The More Popular the Browser, the Slower It Is

demishade writes "Peacekeeper, the browser benchmark from the makers of 3DMark, comes out of beta and shows an interesting (though perhaps not surprising) tidbit — the more popular a browser, the worse its performance. While it should not be surprising to anyone that IE slugs at the last place, the gap between Firefox and Chrome, is. Once IE's market share goes the way of the Dodo will web developers start cursing Firefox? How long until Google comes out with a JavaScript intensive application that will practically require Chrome to function?"

Comments

First

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we are on the Slashdot plains in Africa, looking for that most elusive of species, the First Post...

Mosaic

[Evelas]

So does this mean that Mosaic is the most efficient one out there?

Re:Mosaic

[bishiraver]

No - Lynx is!

Re:Mosaic

[eln]

You're missing the point. The moral of the story is that if you make a browser that takes an average of 3 days to render a page and locks up the entire computer while doing it, it will be the most popular browser around!

Re:Mosaic

[geekoid]

Nope.

Sitting in front of my computer imagining webpages is even faster.

And probably better then using lynx

Re:Mosaic

[James Skarzinskas]

Telnet's here, boys. What say you now?

Re:No surprise

[Spazztastic]

The value of NOT opening my robe to Google? Priceless!

I think I speak for us all when I say nobody wants you to open your robe to them.

The more popular

[Propaganda13]

These guys are idiots.

It's obvious that the last letter in the name being a vowel has more to do with performance than popularity.

from low to high performance - a,e,i,o,u

Firefox wins by association

[0xdeadbeef]

Unable to run Peacekeeper
Your browser either does support JavaScript or it has been disabled. Peacekeeper requires a JavaScript enabled browser with cookies enabled.

Apparently, NoScript is the fastest browser available.

Re:No surprise

[ionix5891]

I'm feeling lucky

Re:No surprise

[Jurily]

The value of NOT opening my robe to Google? Priceless!

Go ahead. At least they'll see the error of their ways.

Javascript

[WillKemp]

How long until Google comes out with a JavaScript intensive application that will practically require Chrome to function?

Like slashdot, you mean???

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I put on my robe and wizard hat...

Re:No surprise

[Qubit]

My Firefox does 11 times more work than Chrome.

Oh, I see. And most browsers go up to ten?

Exactly.

Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?

Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be browsing along at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your browser. And it's like the SPAM is just pouring in from everywhere around and there's no way out. Where can you go from there? Where?

I don't know.

Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra boost of browser power, you know what we do?

Put it up to eleven.

Eleven. Exactly. One step better.

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Either:

1) You're don't know that either can only refer to two choices, not three

2) You're willfully ignoring that

3) You're just a moron

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

He is Dickhead... opening the robe does not show anything already visible...

Re:No surprise

[SonicRED]

and ImageZoom so I can see pics on Ebay more easily.

Liar.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway... can we stop saying stupid crap like "Once IE's market share goes the way of the Dodo"?

So what would you prefer we say? "This browser is dead!"? "This is an ex-browser!"? "It's gone on to meet his maker!"? "It's joined the choir invisible!"? "If they hadn't nailed it to the OS, it'd be pushing up the daisies!"?

Re:No surprise

[Kugrian]

I open your robe and wheeze at that.