Slashdot Mirror

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

The Safari 3 beta for Windows is faster than Firefox. See http://www.apple.com/safari/

That's odd because I've got Opera 9 running on quite a few low-end computers and it works fine. And according to speed tests, Opera 9 is actually faster than Opera 6.

Oh yeah, and this shows Opera 9 to be faster than Opera 6 at most things. The things Opera 6 is faster at, it's only marginally faster than Opera 9. The things Opera 9 is faster at, it absolutely kills Opera 6. And the next "major" version of Opera is supposed to be even faster!

Old: Download a hunk of HTML. Browser renders it. If the ISP's spotty (maybe the setup of that HTTP transaction fails 5% of the time), then one out of 20 times you don't get any HTML to render. So you reload and all's well.
New: Download a hunk of HTML. Download a separate .css file, or two, or three, or four, sometimes from the same server, other times from some other server. If the ISP flakes out on you 5% of the time, and you have 5 different files to download, then (.95^5 = 0.76) about one time out of four, you get nothing, and have to reload.

Old: Javashit is a security risk.
New: Javashit is still a security risk, but we'll make damn sure that none of our content renders correctly unless you turn it on, because how else are we going to run our browser-detection script that determines which of the half-dozen stylesheets (see above) we want your browser to use.

Old: Any font you like, as long as it's Helvetica, Courier, or Times Roman. But it'll be the version of Helvetica, Courier, and Times Roman that your OS designers knew would look good with its engine, at the sizes that look good on your display device.
New: Any font you like, as long as you're running the same DPI on your monitor as the web designer was running on his screen. If not, it'll look about two sizes too small, or two sizes too large. But it'll never look like the "right" default font that the pre-CSS browser would default to.

You're wrong. Opera passed it first. On top of that, Safari didn't disable scrollbars until almost a year after they first claimed to pass it (disabling scrollbars is required by the Acid2 test).

No, it was Safari. Take it from someone who followed Acid2 from the time it was announced. Even this list of Acid2 in major browsers, made by an Opera employee, credits Safari with making it there first.

The scrollbar controversy you're thinking of was with Konqueror and in iCab. Safari developers (well, mainly Dave Hyatt) wrote a lot of code to pass Acid2, but WebKit had already diverged enough that Konqueror's developers weren't able to just apply the patches he released. They had to reimplement most of the changes themselves. They and iCab both missed the scrollbar -- as did the Web Standards Project when they looked at the results -- because it wasn't mentioned in the guide. Months later, some Opera folks pointed out the scrollbar issue in those two browsers.

Basically the Safari fires the onload event before the document is ready. This gives the mistaken impression in some test suites that it is faster than it really is.

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html

Interesting reading.

Part of it seems to be that Safari has some bugs that break benchmarks:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/

Yes, yes they did. Well, okay, that was the previous version of Safari. But since it's still based on KHTML, I assume it didn't regress.

That's VERY true (I missed that one completely), but I was admittedly NOT aware of it - the "Allow Plugins" part, correct, in the CONTENT tab? I would assume so, but it's best to ask!

Thanks bro'... "just when you think you know it all", lol!

(& it's good to see another Opera user: Proving you have good taste, & LOVE SPEED (there is no browser out there, that's faster, afaik, & per the url findings below (you may find that interesting))).

Consider this info. for you, in return:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

Enjoy the read/graphs/etc., & after you read that? You KNOW you are driving the "Saleen GT" of the webbrowser world!

APK

P.S.=> Overall, it's the BEST performer, on numerous OS' out there, but ESPECIALLY on Win32 ones (the most widely used ones there is)... apk

Absolutely: Opera IS the finest webbrowser creation out there, no questions asked, in terms of both speed and security also!

EVIDENCE = THE MOST CURRENT WEB BROWSER SPEED TEST I HAVE SEEN ONLINE:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

(As far as security goes? Opera is never mentioned as having 1/100th the problems the "big boys on the block" have in IE & FireFox)

As to my statements - can anyone show me otherwise? You see, I would appreciate contrary data, and can use it, if it exists that is.

Type in about:config in Opera's address bar, & it WILL automatically resolve out to/change to, opera:config!

As far as performance goes though, overall, across many OS platforms (especially Win32, the most used platform there is by far)?

Opera IS the fastest browser there is!

I base that off of this page where many browsers across many OS platforms were tested:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

(The is the most comprehensive "browser speed test" comparison I have run across to date)

The overall winner? Opera "uber alles"...

APK

7 DOCUMENTED PROOFS/POINTS ABOUT OPERA, BEING FIREFOX'S SUPERIOR, on quite a few levels:

1.) Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

SUMMARY FROM THE ARTICLE ON THE SPEEDTEST FROM THE URL ABOVE:

"So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features.

On Linux, Konqueror is the fastest for starting and viewing basic pages on KDE, but as soon as script or images are involved, or you want to use the back or forward buttons, or if you use Gnome, Opera is a faster choice, even though on KDE it will take a few seconds longer to start. Mozilla and Firefox give an overall good performance, but their script, cache handling and image-based page speed still cannot compare with Opera.

On Mac OS X, Opera and Safari are both very fast, with Safari 2 being faster at starting and rendering CSS, but with Opera still being distinguishably faster for rendering tables, scripting and history (especially compared with the much slower Safari 1.2). Camino is fast to start, but then it joins its sisters Mozilla and Firefox further down the list. Neither Mozilla, Firefox nor IE perform very well on Mac, being generally slower than on other operating systems"

(On the Windows Platform, in THAT test alone, it took 4 of 7 total categories... nuff said on that account! Considering 90% of the world's computers run Windows based Os' (hopefully Windows NT-based ones by now)? That's saying a HELL of a LOT!)

Opera (as you may read for yourselves above) even did great on the OTHER platforms too!

Now, some folks will say "But today's CPU's are so fast this does not matter" - ahem: BEG TO DIFFER, it matters! If a browser's faster & more efficient on slower CPU's ESPECIALLY (purely relative term here), it will still be faster on faster CPU's mhz or cores/h-t/smp-wise (especially if multithreaded & designed properly with non-blocking operations in multithread design used wisely).

2.) Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

3.) AND OPERA IS ALSO FREE!

4.) Opera also had/has features before any other browser, that Mozilla/FireFox copied outright from it (tabs, anyone? Opera had tabbed browsing FAR before Mozilla/FireFox)

5.) Opera is more used than FireFox is, in "mobile devices", afaik (handhelds, etc. (not into them myself, but I wager this one is correct as well).

6.) Opera also has less vulnerabilities found than any other browser, over time. CHECK THIS:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/23/HNbrowse rvuln_1.html

(Opera is definitely the "least attacked/most secure" of the "big 3" browers'-wise (IE, FireFox/Mozilla/Opera) out there... unless someone can show me otherwise. Thanks for that info. IF you can provide it. Yes, it may only be by "security by obscurity", that IS a valid argument, but somehow, based on ALL of the above? I would wager, strongly, not. Not that it is the ONLY reason it is more secure than other webbrowsers that is.)

That all said, noted and documented, & aside? Opera vs. FireFox?? Opera, vs. FireFox? NO CONTEST! Opera wins on any front you can name...

7.) Opera, has passed the ACID2 test & afaik, did so before FireFox did (not sure

7 DOCUMENTED PROOFS/POINTS ABOUT OPERA, BEING FIREFOX'S SUPERIOR, on quite a few levels:

1.) Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

SUMMARY FROM THE ARTICLE ON THE SPEEDTEST FROM THE URL ABOVE:

"So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features.

On Linux, Konqueror is the fastest for starting and viewing basic pages on KDE, but as soon as script or images are involved, or you want to use the back or forward buttons, or if you use Gnome, Opera is a faster choice, even though on KDE it will take a few seconds longer to start. Mozilla and Firefox give an overall good performance, but their script, cache handling and image-based page speed still cannot compare with Opera.

On Mac OS X, Opera and Safari are both very fast, with Safari 2 being faster at starting and rendering CSS, but with Opera still being distinguishably faster for rendering tables, scripting and history (especially compared with the much slower Safari 1.2). Camino is fast to start, but then it joins its sisters Mozilla and Firefox further down the list. Neither Mozilla, Firefox nor IE perform very well on Mac, being generally slower than on other operating systems"

(On the Windows Platform, in THAT test alone, it took 4 of 7 total categories... nuff said on that account! Considering 90% of the world's computers run Windows based Os' (hopefully Windows NT-based ones by now)? That's saying a HELL of a LOT!)

Opera (as you may read for yourselves above) even did great on the OTHER platforms too!

Now, some folks will say "But today's CPU's are so fast this does not matter" - ahem: BEG TO DIFFER, it matters! If a browser's faster & more efficient on slower CPU's ESPECIALLY (purely relative term here), it will still be faster on faster CPU's mhz or cores/h-t/smp-wise (especially if multithreaded & designed properly with non-blocking operations in multithread design used wisely).

(That type of statement is like trying to say "Delphi code speed being faster than MSVC++ &/or VB doesn't matter" when clearly, it does. I cite this from as far back as 1997 where in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Oct. Issue "Inside the VB5 Compiler Engine" issue had Delphi blow away VB in every test (except ActiveX form loads which VB even beat MSVC++ in since it is optimized best for it) & even took MSVC++ to the cleaners & in every test (except graphics form paints, losing only marginally, VERY small margin). In math & strings, which EVERY program does? Delphi absolutely swept the floor with BOTH VC & VB... & by HUGE margins. Of the 12 or so tests? Delphi took away the winner crown on 10 of them... I think we have to agree to disagree here for anyone that takes that tack with me on this point).

I will ALWAYS, personally, go with what I know is a better coded, faster, & more efficient tool to work with... everytime, provided I am informed correctly that is &, on Opera &/or Delphi? I KNOW I AM CORRECTLY INFORMED... absolutely, no question.

2.) Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

3.) Opera, has passed the ACID2 test & afaik, did so before FireFox did (not sure currently, if it has or not though - feel free to correct me here if necessary, as is per usual & I expect it - I only get STRONGER for co

"No offense to opera, but its not as strong or as popular as firefox." - by Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) on Wednesday May 02, @10:11PM (#18966775)

That's not true (on the "as strong" portion of your statement) about Opera. Popularity is NOT a gauge of strength or being better. Nobody is accusing the masses who do not write code or analyze it of intelligence, but more of "following the crowd, and being with the 'in-crowd'" face it.

My evidences? Well, here you are, documented, & tested:

Opera, afaik, is the ONLY browser to pass the ACID test (yes, there is one called that), check it:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/12/1416222.shtml

Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

Opera also has less vulnerabilities found than any other browser, over time. CHECK THIS:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/23/HNbrowse rvuln_1.html

That all said, noted and documented, & aside? Opera vs. FireFox??

(& it had/has features before any other browser, that Mozilla/FireFox copied outright from it (tabs, anyone? Opera had tabbed browsing FAR before Mozilla/FireFox))

AND OPERA IS ALSO FREE!

Opera, vs. FireFox? NO CONTEST! Opera wins on any front you can name...

APK

P.S.=> At least as far as technological superiority, & innovation. The trouble with many things today is, the best product or man for the job, does not always win. Especially in today's politically motivated, & "Public Relations Driven" world (whoever has the most monies, wins), & in our current "world of committees" (it's no longer a world of great men, but instead, a world of committees, imo)... apk

I find the lemmings to a cliff jump to use Firefox amusing.

1. It's better than IE, we know that. IE itself wouldn't be bad if they would stop supporting and enabling goofy Microsoft extensions that eventually Firefox goes along and supports as well.
2. Opera has been out there for ages. It's a better browser with much more advanced use of tabs, has had them for years, and is much more COMPLIANT to the spec.
3. Konqueror has been out there for ages. It's use of tabs is not as great as Opera's, but more importantly, it is COMPLIANT to the spec.

50M/year in revenue and Firefox is still like a CS project?

You know my bias, I use two browsers: Opera for when I'm locally using my windows applications, and Konqueror for when I'm in an NX session in KDE. I check rendering of my own html markup through those two browsers, if it looks good, then I check it in IE and Firefox - annoyingly sometimes finding they are not renddering how I desire - but not significantly or frequently enough to make an issue over.

While I do not believe that Firefox is a *bad* browser, I find it disturbing how many opensource addicts blindly jump at it - without consideration for the fact that it still is not 100% compliant and the fact that there are just plain better options out there.

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/ -- useful info.

When you get a chance, check out the current nightly trunk builds. Just after Firefox 3 alpha 1, they merged in the "reflow branch" which includes a bunch of CSS improvements and passes Acid2.

Opera should be deprecated. It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox. The Internet will be better off if websites permanently ban this Scandinavian piece of shit.

You are an idiot. Opera has been ad free for a LONG time and it does not install any adware. Opera 9 is also faster than Firefox 2, it kicks Firefox's ass quite handily:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

Why should a browser that is still being actively developed and used be deprecated? Please try to post something relevent next time.

I've used both browsers on a whole bunch of machines, under a whole bunch of operating systems, and I've never seen Firefox out-perform Opera. Oddly enough, this comparison seems to agree with me. So I'd love to know what you're doing to have Firefox faster than Opera?

Yes, the zoom function definitely comes in handy at times.

I honestly cannot say if firefox is better once it is setup with the right extensions, Opera just has everything I need already built in. I also know that the cold startup time for Opera is WAY less. According to:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win speed

Opera 9 takes only 2.74 seconds to startup compared to FF 2.0's time of 11.64 seconds. That alone will keep me from seriously testing out FF, when I start up a browser I want it working NOW and having to wait over 4 times longer is not acceptable.

FF definitely has a lot more extensions to use and they may be better but Opera does have widgets now so it no longer is held back in regard to not having support for any third party extensions. Until I see a significant reason to switch over to FF I am sticking with Opera since I am used to it and prefer how it is setup and I think most diehard FF users are of the same mindset regarding FF. I used to be a Moz user until about 5 years ago when I discovered the tabbed browsing that Opera had and that is what got me to switch over at that point in time. To each their own.

This strikes me as so factually inaccurate I can't believe it. FF 2.0 may be more featureful, but it's far faster than FF 1.5 on every piece of hardware I've tried it on. And it has fewer memory leak issues.

Well the people I know who were complaining about the slower performance of FF noticed it with 1.5, not just 2.0. Anyway I found two somewhat recent articles showing a comparison of FF 1.5 to 2.0 as well as comparisons to Opera 9 and IE 7. NONE of them show FF 2.0 being "far faster" than FF 1.5 and for the most part 1.5 is faster or just slower by a marginal amount:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1990855 ,00.asp

This article clearly shows how FF has a pretty significant increase of memory usage after just opening 6 tabs, FF 2.0 nearly doubled its amount of memory usage while FF 1.5 nearly tripled the amount of memory used and yet FF 1.5 still used less memory. Opera actually ended up using LESS memory after opening 6 tabs than it used with no tabs, and it still used less memory overall than FF 2.0 or 1.5 with 6 tabs open.

Here is the next article:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win speed

Here it can be seen that FF 2.0 is slower than FF 1.5 in nearly every category except the cold startup time which did have a significant improvement since it dropped from a rediculous 17.26 seconds to a still very unacceptable 11.64 seconds. Why does it take so damn long to start up a freaking web browser? I mean IE 7 even beats it with a time of 7.8 seconds. Opera 9.01 kills them all with a cold startup time of 2.74 seconds which is as fast or faster than FF 1.5 and 2.0's WARM startup time. When I go to surf the web it is nice to have the browser come up almost instantaneously, I don't want to be waiting around for over 10 seconds, that is just crazy and if I don't have to do it I won't so that is one reason I prefer Opera.

Face it, the only real reason to keep using FF is if you are used to it and the extensions you use with it and/or you seriously care if you can take a look at the source or not (which IMO I don't care about as long as the software performs better). Now that Opera has something to compete with FF's extensions (the widgets), it performs faster and is more stable than FF, and it adheres to the standards better why would you not use it?

That's already being planned.

Read the article How IE causes problems (28 pages). It was written for IE6, but updated for IE7. You can explore the both historic and outstanding problems in detail.

What annoys me as a Firefox user is that I feel somewhat cheated in performance, compared to the cpu/mem it hogs.

The graphs (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#li nspeed) unfortunately do not lie.

Except if you declare your doctype as XHTML. Then it renders it as HTML in quirksmode. Read here about this and other, more important issues.

Javascript in Firefox 2.0 is about 50% slower than in Firefox 1.5.

Now to be fair, Firefox doesn't adhere entirely to standards either, or at least not the latest ones. It comes a lot closer, but I won't give it (or any other browswer) that until it'll pass the ACID2 test, which I believe only Safari and Opera do currently. Last I heard, full compliance wasn't slated until Fx 3.0, but that might be incorrect.

Safari, Opera, Konqueror, and iCab. Plus one HTML-to-PDF converter and a mobile browser. There's a great list of Acid2 status here. And yes, Firefox is looking at passing Acid2 with 3.0.

Something to keep in mind, though, is that Acid2 doesn't indicate a particular level of compliance. It's not a test that says, "OK, you pass CSS version X and HTML version Y," but a test that checks several previously neglected parts of the specs. If you think of the specs as being a floor, and a browser's compliance as being the part of the floor that is painted, Acid2 checks the corners. It's possible to have all the corners filled in, but still have a missing chunk in the middle.

The best compliance comparison I've found is, unfortuantely, missing full data for Safari. It shows Opera 9 ahead of Firefox 1.5 on CSS 2.1 and DOM, and Firefox ahead of Opera on HTML and new parts of CSS 3. It's hard to say how one should weight those, and again numbers are missing for Safari, but if I were to guess, I'd say that in overall standards compliance, Firefox 1.5 is probably ahead of Safari 2, and Opera 9 is probably ahead of Firefox 1.5 -- despite the fact that Opera and Safari both pass Acid2 and Firefox does not.

The ACID test is not a CSS compliance test. It's more like a CSS torture test.

IIRC, Konqueror and a heavily patched Webkit (they share a similar code base, of course) are the only browsers that pass ACID 2.0 . Oh, and Opera, of course; but that's because Opera tends to be light years ahead in terms of rendering engine design (I do dislike the Opera UI, though). Even Opera on mobile devices passes.

Take a look at the results here. Look at the screenshots. Firefox fails the test, but it's pretty close. IE7 is miles and miles away. But either way, the test is not terribly relevant; ACID is a test of invalid CSS, to see how the browser handles broken code. I think that in terms of standards, a CSS compliance test is more relevant. Not that IE does well there, either.

According to the Browser Speed Comparisons it looks like Firefox 2.0 is about as fast as Firefox 1.5 and Firefox 1.0. Maybe there was some gunk in your 1.5 profile that isn't in your 2.0 profile?

Indeed, I found these lines very insightful (from http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/).

It is about trying to get a reliable response across browsers, so that authors can use a style or technology, and know exactly how it will work. It is not (just) about CSS 2.1. Should a browser that fails to support PNG transparency, still be allowed to claim to pass, since that is not in the CSS spec? Should a browser that fails to support data URIs still be allowed to claim to pass, since they are not in the CSS spec either? No, of course not, because whether or not they are in the spec is irrelevant. They are still part of the test.

and

In my very strong opinion, no, it does not pass, because the question was "does Internet Explorer 6 pass the test", not "does it conform with the relevant parts of the CSS 1 specification". It did not meet the pass criteria for the test. The test tests what it wants to test. The test is not the spec.

Sounds to me like the test is meant to force browers to behave a certain way, even when there's no spec at all (such as supporting transparent PNG).

So yes, it certainly sounds like its meant to bash IE more than anything else; that was the purpose of the test, to build something IE wouldn't render (regardless of what the specs say... interesting how SHOULD requirements are turned into MUST requirements because the test author says so), just to have something to bash.

Firefox should pass Acid2 sometime in 2007. Firefox 2 is using the same version of the rendering engine as Firefox 1.5, but work has already been done on the code that will eventually work its way into Firefox 3 (not to mention future versions of SeaMonkey, Camino, etc.)

Here's a good run-down of Acid2 status in major browsers. According to that, a "reflow" branch of Gecko alread passes the test, but the changes haven't been fed back into the trunk.

In short:
Safari: Passed
Konqueror: Passed
Opera: Passed
Firefox: Working on it, should be two releases away.
Internet Explorer: Ignoring it for now.

Your information is out of date. At this point IE is the only major browser to not pass ACID2 in either a production (eg Safari) or development (eg Firefox) version. See this for details.

Compared to what? http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

It's worth pointing out that the person publishing those benchmarks is an Opera employee. Not that I think they are fabricated, but it's always good to know potential biases.

Compared to what? http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

It's worth pointing out that the person publishing those benchmarks is an Opera employee. Not that I think they are fabricated, but it's always good to know potential biases.

Opera is relatively fast but not the fastest

Compared to what? http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

An API for extentions would mean it can be made even leaner since you can effectively strip off functionality that is not used often and put it into an extension for those who need it.

I'm curious what the point of that is though? The English install is 4.6MB, and you'll find this of interest: http://my.opera.com/FataL/blog/show.dml/298429. If you ignore the multi-language installer, Opera's install size has increased about 500kb over the past five years.

I'd like to point out that such a degree of integration allows a sharing of code that isn't possible with extensions. That's why the size increase has been so tiny despite the significant difference in featuresets between 6.0 and 9.0.

"and khtml/konqueror/safari already pass."

Yeah, and it was great competition...

"iCab and Konqueror almost passed (and claimed to pass) before Opera, but they both failed to apply one of the styles required by the test, and as a result they displayed a scrollbar even though they shouldn't. This was fixed in later releases, after the release of Opera."

From: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/

I do love a good race!

B.

something about that acid2 test reminds me of drugs

You must be looking at it in IE

Firefox at least is working on it. The Gecko trunk is getting close, and there's a "reflow" branch that passes (but hasn't been merged in yet).

These fixes will miss Firefox 2.0, which will use roughly the same rendering engine as Firefox 1.5 does, but should be in in time for Firefox 3.0.

As for IE -- last we heard from Microsoft on the subject, they had no plans to target Acid2. Maybe IE8 if we're lucky, but if they maintain their current schedule, that could be in 2010.

Click on its VIEW menu, Toolbars submenu... you get the ones you want (they go "minimalist" initially, letting YOU customize it)... & then, right clicks on toolbars have a CUSTOMIZE feature, so you can place new widgets on them, or move them around as you see fit!

* :)

Performance &/or Security-wise?

Check it:

About Speed:

The URL below is the MOST even-handed browser speed comparisons page I have ever run across online, that covers IE/Mozilla variants/Opera & across multiple OS platforms as well, where Opera blows away the competitors (especially in Windows, and even in other OS too):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

About Security:

Heck - hit secunia, or other security-breach reporting website & see if any other web-browsers out there (e.g.-> IE &/or FireFox-Mozilla variants) has less bugs/less vunerabilities than Opera does...

APK

P.S.=> As far as Addons/extensions/widgets? DOABLE - SDK/API available from Opera for it is AJAX based! apk

Reading changelogs such as these should strike fear into the hearts of the Firefox developers, while that they squander so foolishly their hard-earned market share. If it wasn't for Opera, Joe Clickit wouldn't have reason to think FF was so poorly cobbled together.

Firefox, while it started with good intentions has become thick around the midriff. It's memory useage is embarassing, and I use Linux which is apparently the build target Firefox is most optomised for. How long can we be told we're sick of being told they're imagining FF's gushing memory leaks.. Why does an open-source application fall so miserably behind a closed-source competitor? The trend is the inverse.

For anyone that feels Opera is "bloatware"?

LOL... Guys, it's the fastest browser there is! And, I am running 8.54 alongside it, & it takes up 30mb, & this new version 9.0 only takes up 22mb!!!

Ok, not enough? WELL, then take a read:

The URL below is the MOST even-handed browser speed comparisons page I have ever run across online, that covers IE/Mozilla variants/Opera & across multiple OS platforms as well, where Opera blows away the competitors (especially in Windows, and even in other OS too):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

APK

Oops. Here is the precise link: Save Form Values Script

See also:

The Save Form Values Script by HowToCreate.co.uk

If you see: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/ also firefox 2 and iCab 3 passes the test.
Only IE lacks long behind. Looks like the other browsers did 3+ years ago.

According to a section near the bottom of this page which discusses the Acid2 test, the ability to scroll the page using the scrollbar was intentionally removed from the test, by applying overflow: hidden to the html element, as seen below:

html { ... overflow: hidden; /* hides scrollbars on viewport, see 11.1.1:3 */ ... } (copied verbatim from the page linked above)

While this is apparently open to interpretation, the comment associated with this particular parameter in the CSS seems to imply that removing the scrollbar was deliberate. Therefore, Safari 2 and Konqueror do pass the test, as does Opera 9 and a beta version of iCab.

"Ruby is at least as slow as JavaScript, if not slower"

" -- at least you can compile JavaScript into Java"

"I guess what would make me happy is an insanely intelligent compiler for Ruby, that targeted the .net environment. Performance comparable to C#, developer time comparable to normal Ruby, bytecode obfuscated enough to use in commercial products.
But that's depressing, too, because in the amount of time it would take me to learn enough about Ruby and .net to do that, not to mention the programming of that insane compiler, I could write hundreds of useful Ruby programs."

He concludes, " So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features. "

Wilton-Jones tested both version 1.0 and version 1.5 of Firefox. Does anyone have any thoughts on the performance of version 2.0?

He concludes, " So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features. "

Wilton-Jones tested both version 1.0 and version 1.5 of Firefox. Does anyone have any thoughts on the performance of version 2.0?

On it, like "White-On-Rice", & thanks for the URL!

Opera is not only the most std.'s compliant possibly now, but undoubtedly the FASTEST PERFORMING of them all, see here:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

* That's the MOST even-handed, fairest & most objective test of browser speed/performance I know of... & all I can give you in return for the link to the build of Opera 9 (weekly update) you gave me!

(So, in exchange for that link to download this latest ACID2 standards compliance test build of Opera 9? Well, I give you back some "good, Pro-Opera" superior performance data vs. ALL other browsers out there on the MOST platforms of all (since many browsers run on multiple OS) in exchange)...

Hope you find it useful, or, @ least a GOOD read!

I know I'm going to find Opera 9 ACID 2 passing model useful... just knowing it's able to handle that is enough!

APK