Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 3 Performance Gets a Boost

jason writes "Mozilla has been working hard at making Firefox 3 faster than its predecessor, and it looks like they might be succeeding. They've recently added some significant JavaScript performance improvements that beat out all of the competition, including Opera 9.5 Beta. And it comes out to be about ten times faster than Internet Explorer 7! Things are really starting to fall into place for Firefox 3 Beta 4 which should be available in the next week or two."

11 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Safari by GenKreton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These benchmarks are definitely lal done on a windows box, because if you compare the performance of JS in Firefox on Linux and Windows it is like night and day... I don't know why JS on Linux needs to be so much worse.

  2. Re:Safari by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about testing with a WebKit nightly?

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  3. Microsoft's Biggest Mistake by TheNarrator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft's biggest mistake was thinking people wouldn't write complicated apps in Javascript. They supported it, in their usual half broken style, but it created the only widely deployed cross-platform system for running code that Microsoft has ever implemented. Now, with Firefox 3 running so fast javascript might become THE platform. It's hilarious because Javascript started out as such a kludgy platform and now it is becoming a serious contender if only because it's the only cross-platform thing Microsoft ever supported.

  4. Re:IE7 is just slow anyway by ivarneli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I tend to have the opposite experience. When I need to use it, IE7 is quite fast and responsive for me, and it will certainly open tabs as quickly as I can hit Ctrl-T. On the other hand, Firefox (on any computer I've used) occasionally has a bit of a delay when opening new tabs, especially if other pages are rendering in the background, you have a few complex sites (like gmail) open, or you have more than 3-4 tabs open.

    There are a bunch of great reasons to use Firefox - adblock, keyword bookmarks, decent standards support, Firebug, etc. But in my experience (especially post-1.5), the responsiveness of the UI is not one of those reasons.

  5. Re:Safari by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't get it. They are doing exactly what I wanted about Firefox in 3.x.

    While new features can be nice, I couldn't name a feasible feature that a significant number of people would want and it's not in core Firefox or in an extension already. What I want from Firefox now is to provide the existing features in a secure, stable, fast and memory conserving way, in this order. Heck, I've turned off most of the new features in Firefox 2.x and wished they'd fix some annoying bugs instead. In 3.x the developers did a lot of work to remedy a lot of those bugs and issues, so big big kudos for them!

    Cleaner code matters - it results in less bugs and security vulnerabilities, easier to add features and most likely better code.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  6. Re:Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Webkit nightly builds are significantly faster. I don't have the same machine they've tested on obviously, but for comparison purposes here's the current release vs. the most recent nightly build on my Mac OS X 10.5.2 machine:

    Safari 3.0.4: 10758.4ms +/- 0.5%
    WebKi r30628: 3390.0ms +/- 0.3%

    If the performance gain percentage is comparable on their test machine (big if, granted) the comparable time would be 5675.8 ms, 22% faster than the PGO Firefox build.

  7. Re:I tried Firefox 3 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny, I have been using it for a couple months now (nightlies) and I absolutely love the awesomebar. Just typing "s" gets me slashdot. the various environments I work with can be gotten with "l" (localhost), "d" (the development server), "bug" "sprint" "-1h" "me" (our bug tracker), "qa" (our qa environment), etc.

    Best of all, if I visit any site and then want to get back to that site again sometime, all I need to remember is something in the title or url of the page I was at.

  8. Focusing on the wrong aspects by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always see these benchmarks and wonder "why does this matter?". The only time I ever see Javascript run too slow or tax my CPU is when it's buggy and then it'll probably throw up all sorts of warnings anyway. This is on any browser I've used and any system.

    What matters to me is the imperfect implementation of Flash (it's not really their responsibility but it is their problem) which often eats up 100% CPU from random flash objects or causes firefox to freeze. Another annoyance is Firefox being frankly poor at displaying large HTML files (when you go on websites with insanely large lists for instance). Where as IE and Opera display these as the page is downloaded. Firefox, for me, freezes, much like notepad will when you open a 2meg+ file . Sometimes it'll recover and display the page after a minute or so, sometimes I have to ctrl+alt+delete.

  9. Re:stalling by roca · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually in Firefox 3/Gecko 1.9, external CSS loads do not block the parser. Woohoo! However, we do block the parser if the page tries to execute script while there are pending CSS loads.

  10. Re:Have they discovered threads yet? by Wolfier · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Exactly what I think.

    Who cares about Javascript performance when a single script running at any speed can freeze the entire browser?

    Or a few Youtube tabs can slow the browser to a halt? (Hint: Firefox REALLY need to delegate Flash rendering to an external process, something I can renice 19. Just like how Konqueror uses nspluginviewer)

  11. Re:Safari by luserSPAZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, we're just profiling on browser startup/shutdown right now. I did do a build profiled on the benchmark, and it was pretty fast, but that's probably overkill. Mostly we just want to hit enough common code paths to make things faster. Turns out sunspider perf correlates pretty nicely to overall JS speed, since the benchmark is made up of real world code that people complained was slow.