Browser Speed Tests: Latest Firefox Is Faster, but Not as Fast as Google Chrome
Posted 19 July 2009 - 08:47 PM
Posted 20 July 2009 - 01:32 AM
The table shows that the differences between browsers are very limited.
Today most websites use Java and there are many websites that have relatively complex Java apps (see Google Docs for example).
This article seems, in my opinion, a whole lot more comprehensive:
The results are clear:
Chrome is ~2X faster than FF3.5 in Java
IE8 is ~4X slower than FF3.5 (and therefore about 8X slower than Chrome).
Peacekeeper test (complex graphics):
Firefox is ~30% slower than Chrome. IE8 cannot complete the test (does not support standard)
Peacekeeper test (Rendering):
Chrome is ~2X faster than FF.
IE8 is ~30% slower than FF
You can see all the details in the link above.
Personally, I use FireFox. I consider AddOns to be invaluable in the browsing experience. I do use Chrome if I know I need to use a few very java-intensive websites, but this happens rarely.
I also rarely use I8 but only for the websites built for the non-standard IE code which don't work on standard-compliant browsers.
Posted 20 July 2009 - 07:56 AM
Posted 20 July 2009 - 08:05 AM
Posted 20 July 2009 - 08:21 AM
Also, the article says "Browser speed test": since page loading time are rather short, it's quite irrelevant for me when measuring speed. What I care about is how responsive the browser is while I use online application, while I interact with the web. And the answers are in teh article I linked.
Posted 20 July 2009 - 08:45 AM
Posted 20 July 2009 - 10:57 AM
On a fast computer, the speed difference may be meaningless. On a slow computer, it's the difference between using one browser or another.
Posted 20 July 2009 - 01:01 PM
On my mac, I won't TOUCH safari. It's a total memory hog, so I use the firefox variant called Camino. When Google releases Chrome for the Mac I may give it a try, but for now all I need is Internet Explorer 8 and Camino.
Posted 20 July 2009 - 02:35 PM
I'm glad you found your favorite browsers.
There are a few errors in your statement though, so allow me to correct them:
1) You say you don't need any cluttery so you pick IE instead of FF. Fair request.
Well Microsoft itself bragged about how IE8 incorporates "many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8" (source: http://www.microsoft...comparison.aspx)
2) Firefox comes with no add-on. Zero. Nada. If you want them, you get them. If you don't, nobody forces you to use add-ons.
Conclusion: it is IE8 that has "cluttery" built-in, not Firefox.Not only: IE8 is the ONLY browser that pretends to know better than you what you need. All other browsers, are "bare" when you install them.
3) Tab re-ordering has been supported by FF3.1beta (now 3.5) since last June 2008 (about 1 year). Before that, it has been available for a long time via add-ons. You may want to keep in mind that IE8 too supports tab re-ordering: it's one of the several features that Microsoft (and Mozilla) copied fromOpera.
Conclusion: being able or not to re-order tabs cannot be a differentiating feature between IE8 and Firefox since they both support it.
4) You are correct on the tab dragging to make a new window: Firefox has this feature but IE8 does not. The feature was first introduced by Google chrome, so, chances are you'll find it on your Mac if you give Chrome a shot.
5) I also like to stay away from memory hog. I don't have a Mac, and I could not find any benchmark run on Mac, so good luck with your choice there. May I ask why don't you consider applying the same criteria on your Window PC?
This test http://cybernetnews....era/#more-17035 shows that IE8 has the worse memory management in most scenarios (never the best), while Opera and FireFox are the best ones in at least one scenario. You can read the data yourself, but when I compare 136MB (FF) vs 402MB (IE8) I think it's pretty clear which browser wins the crown of memory hog.
Posted 24 July 2009 - 07:59 AM
Posted 25 July 2009 - 02:34 AM
Think of the possibilities- now you can use an unsecure browser even faster than IE.
But why is it that no one else has mentioned Goofle Chrome's inherent security flaws? That it is, after all, another Goofle project might be a clue, eh? They don't, like, have a reputation for invading or exploiting user privacy or anything.
Or maybe that the Iron Browser was created to address exactly those security issues? Nah, that probably isn't a clue, either.
I think I can stand holding my breath for a few milliseconds longer while I await my secure browser to load a page.
Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:18 AM
Chrome is light and streamlined and fast as lightning, the way a browser should be.
Less is more.
Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:46 AM
As a staunch Firefox fan, my main and strident beef is this:
WHERE'S THE OPTION FOR INSTALLING AN ADBLOCKER?!!
Chrome doesn't appear to support it; neither does Safari. So until that blissful day that these other wannabes catch up with Firefox, I'll dabble lightly in their offerings
Posted 27 July 2009 - 11:12 AM
Posted 27 July 2009 - 11:25 AM