Slashdot Mirror
Chrome 4.0 Vs. Opera 10 Vs. Firefox 3.5
Jim Karter writes "In a three-way cage match, LifeHacker threw Chrome 4, Firefox 3.5, and Opera 10 into the ring and let the three browsers duke it out to see which would emerge as the fastest app for surfing the web. Quoting: 'Like all our previous speed tests, this one is unscientific, but thorough. We install the most current versions of each browser being tested — in this case, Opera 10, Chrome's development channel 4.0 version, and the final Firefox 3.5 with security fixes — in a system with a 2.0 GHz Intel Centrino Duo processor and 2GB of RAM, running Windows XP.'"
Why the heck was my comment marked "Offtopic"? It's EXACTLY on topic, it's a SUMMARY OF THE FREAKING ARTICLE!
Sounds like I got a FF Dev's panties in a bunch with my follow-up comment. Can somebody mod my comment http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1360227&cid=29339165 up please? That was an unfair and inaccurate mod.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
"One thing these tests don't take into account is the UI responsiveness, in which Opera really owns the other browsers" - by sopssa (1498795) *on Monday September 07, @09:48AM (#29339679)
Agreed, 110%... & the other part I noted was the MEMORY USAGE (which they take the 'easy out' on, in their review, stating that "noting that a straight Windows Task Manager reading may not be entirely accurate." in said article's "testing"...)
Plus, look @ this quote from that page? That?? That says it ALL... -> "Like all our previous speed tests, this one is unscientific", from said article here today.
NOW, most importantly? Well - I saw FAR different results here, with the same amount of tabs loaded in EACH webbrowser (I used Opera's beta, Mozilla MineField beta, & IE 8, & Mozilla was the worst of the lot in terms of memory usage, IE8 being next, & then lastly Opera (w/ the LEAST memory usage)).
LOADING Sopssa's reply -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1360227&cid=29339679 only in a single tab here on /., here is what I see between the 3 of them, using Microsoft's "PROCESS EXPLORER" instead of taskmgr.exe
----
Opera memory usage = 32,888 working set
Mozilla MineField memory usage = 34,873 working set
IE8 memory usage = 61,728 working set
----
The Mozilla "minefield" numbers might be of PARTICULAR INTEREST, though: I say that, simply because FireFox also has to account for potentially FURTHER "bloat" via its addons (which Opera has functionality built into it already that FireFox just doesn't "natively"/out-of-the-box/oem stock) & we ALL know what happens when you start loading a LOT of "FireFox addons" into it: It slows down, even more... no questions asked (sopssa, I am surprised you didn't note that as well, but your point's DEFINITELY solid - I see poorer UI response in FireFox, vs. Opera & even IE).
Oh, also - Sorry: I don't use GOOGLE CHROME here... so I couldn't put out numbers on it for memory usage. It'd be cool if someone could, for ALL of our references!
(Anyways/Anyhow - Read 'em & weep, those are the numbers... Anyone who doesn't like it? "Argue with the numbers", as the saying goes, OR, try such a test yourselves to see for yourselves is all... it's the best way, after all! That's what I did, because I have done this before, & I didn't agree with what I saw on that page)
APK
P.S.=> Sorry folks, I don't know about yourselves, but, I personally do NOT TRUST this so-called 'review' fully... especially not when my numbers don't "jive" with theirs @ all really... perhaps I need some "consciousness fuel" today (coffee, brewing some up now, lol, I NEED IT TODAY), but that's what I see here! How about you? apk