Slashdot Mirror


FireFox 3.1 Leaves IE in the Dust

Anonymous writes "Granted, FireFox 3.1 is just a beta and IE 8 is also in beta, but it looks like Microsoft has some ground to make up when it comes to browser performance. Given that Mozilla appears to be on a much faster cycle than Microsoft with this stuff, it's also possible that it could increase the gap even more before IE 8 is GA, no?"

40 of 435 comments (clear)

  1. And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    both are slower than Opera.

    1. Re:And yet by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      Their speeds all suck next to lynx!

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:And yet by LSD-OBS · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, javascript-wise, maybe not. I've spent the last week doing some extensive testing on pure javascript performance (not DOM-tree manipulation, etc) using a little raytracer I hacked up overnight.

      Opera is noticably above average, in this respect. More importantly, however, you might note that the Firefoxes are absolutely, hideously bad at memory management. When rendering a big scene here, Safari will do it in a fraction of the time using 60mb of RAM, whereas Firefox 3.1beta's memory usage spirals out of control and into swap space. And the JIT compiler is way broken still :)

      Anyway, here are some figures (only meaningful when comparing different browsers on the same box):

      IE 7.0.5730.13 -- 10.1 seconds
      Firefox 2.0.0.17 -- 9.9 seconds
      Safari (win32) 3.1.1 -- 5.9 seconds
      Opera 9.60 -- 3.6 seconds
      Firefox 3.1b2pre (no JIT) -- 2.8 seconds
      Safari (win32) 2008-10-15 -- 1.0 seconds
      Google Chrome 0.2.149.30 -- 0.8 seconds
      Firefox 3.1b2pre (JIT) -- anywhere between 0.6-35.0 seconds

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    3. Re:And yet by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, you're wrong -- Firefox 3.1 comprehensively outperforms Opera in pretty much all tests now.

      On the other hand, what does blow the FF 3.1 beta out of the water, are the latest WebKit betas. Here's the stats on my machine:

      Sunspider (faster times are better)
      FF3.0.3 - 2697.2ms
      FF3.1 - 2442.8ms
      WebKit - 702.6ms

      V8 Benchmark (more runs are better)
      FF3.0.3 - 199 runs
      FF3.1 - 241 runs
      WebKit - 2087 runs

      ACID 3
      FF3.0.3 - 71 and significant laggyness
      FF3.1 - 89 and significant laggyness
      WebKit - 100 and passes timing tests

    4. Re:And yet by nawcom · · Score: 5, Funny

      Re:And yet (Score:0, Redundant)
      Their speeds all suck next to lynx!

      Bah! you damn moderators can't accept the truth!

    5. Re:And yet by LSD-OBS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks, heh! For a minute I thought I had an original idea but it turns out there other other (better but slower) js raytracers out there. Humm :)

      Webkit is great. If you're running that you might actually see some animation here (10fps+ in Safari nightly here). I wonder if the demoscene guys are insane enough to write demos for browsers?

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    6. Re:And yet by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      (actually, modding redundant implies that they had already accepted it)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:And yet by pbhj · · Score: 5, Funny

      When rendering a big scene here, Safari will do it in a fraction of the time using 60mb of RAM, whereas Firefox 3.1beta's memory usage spirals out of control and into swap space.

      Wow, 60 milli-bits of RAM, that's more than amazing!

    8. Re:And yet by LSD-OBS · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes but I have 1.21 jiggawhats of CPU

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    9. Re:And yet by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pfft. Coddled kids. In my day, we used to telnet to port 80, then render the page with pencil and paper-- and that's the way we liked it!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:And yet by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pshaw! Youngster. Your UID barely fits inside 16 bits. In _my_ day we had to whistle the 1's and 0's through an acoustic coupler!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. Simple Really by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This destroys Microsoft's claim that their intimate knowledge of the OS that runs IE will increase performance.

    This proves that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of their OS actually inhibits performance of IE and therefore all other Microsoft products.

    Microsoft is a victim of their own feature-rich corporate culture. They are a victim of their customers non-uniform demands.

    The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.

    Firefox loads what you need to surf and also lets you modify the experience -- you are in control.

    Add with that experience, superior plugins like NoScript, and you also save bandwidth because Flash files don't load by default and scripts don't tie up resources unless you approve them to do so. NoScript was designed for security, but with the added benefit that you get faster performance with it.

    Even when you look at Google Chrome, which is also a valid attempt at increasing performance (they flaunt security as a pillar of their design, but their cheerleading is unwarranted), the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Simple Really by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember those anti-trust cases with the Win95/98 and IE bundling? Yeah, around that time.

      No, I don't remember performance being mentioned in the anti-trust cases. And why would they? It would highlight an uncompetitive advantage and weaken their position.

      Citation needed.

    2. Re:Simple Really by alexborges · · Score: 4, Funny

      They did say that IE was a basic building block of their product and that removing it would slow everything down and would make it suck.

      Imagine... a windows OS that sucks.

      Mind thrashing, ey?

      --
      NO SIG
    3. Re:Simple Really by mfh · · Score: 5, Funny

      As for Google Chrome, it makes perfect sense to bind the user to the webmaster's control. After all, for many important things like e-mail, calendaring, and many more, that webmaster is probably Google. (After all, how many yahoo.com or live.com users would install a Google browser?) And Google loves it when you can't block their cookies or stop them from doing whatever they want to spy on you.

      This can't be true because Google said they would do no evil. Unless OH SH-

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    4. Re:Simple Really by ifrag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Firefox is simply more minimal.

      Hmm, I must have been teleported to some alternate reality where IE actually has more features than Firefox. The way I see it, even the barebones FF install has more than standard IE. One glance at about:config would confirm that.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    5. Re:Simple Really by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This destroys Microsoft's claim that their intimate knowledge of the OS that runs IE will increase performance.

      Really? Where was this claimed?

      This proves that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of their OS actually inhibits performance of IE and therefore all other Microsoft products.

      That's quite the leap there. Where's your evidence to bridge those thoughts?

      The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.

      I don't think anyone said using libraries increased performance. What it does do is allow you to build an application faster, because you don't need to re-invent the wheel. You're also acting like speed is the only important factor here. I've been using IE8 beta more because of the built in developer tools, and being able to switch between IE8 standards mode and IE7 mode... which means I don't have to check FF's rendering as much. Besides, IE8 is so fast, that it hardly seems worth if it FF is faster.. either will be great for browsing, because both are now really really fast. It's not like the ridiculously slow IE7.

      Add with that experience, superior plugins like NoScript, and you also save bandwidth because Flash files don't load by default and scripts don't tie up resources unless you approve them to do so. NoScript was designed for security, but with the added benefit that you get faster performance with it.

      Performance is not the end-all be-all of browsing. I'm sure someone so included could whip up an add-in like NoScript in IE as well.

      Even when you look at Google Chrome, which is also a valid attempt at increasing performance (they flaunt security as a pillar of their design, but their cheerleading is unwarranted), the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.

      I'm not sure most users care as much as you about controling scripts. For example, I'm looking forward to see what features FF comes up with, because I think there are other new features in IE8 that look pretty compelling, like WebSlices and Extenders.

    6. Re:Simple Really by Zumbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even when you look at Google Chrome, [snip] the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.

      Is it surprising that a company that makes it's money from advertising would want to make it difficult for users to block adverts? I think not.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    7. Re:Simple Really by MojoRilla · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I've done some research into this, and it seems that primary justification given by Microsoft to commingle IE and the OS is increased functionality.

      Microsoft did tout the benefits of integrating IE into the operating system including reduced memory usage and increased functionality (for the OS as well as third parties). See this artcile for a summary of testimony and cross examination of Glenn Weadock.

      For users of IE, Mr. Pepperman successfully showed that integration does provide some technical benefits. The sharing of code between IE and Windows 98 will result the saving of memory for those who wish to use IE. Furthermore, over 100 ISVs depend on IE-related code to function. (Even a competing browser requires IE DLLs to operate.)

      The appeals court said:

      Microsoft proffers no justification for two of the three challenged actions that it took in integrating IE into Windows -- excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and commingling browser and operating system code. Although Microsoft does make some general claims regarding the benefits of integrating the browser and the operating system, it neither specifies nor substantiates those claims.

    8. Re:Simple Really by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, I don't remember performance being mentioned in the anti-trust cases. And why would they? It would highlight an uncompetitive advantage and weaken their position.

      Citation needed.

      Well if you're willing to take Wikipedia as a citation, then:

      "A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows." (Emphasis added)

      Microsoft later withdrew the claim, but only because the plaintiffs spotted that Microsoft attempted to mislead the court with their initial video demonstration. I'm still disgusted that no one from Microsoft was directly prosecuted for any of that.

  3. Benchmarks were versus IE7 ... by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's perhaps a bit confusing to mention IE8 in the subject as it was not compared to FF3.1 - IE7 was. I.e. a more apples-to-apples test might have been production FF3.0 versus IE7 or better yet, beta FF3.1 versus IE8.

    Having said that, the speed improvements are very impressive, in what ChannelWeb says and other reports. And yea, FF3.1 is setting a darn high bar for IE8 - bring it on FF!

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Benchmarks were versus IE7 ... by bonch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, I'm sure we'll still get a bunch of uninformed posts from people who didn't read the article, talking about how they're not surprised Firefox 3.1 outperforms IE8 when IE8 wasn't benchmarked.

  4. Tired of Perma-Beta by mrdoogee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it just an excuse to get you a free pass on bugs?

  5. Java != Javascript by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When is the press going to realize that Java != Javascript? (Or Java !== Javascript, even!) Comparing "Java" performance between browsers is meaningless. (And isn't what SunSpider does anyway.) Comparing JavaScript performance has a very real impact on the users.

    1. Re:Java != Javascript by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When is the press going to realize that Java != Javascript? (Or Java !== Javascript, even!)

      Heh heh heh. Believe it or not, when I first interviewed for a Senior Editor position at Web Techniques magazine, back around 2000, I had never been any kind of Junior Editor before. I just assumed I could do the job. In the course of several interviews, the editorial staff asked me a number of questions about Web technologies, including one from the editor-in-chief: "What's the relationship between Java and JavaScript?"

      I got really nervous for a second. I wasn't sure what to say. My interviewer raised an eyebrow. Finally I stammered out, "Well... I'm not sure I really know how to answer that. The truth is there really isn't much of a relationship." I then talked about Sun's release of Java 1.0, and how Netscape had been working on a language called LiveScript that they planned to include in their browser, and that they changed the name to JavaScript as a favor to Sun. But, I emphasized, the languages were really not very closely related, and I felt a little awkward comparing them without maybe a more specific question. My interviewer jotted down a couple of notes and suggested we move on to another topic.

      I later found out that a big part of the reason they hired me, despite my lack of publishing experience at the time, was because of all the candidates they interviewed -- some with years of experience in the trade press -- not one but me had a satisfactory answer to the Java/JavaScript question. Most said something along the lines of "JavaScript is a stripped-down version of Java for Web browsers."

      So in answer to your question -- when will the press get a clue -- I'm not sure. But I can testify from firsthand experience that they're working on it! ;-)

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  6. What's "GA"? by onion2k · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is "GA" a common abbreviation? I assume it's a contraction of "generally available", but I did think of, and discount, a few other possibilities first given it's used in conjunction with IE8;

    God Awful (too obvious)
    Grizzly Adams (not sure where the bad 80s drama comes into things)
    Ground to Air (IE could be a Weapon Of Markup Destruction..)
    Goatse Arse (Ass if you're American)
    Gabon (.ga is the country code for there..)
    Standards Non-compliant (using Microsoft Alphabet)

    1. Re:What's "GA"? by rrhal · · Score: 4, Funny

      When Microsoft releases a product it goes from CTP (Community Technology preview) to RTM (Release to Manufactuing) to GA (Genuinely Assinine).

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
  7. Does this really matter? by Darundal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many people are going to try a browser because "it is faster?" It is great for the people who already use Firefox, but the majority of new Firefox users had the kid who knows computers down the street install it for them. Those using IE are probably going to continue to use IE until someone manages to get across to them how bad an idea it is, or until whatever apps they are using at work which only work in IE are replaced.

    1. Re:Does this really matter? by jcnnghm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about that. I switched to, and am still using, Chrome since it seems much faster. For many people, all they use their computer for is the web browser, so a faster browser could be significant.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Does this really matter? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are people who will use 1 browser because it is "the internet".
      there are people who will use 1 browser because it is God's only browser and there is only one.
      There are people who will use 1 browser because they cant be bothered to change.

      And then there are people who will want to latest, fastest, feature-rich, talked-about browser. And if FF gets "superfast" stickers all over it in the popular press and blogs, people will want to use it. Nobody really wants to be stuck with yesterday's slow old slowness, not in the Internet Age. We've all been conditioned to always go for the upgrade, give us any reason and very many of us will.

  8. this is not news by buddyglass · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you've even remotely been keeping up with FireFox, WebKit and IE progress, it's no surprise that IE8 fares poorly. It fared poorly the day it was released, which was about two months ago. Why are we getting this story now?

    As a side note, IE8 does fix the pathologically bad performance IE6/IE7 exhibited on certain SunSpider benchmarks. That alone should improve its overall SunSpider score by an order of magnitude. Its javascript engine will still be 2-3X slower than FireFox and Safari, but it will at least be in the same "ball park".

  9. Microsoft's foolish mistake by tjstork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the life of me, I can't understand why Microsoft continues to abandon its strength.

    It feels like the .NET koolaid is coming even to the IE team. Microsoft's .NET push now borders on maniacal, standardizing on .NET and in places where it should not be standardized. Performance matters, particularly when processors aren't getting any faster, just more parallel. Microsoft's has left C++ to languish, has all but abandoned C, and as such has no real performance tool in their own arsenal.

    At the same time, the OSS community is actually slogging through and solving some of the difficult problems of making large projects in C++ that perform - getting better experience with the STL, when to use and when not to use, changing compilers to respond, developing automated testing methodologies to overcome what the compilers can't detect, and so on.

    There should be no reason for the Windows desktop to be stagnant for fast applications, but Microsoft has basically abandoned it and is pushing developers to do the same. All the new display stuff in Windows requires .NET.. one wonders, how long will it be before Linux has similar systems but are presented as a simple C library that any system can use, regardless of whether it is a managed platform or not.

    --
    This is my sig.
  10. Fair tests? by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see that the things they mention are fair or informative tests. Yes, there's some browser infrastructure involved but other components are doing most of the work:

    • papervision3d.org is entirely down to the Flash plugin
    • a 3D Java render is entirely down to the Java plugin
    • sunspider - OK, fair enough, we've known about speed problems with string concatenation in IE since sunspider appeared
    • ACID - yes, this isn't a priority for this release for IE so this isn't news either

    Maybe Firefox 3.1 is much faster than IE 8 but this article doesn't tell me anything new.

  11. Yes, but how about stability? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know about the rest of the world, but Firefox 3.0.3 sucks on my three XP machines. Version 3.0.2 worked just fine. I let Firefox upgrade itself to 3.0.3 and it immediately started crashing. It crashed so much that I actually had to use IE to download a copy of 3.0.2 to downgrade Firefox on those machines. And Firefox 3.0.3 crashes on my Ubuntu machine far far more often that earlier versions ever did (although I'm still using 3.0.3 on Ubuntu).

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  12. Um by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IE 8 is a major revision.
    FF 3.1 is a minor revision.

    Just about any version of Opera is faster than them both.

    Learn to compare things.

    1. Re:Um by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opera used to be faster, but not any longer now that Mozilla, Apple, and Google have been improving performance so much. If you look at the links in the previous post, you can see that Opera beat Firefox in only one speed test. Yes, Opera is faster than IE, but that's only because IE is so slow.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  13. SilverLight Test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where's the SilverLight test, huh? I bet IE wins that one..

  14. Now, can they cut down the spam? by argent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, OK, it's nice to have the name and URL both in the dropdown from the location bar, but do they have to use so much space doing it?

    Camino had that months earlier, without burning nearly as much real estate on it.

  15. VERY misleading summary! by nmg196 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary mentions IE8 more than once, but the article is comparing Firefox 3.1 to IE 7 (yes SEVEN - you know, the OLD one!)

    The Javascript engine in IE8 is much faster than the one in IE7, so it's a pretty unfair test in the first place and should never have been posted in the first place.

    Many posters above already seem to be confused about the IE7/8 thing.

  16. Georgia by pjt33 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it's Georgia. Internally Microsoft doesn't use terms like "alpha" and "beta": a product starts in "Florida" and moves closer to Redmond, so "Washington" means "bug-free". When it reaches "Georgia", it's ready to ship.