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?"
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
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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)
http://twitter.com/onion2k
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".
Their speeds all suck next to lynx!
Trolling is a art,
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.
Where's the SilverLight test, huh? I bet IE wins that one..
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
The appeals court said:
Re:And yet (Score:0, Redundant)
Their speeds all suck next to lynx!
Bah! you damn moderators can't accept the truth!
(actually, modding redundant implies that they had already accepted it)
which is totally what she said
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!
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.
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.