicely in these situations.

Again, i like FF a lot. The developers seem have started addressing these issues since version 6, but still, i keep finding out it leaks memory like crazy after a while.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241238)

Fire up 10-12 tabs and chances are you have multiple instances of Flash bogging down your computer

Nope [tuxfamily.org] .

NoScript is good. I prefer PrefBar. Single-click browser-wide (and in some cases, per-tab) activation/deactivation of images, cookies, Java, Javashit and Flash. Idiot webmaster does browser-sniffing based on User-Agent? Forge it with a single dropdown. Don't like some asshat web designer's choice of red text on a blue background? Heck, you can even turn off "colors".

I don't even blame Flash for the problems of CPU consumption. Flash gets a lot of hate but its really a victim of its own success. Any piece of code which had so many instances running would hog CPU.

True - but Flash probably is the memory hog here. I have an instance where I don't even have it installed (really!), and Firefox 3.6.20 has never taken more than 700MB even after weeks (!) of use with hundreds of tabs open.

The current session is about three days old, and currently uses 200MB, with 28 tabs open in four windows. Adding two image-heavy Fark photoshop threads and an 800-post hurricane thread added only 30MB to the total. Adding this extremely image-heavy 700-post Caturday [fark.com] thread temporarily bumped it to 400MB while rendering, but it stabilized at 300MB, and gave the RAM back when the thread was closed. Hardware is a core i7 with 6GB RAM, barely even hiccuped while rendering it. Only cheat I have is an ad-blocking proxy, and most of the time Javascript is disabled. PROTIP: If the site loads with Javascript disabled, enabling Javascript does not run the scripts on the site without a subsequent reload. That's not a bug, it's a feature: you can have dozens of tabs open to your favorite sites, and they will burn no CPU even when Javascript is temporarily enabled when you want to use something like Google Maps. Great for laptops!)

Re:Why does this matter? (-1, Flamebait)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241308)

What a fucking retard. You expect it to load up a fuck load of content and use no more memory?

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241380)

Yeah, i guess other browsers are just magical [google.com] ...

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240568)

Agreed
The only things I care about

General:
Stable

Personal:
Layout
Plugins
Applies standards correctly

Professional:
Restrictions
GPO availability

Re:Why does this matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240656)

Okay, we're no longer in the days where your 486SX with 2MB of RAM would suffer greatly if your code was interpreted versus compiled in hand-crafted ASM.

How quaint. A spec nerd. Hint: nobody cares about your cores or your trigahertz.

For the average user who has more RAM and CPU cycles than what they know what do with; does it matter that a page will load in 1sec or 2sec? Seriously, 99% of the consumers won't care.

Internet Explorer comes preinstalled on over 90 percent of computers sold yet only about 50 percent of computers on the internet are running it. Therefore, a signicantly more than 1 percent of the population has made a determined choice to use something else. That blows your 99 percent stat out of the water right there, bucko.

Look at the computer from the next casual person you have? You'll notice that they're using 5% of their RAM and 2% of their cpu(s).

The same could be said for cars. Most cars will go from 0-60 in under 10 seconds and will do over 100 miles per hour. How often do you need to do either of those things? Seldom. But when you do, you do. When people need their processor to peg, say for a javascript heavy site like yahoo.com, google maps, facebook, etc, they will appreciate a faster browser.

Efficiency matters in an enterprise environment or for power users (gamers, video/audio, new ways to create shell sorts).

Fucking elitist prick. Shut your hole.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240916)

How quaint. A spec nerd. Hint: nobody cares about your cores or your trigahertz.

Internet Explorer comes preinstalled on over 90 percent of computers sold yet only about 50 percent of computers on the internet are running it. Therefore, a signicantly more than 1 percent of the population has made a determined choice to use something else. That blows your 99 percent stat out of the water right there, bucko.

Look at the computer from the next casual person you have? You'll notice that they're using 5% of their RAM and 2% of their cpu(s).

The same could be said for cars. Most cars will go from 0-60 in under 10 seconds and will do over 100 miles per hour. How often do you need to do either of those things? Seldom. But when you do, you do. When people need their processor to peg, say for a javascript heavy site like yahoo.com, google maps, facebook, etc, they will appreciate a faster browser.

Efficiency matters in an enterprise environment or for power users (gamers, video/audio, new ways to create shell sorts).

Fucking elitist prick. Shut your hole.

I think you forgot which site this is. read the site motto. "News for nerds". Please go back to digg or reddit.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240962)

How quaint. A spec nerd. Hint: nobody cares about your cores or your trigahertz.

You are a moron. You just proved the guy correct. That's the whole point. A browser just ain't cpu-intensive. Doesn't matter if you got a 6-year-old rig or the latest and greatest.

Internet Explorer comes preinstalled on over 90 percent of computers sold yet only about 50 percent of computers on the internet are running it. Therefore, a signicantly more than 1 percent of the population has made a determined choice to use something else. That blows your 99 percent stat out of the water right there, bucko.

You're silly. And how many installed it because it's faster? It's the UI and options that they like. Sure, it shouldn't be slow as molasses, but which browser is?

The same could be said for cars. Most cars will go from 0-60 in under 10 seconds and will do over 100 miles per hour. How often do you need to do either of those things? Seldom. But when you do, you do. When people need their processor to peg, say for a javascript heavy site like yahoo.com, google maps, facebook, etc, they will appreciate a faster browser.

A car analogy. Quick: what kind of emergency requires you to load a page super-super-quick?

Re:Why does this matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240974)

Congratulations, you have won the "My angry and bitter superiority complex belies my total lack of understanding of the topic at hand" award for the day.

Also, your car analogy sucks. This is slashdot, we expect better.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241056)

Wow, imagine this. A slew of "AC's" come out of the woodwork to shit on an article that concludes that Chrome beats Internet Explorer. "Oh, people don't care about speed." "People don't care about RAM." Bullshit. You astroturfing fuckers are just made that IE is a piece of shit and Chrome and Firefox are better.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241114)

You need to take your medication, son. You're going to pop a vessel, my fellow AC. Or at least go hang out at different web site.

I use Firefox if that makes you feel better. On Ubuntu. I still don't care if a browser is 20% faster and that it uses more of my expensive gold-plated RAM. You're still being silly though.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241400)

You are an idiot. The engines in these browsers also run on cellphones and tablets. Efficiency matters where battery life is at stake. Have you ever even seen a laptop?

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241524)

Damn, you're stretching now, this must really be bothering you. You are highly entertaining and your feeble mind is no competition for many of us here.

Do you know anything about computers? You're talking about different platforms ON DIFFERENT CPUs. Your compiler will make the most difference in regards executable efficiency. Something that is great on x86 isn't necessarily going to slay on an ARM cpu.

Your touchpad app on your notebook will make a bigger difference between using IE9 and Firefox6 when it comes to power savings. Or in your case, your online chat app with your psychotherapist.

Go take a long walk on a short pier. Preferably in the eastern seaboard right now. It might cool you off and spring some sense in your head.

Re:Why does this matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241784)

your feeble mind is no competition for many of us here.

The irony is killing me.

Your compiler will make the most difference in regards executable efficiency.

No it doesn't fool. How you write your program will make the most difference in regards to executable efficiency. Then, you look at how good your compiler is. God, you are stupid. And most programs tend to have roughly equivalent relative performance when run on ARM or x86. I should know. I have an ARM device running Ubuntu 11.04 as well as a laptop/desktop/netbook, etc and slow applications on x86 are slow on ARM and fast applications on x86 are, who'da thunk it, fast on ARM. Please come back with personal experience before excreting your bullshit again. Of course, the really funny thing is you are comparing the wrong thing. We are comparing the relative performance of different code bases. I.e., the different browsers. Basically, you are arguing that code efficiency doesn't matter.

Your touchpad app on your notebook will make a bigger difference between using IE9 and Firefox6 when it comes to power savings.

Then we need efficient touchpad apps, stupid. Maybe all of our applications should keep at least one eye on efficient code bases since it all adds up. But just keep bringing the stupid. You're good at it.

As for your pathetic insults, thanks for making yourself look more like a childish brat to be ignored.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240992)

Yes it matters. There are usability studies that show people will wait X seconds (not sure of the exact number) before they close the page and give up. If a web browser is faster, it's going to make more page views and if you are a business that makes more money when people use the web more (like Google), then it matters.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

Sunday_Ironfoot (2431708) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241078)

For the average user who has more RAM and CPU cycles than what they know what do with; does it matter that a page will load in 1sec or 2sec? Seriously, 99% of the consumers won't care.

Amazon found that a 100ms delay decreased sales by 1%, Google also found similar results where an artificial increase in page loading time decrease the number of searches users performed. So it appears that users DO care, at least at an unconscious level.

Also, you're partly missing the point of faster browsers. As browsers get faster & more advanced, web developers will find interesting ways to take advantage of that extra power and capabilities and deliver more compelling user experiences (look at 3D on the web with WebGL, or ultra low latency two way communication with WebSockets for example). Unless you're one of those Web Luddites who thinks the web should just be black text on the white background with the occasional image.

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241214)

You don't really think facts and rational thought are welcome here do you? This is Slashdot, we'd much rather go for the easy populist +1 by criticising every little thing whether it actually improves our lives. After all, what you propose amount to change. And we can't have that now can we?

Re:Why does this matter? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241146)

What about the people that are going to be running ARM tablets? The browsers on those use the same rendering engines as the desktop counterparts, i.e., Webkit, Gecko, and Trident. And the javascript engines are the same as well. We need those engines to be as efficient as possible to eek out better and better battery life. Obviously, this benefits smartphones as well. The entire world doesn't revolve around the desktop.

Tech marches on.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241852)

Okay, we're no longer in the days where your 486SX with 2MB of RAM would suffer greatly if your code was interpreted versus compiled in hand-crafted ASM.

For the average user who has more RAM and CPU cycles than what they know what do with; does it matter...

Yes it matters, because we're no longer in the days where websites are static HTML and images. You might wish it were so, but tough cookies.

Oh, and 640k of memory isn't enough for anybody these days.

So who won? (0)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240462)

Am I going to have to read the article to find out who won?

Actually, it doesn't matter: Only one of them runs adblock and noscript...'nuff said.

Re:So who won? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240522)

Chrome and Firefox both use Adblock, for the record. Chrome doesn't have "noscript," but it does have alternatives that work well.

Re:So who won? (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241402)

Quit visiting shitty sites and you don't need those things.

Re:So who won? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241536)

You mean like Slashdot?

The page you're reading has scripts loaded from doubleclick.net, addthis.com and googleanalytics.com.

Re:So who won? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241630)

You're also using it for free so the least you could is give them ad revenue and disable 3rd party cookies for tracking purposes and as an added benefit they recognise you're being a decent visitor and allow you to temporarily disable ads. Not that I've even used that because I'm not so against paying for things that the mere thought of an ad on the page ruins the whole experience for me.

Re:So who won? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240524)

it's an advert for views from toms hw, so the article is laid over 17 pages. chrome "won" on windows and safari on osx.

i'm going to say again that the reason why google created chrome was to get a browser that doesn't have adblock for googleads by default. the 40 tabs test is stuuuupid, I reckon it just tests if the browser does some lazy loading or not.

Re:So who won? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240814)

Yeah, I'm getting tired of the Tom's articles recently that seem to blatantly want me to click through to lots of pages. Tricky headlines with a mediocre article (although this one was interesting).

Re:So who won? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241554)

it's an advert for views from toms hw, so the article is laid over 17 pages

No shit. And then it pissed me off even more when I discovered that you have to register to get the printer version.

Re:So who won? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240528)

Weird I seem to have Adblock and NoScript on Chrome, and on Firefox as well.

Re:So who won? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240740)

Does the AdBlock really work yet or does it just hide the images once they've downloaded?

Re:So who won? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240816)

No idea, but I don't see the ads so I it seems to function just fine regardless of what method it uses.

Re:So who won? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240590)

What, you mean Safari? I'm running both adblock, and a JS blocker there.... 'nuff said.

Re:So who won? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240790)

Actually only one of them has Live Bookmarks. That's the one I'm using. I'd switch if the others did.

You're certain it's an anonymous reader ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240476)

Seriously, not a single clue in TFS tells you that the submitter is the author of TFA ...

Re:You're certain it's an anonymous reader ? (1)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240518)

If thats the case then the author was deceptive how they posted the summary, then again, who would read an article in full and post the results other than the author of said article, so i guess in was kind of a give away :P

My personal experience with Safari/OS X (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240484)

Safari 5.1 on OS X on my 2.26ghz C2D laptop starts up, loads, renders and navigates pages notably faster than any other browser does on my unburdened Win7/64-system that runs a 3ghz C2D. While there is a thing or two that makes me prefer Chrome, Safari under OS X is definitely the absolutely fastest and swiftest browsing experience around.

Re:My personal experience with Safari/OS X (0)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240534)

yep and vi is unanimously better than emacs :P Disclaimer: I'm not trying to troll!

Re:My personal experience with Safari/OS X (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240742)

Safari is definitely the fastest till your battery bulges from the stress of 40 tabs open in Safari. And IE 1.0 was definitely the fastest browser ever on my 225 MHZ Pentium Pro with 256 MB ram with Voodoo 2 graphics and SCSI hdds all running on Win 95c. (And Slackware)

Re:My personal experience with Safari/OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241398)

exactly how would your battery bulge from a high memory use? i have used safari on osx for over 6 years now, and i know for a fact, since every version of safari, every version of osx since 10.3 to 10.7, that safari doesn't superfluously process content of unfocused tabs. in fact, it sits idly at a mere percentage or two of cpu consumption when you have just a non-intensive tab open alongside dozens of other tabs.

I'll save some time for everyone (5, Informative)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240510)

Windows 7:
1. Chrome
2. Firefox
3. IE9
4. Opera
5. Safari

MacOS (Lion):
1. Safari
2. Chrome
3. Opera
4. Firefox

Safari on MacOS is almost as fast as Firefox on Win7.

Re:I'll save some time for everyone (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241698)

Its "interesting" to see that browsers are struggling to be as fast as windows on osx.
of course, linux on all tests is missing which is a shame

Palemoon is a faster Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241786)

http://www.palemoon.org

Just tossing it in there. Firefox isnt as fast as it should be.

Speed? What about plugins? (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240538)

Honestly, do so many people have such a slow computer that they have to care for such minor speed differences?

I use Firefox because it has so many extensions and plugins. With just a few additional Firefox extensions installed I'm able to run TOR at the click of a button, block Flash selectively, block referer URLs, block Javascript selectively, block "Like" buttons and crap like that, delete cookies and Flash cookies, block Google analytics, control SSL certificates and being warned of bogus ones, and so on. Unfortunately, such functions and tools are essential nowadays. Not to speak with all the non-privacy related plugins available.

Re:Speed? What about plugins? (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240800)

Honestly, do so many people have such a slow computer that they have to care for such minor speed differences?

Seriously. I just switched from a 95 watt Phenom II x4 to a 45 watt Athlon II x2 because I wanted a quieter computer that wasn't warm to the touch.
As it turns out, it's not only less wasteful but I can't even discern any performance decrease.

Re:Speed? What about plugins? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241328)

I suspect these speed differences are in support of ad supported web sites. Something like /. renderes quickly as long as the google ad servers are responding. Something like the NYT renders quickly in my browser, but I suspect that is because Flash is turned off.

If browsers are fast, and don't consume many resources, the user will let the ads run. If the browsers are slow, then users will begin to figure out how to fix the problem, perhaps by blocking ads. It is any wonder why Chrome and Safari are fast browsers? Google and Apple both depend on users allowing the full web experience, at least on full powered computers.

Re:Speed? What about plugins? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241882)

Yeah, I rather enjoyed the graph for page load time labelled "lower scores are better" with Tom's Hardware coming in dead last. I don't think that's what they meant to show by that particular test, but it was amusing.

Still looks like they're all broken to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240576)

It still looks like every web browser is broken to me.

For example the first place Chrome on Win 7, has shitty history management.

quote "...As a PC guy..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240594)

Do people still talk like this?

The best thing about Reader in Safari... (3, Insightful)

pknoll (215959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240602)

is that it works on Tom's Hardware articles.

Not mentioning all factors (0)

Pooya_M (2440648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240648)

Firefox awesome Add-ons and being open-source are not mentioned in this comparison...

Re:Not mentioning all factors (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240708)

If they'd mentioned the add-ons then they should've run the test with a few installed; my guess is it'd make firefox's performance even worse.

Re:Not mentioning all factors (1)

Pooya_M (2440648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240794)

EFFICIENT add-ons are more valuable than tons of DUMP so-called add-on.BTW, Firefox also runs on Linux based OS

Re:Not mentioning all factors (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241066)

EFFICIENT add-ons are more valuable than tons of DUMP so-called add-on.

Yeah, and a browser that has the right features in the first place is more valuable still.

BTW, Firefox also runs on Linux based OS

And? So do most of the browsers they mention.

Re:Not mentioning all factors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240828)

Being open source is hardley relevant to a browser feature comparison. At least in the context of this article.

But then, I don't subscribe to the RMS dogma.

Re:Not mentioning all factors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241508)

You must be American -- your self-absorbed, narcissistic tone shines through your comment. Sadly, a lot of people don't care about issues like those tied to Open Source ethics. But they'll bitch and moan about problems related to pricing, mark-up, and feature restrictions when it comes to proprietary items. Anything involving self-sacrifice is silly to most of America. If LibreOffice doesn't start up as fast as MS Office, to you it's a piece of crap and its developers are wasting their time and efforts. To the rest of us however, LibreOffice is a liberating, useful office suite and its developers deserve praise. So when Chrome starts up in a snap and Firefox takes a few milliseconds longer, I'm sorry for you that's your priority but I think Mozilla's views on Open Source are much more appealing to me than Google's. You care more about yourself, some of us care about things in a wider scope. Idealistic yes but in the long run your attitude is what makes society as whole weaker.

FF6 + Hardware Acceleration = BSOD (0)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240686)

Just like in a Grand Prix, pushing beyond the limits results in a blown engine. Since update to ver 6, I've had daily BSODs that are caused by a video driver crash. Since I turned off hw acceleration in FF6, no more BSODs.

No Linux? Bah. (5, Insightful)

serbianheretic (1108833) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240694)

No testing under Linux ... like it is 1999. And this is on supposedly geek site? Meh.

Re:No Linux? Bah. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241496)

You're in a minority group, deal with it. Given your propensity for smug pretentiousness, I'd say that's right where you belong, asshole.

Re:No Linux? Bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241520)

If you actually read the article, you'd notice that their last test was Windows versus Linux, and this one was specifically in response to people asking that Mac OS X be compared.

Re:No Linux? Bah. (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241646)

Exactly. Plus with Opera getting beat by both Firefox and IE9 on Win7 I call bullshit.

Firefox 6??? (2, Funny)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240778)

Firefox 6? C'mon! I'm already on Firefox 7! Oh wait, hang on, there's an update for Firefox 8 now. Or should I go with 9 beta? Eh, 10 should be released tomorrow, right?

Re:Firefox 6??? (1)

cgraeff (1098129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37240850)

This joke is getting tiresome.

Re:Firefox 6??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240964)

Exactly, you could say the same about Chrome, there was 11 just 2 months ago.

Re:Firefox 6??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241102)

You have become tedious.

Re:Firefox 6??? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241148)

Not as tiresome as their release schedule.

Re:Firefox 6??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241694)

where's the chrome release version love? I'm currently on Chrome 15, and it came out plenty of years after firefox....

Re:Firefox 6??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241228)

So are the versions.

Re:Firefox 6??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241118)

this ceased being funny several weeks ago. who gives a fuck about firefox version numbers

good mourning, tired of terror monday here again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240784)

evidenced by the dogs volunteered to go outside today. had to shave with pliers again (like monkey hair)? some woman down the road a bit got shot (6 times) while brandishing a pellet gun. tell your kids what can really happen now. plans are moving ahead to have the fallen gargoyles (dc & ny) re-installed? so no stuff that really matters to be concerned about yet, again, today.

thanks to those who have been disarming, & reading the teepeeleaks etchings. hairy stuff to say the least.

th1s is goa7sex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240808)

Maze solver. bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37240924)

As a long time firefox user, I am quite surprised, how it underperforms in the CSS performance test, maze solver - http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/performance/mazesolver/default.html
While chrome can do that in a jiffy!

Re:Maze solver. bah! (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241018)

I imagine a test designed by Microsoft to make IE look good might have also been designed to hit Firefox's weak points. Maybe it's slow at that demo, but it works great for my daily browsing. What else should I care about as far as speed goes?

Re:Maze solver. bah! (3, Interesting)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241396)

This test exercises a situation that's very rare on the web (where by "rare" I mean that it's only been encountered in this test to my knowledge): thousands of absolutely positioned elements that are all being moved around using CSS transforms, with each one only being moved once by going from no transform to a translate transform. That's just not something anyone other than this test does. Most people who want to move an absolutely positioned element just change its .top and .left, but this test sort of went out of its way to do things the weird way.

The net result is that this test ends up hitting a rare-case O(N^2) codepath in Gecko. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=641340 [mozilla.org] and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=641341 [mozilla.org] and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=670311 [mozilla.org] for the bugs tracking this on Mozilla's end.

Fixing these has not been a terribly high priority, since it would mostly affect this one synthetic benchmark (I say "mostly", because bug 670311 could have benefits elsewhere too).

I wanted to see beta's (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241014)

It's a bit sad they haven't tested betas of Firefox, IE and Chrome.

E.g. Firefox 7 includes some memory usage optimizations which could easily halve its memory usage under the stress test Tom's Hardware guys carried out.

"As a PC guy" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37241132)

Liar!

Browser benchmarks under Linux (1)

microphage (2429016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241432)

> This is one of the better 'browser battle' articles, though. Chrome 13, Firefox 6, IE9, Opera 11.50, and Safari 5.1 are put through 40-some tests on both Windows 7 and Mac OS X Lion ..

Where are the browser benchmarks under Linux?

WTF is with the false statement about Safari/Mac (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241664)

Every one of these features is completely unique to Safari for Mac. ... Like Lion itself, Safari 5.1 supports several multitouch gestures ... Swiping upward with two fingers causes the page to scroll down. Likewise, swiping downward with two fingers scrolls the page up. ... Using the same two-finger swipe as the scroll gesture, performed left and right, controls navigation. Swiping two fingers to the right navigates to the previous page in your history, and swiping left moves forward.

That's complete bull. My HP laptop supports multitouch gestures just fine, with the exception of the Mac's gestures all being exactly backward. Swiping with two fingers scrolls (in any of the 4 directions, not just vertically). Swiping with three fingers navigates forward/back.

Chrome cant even scroll Google Image Search smooth (2)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241706)

Chrome just has terrible page rendering performance. Firefox scrolls so much smoother.

The best comparison is google image search. Chrome can not even scroll google's own image search smoothly. Firefox does it as smooth as butter. Chrome also scrolls bing's image search poorly as well. Firefox wins in rendering performance.

Even the fish bowl test shows firefox is far better at rendering.

Benchmarks benchmarks benchmarks (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241746)

As usual, benchmarks are quite broken.
I can understand when you get a few FPS on a graphic card but.. lets take startup time..
0.8s vs 1.1s and the bar is like so much bigger, while in reality this makes almost no difference.

Then again, testing stuff such as acid3 (which will never be implemented in some browsers to reach 100% because of things the acid3 did not foresee) or memory release wrongly (per process model is forced to release all the memory, threaded models keep a lot in the cache)

there's many other such cases, which basically mean, you can put any of the contenders in the top place (except safari on windows i guess!)

And the loser is. Tom's Hardware (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37241894)

Notice in the benchmarks the absurdly long load times for Tom's Hardware compared to other sites (however not much different from Huff-Po) There's so many ads and crap coming from 3rd party servers that depending on which ad you get, it can severly impact the load time.
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...