Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 4.0 Vs. Opera 10 Vs. Firefox 3.5

Posted by Soulskill on from the three-enter-but-only-three-leave dept.

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.'"

72 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Safari by rallymatte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would have been interesting to see Safari in this test as well.

    1. Re:Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read the article you'd see safari is in most of the tests.

    2. Re:Safari by abhi_beckert · · Score: 5, Informative

      Safari is in the test. It's just that they focused on the three new kids on the block, of which safari 4 is not among.

      TFA does list results of Safari and IE, as well as other browsers, for every test in a separate graph.

    3. Re:Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      New versions you fucking moron. Opera 10, Firefox 3.5 and Chrome 4.0 are all newer than Safari 4.

    4. Re:Safari by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Informative

      It also would not run on the not apple certified hardware running win xp that was the reference machine for everything else, so the comparison would be moot.

    5. Re:Safari by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Back in the old days we used to eat people who did that so that the knowledge they had gained unnaturally could be shared amongst the whole tribe. Now people have gone soft. Still one day the old ways will return.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Safari by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the parent's point is that the 64 bit version of Safari is ~10 days old. Being 64 bit should qualify it as a *new* version over the 32 bit version previously available in pretty much any review process.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    7. Re:Safari by invalid_user · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now people have gone soft.

      Yes. They get softer if you cook them. Very good for digestion.

  2. speed by mdwntr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just can't get all that concerned about the speed of my browser. Extra speed never hurts of course but it's hardly a factor in which one I choose.

    1. Re:speed by tygerstripes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. How many more stories about browser-speed do we need, given how insignificant the discrepancies are? For most end-users, browser lag is completely dwarfed by restricted bandwidth.

      In my case, judicious application of AdBlock and NoScript make this a complete non-issue. I'm far more interested in standards compliancy and security.

      --
      Meta will eat itself
    2. Re:speed by noundi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, this hype about speeds has gone too far. Sure I admit I'd prefer a faster browser, but I hardly feel the need to make a thorough investigation in order to gain a few seconds. Something rather predictable is that Chrome is loading slower by the version. I got the feeling that Chrome was rather optimized when released, but optimized naturally means that whatever added content will also add to loading time, in contrast to FF which became rather bloated with a lot of, still useful, content. Thus allowing for such performance increases between version 2 and 3.5. Now that Chrome is actually gaining content I can't help wondering whether it will be such an outperformer or not. Still nothing beats adblock. The single most important extension for FF. Until there are worthy equivalents (and no privoxy doesn't quite cut it for this purpose) I can wait patiently for my browser to load.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    3. Re:speed by PouletFou · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can use chromium on linux. I prefer it to firefox now because when flashplugin crashes (often on x86_64), chromium does not have to be restarted, a simple refresh works.

    4. Re:speed by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm more concerned with availability, stability, security and the ability to fail gracefully.

      When firefox crashes - everything goes poof. Worse, firefox does NOT let me launch separate firefox processes to workaround that stupidity. It is ironic that I can run separate instances of IE but I can't do that with firefox - an application that should be more "unixy" than IE.

      When I tried Google Chrome on Win XP, it did not allow me to launch it as a different user. I prefer to run my browsers using different users - e.g. login as User A, but launch the browser as User B. That way it's a lot harder for the browser as User B to touch my User A stuff. The OS has to be exploited too.

      --
    5. Re:speed by abshnasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my case, judicious application of AdBlock and NoScript make this a complete non-issue. I'm far more interested in standards compliancy and security.

      Reality suggests exactly the opposite. Adblock, Noscript, and whatever other browser plugins you use, in addition to most of the UI code on web pages, is written in JavaScript. Browser speed, and particularly JS execution speed, does matter. In fact, since you are running these applications, which run Javascript to customize your viewing experience, you probably depend on speed more than you think.

    6. Re:speed by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a better job, and more ideologically pure, why not? ;p

      But seriously, what you've done was of course completelly reasonable (accidentally...using Opera might also fall under similar categories, since its advantages become more apparent the slower the machine and connection is). And so is liking OSS, even if not exclusively using it (I do try to limit my pet projects to OSS). It's mostly just "I must have OSS browser on Windows" that I have a problem with...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  3. javascript whitelisting ? by polar+red · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's simple : i want javascripty whitelisting. so FF+Noscript : only thing i can use.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:javascript whitelisting ? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or just use site preferences in Opera....

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:javascript whitelisting ? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Site preferences in Opera is a complete pain to use.

      Firstly, there's no toolbar button to bring it up, it's buried under 3 levels of menu selection.

      Right click, edit site preferences. Not admittedly that I use it much.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:javascript whitelisting ? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well Opera is immune from that sort of thing because only about 10 people use it so no one bothers to hack it.

      Err.

      I mean "You're totally right! Opera is a security nightmare! Don't ever use it!"

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  4. Versions by Fri13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google Chrome 4.0? I just one hour ago upgraded to latest Google Chrome beta of coming 3.0 version from Google labs. (3.0.195.10). If 3.0 has not come yet out, how can they test 4.0?

    1. Re:Versions by nycguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      4.0 version is in the dev channel.

    2. Re:Versions by Barny · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So they compare the current, stable release of firefox against dev builds of other browsers?

      And as others are saying, the fastest way to render a page that has a ton of scripting is of course firefox + noscript.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Versions by killthepoor187 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fastest way to load a page full of javascript is to not load the javascript? Brilliant.

  5. AdBlock by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my experience, the fastest browser is the one that's running AdBlock, with flash, java, and javascript disabled.

    1. Re:AdBlock by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've obviously never run Lynx on a beowulf cluster.

    2. Re:AdBlock by daveime · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well no shit Sherlock ... how long does it take to render an empty page ?

    3. Re:AdBlock by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      RTFA, dammit, it depends on the browser!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:AdBlock by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, you forgot to disable that pesky HTML. Let alone all images!

      How can you surf that way? Everything but plain telnet is way too cluttered, slow, and has too many holes in its parser!

      And don't dare to use and ANSI colors on me! Even if my client could parse them, I'd still have to buy one of those useless color displays!

      But I'm thinking about just connecting the Ethernet cable to my headphones and listening to the noise of the packets...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:AdBlock by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      echo "http://www.vordweb.co.uk/standards/lynx_text_browser.htm" | mail -s "YOU ARE VIOLATING UK Disability Discrimination Act (Part III) YOU KNOW WHO ELSE DIDN'T LIKE THE DISABLED?!" webmaster@website.com

      Problem solved.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  6. Memory by NoYob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I made a bee line to the memory tests and based on my browsing habits, Firefox is the winner.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Memory by hattig · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of course using Windows Process Monitor to get memory usage for a application like Chrome which has different processes per tab/plugin leads to horrendously incorrect results, which the article acknowledges in an edit, without any attempt to get the correct figures. Shame really, as this functionality is built into Chrome...

    2. Re:Memory by sopssa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One thing these tests don't take into account is the UI responsiveness, in which Opera really owns the other browsers - everything just seems fast and responsive. Chrome isn't that far, but you can still see how things like opening new tabs takes some time and isn't "instant". Firefox is also behind on UI responsiveness, and I probably dont have to mention IE (3-5 secs to open new tab, seriously?).

      This is what MS tried to improve in Win7 too. Even if its not really faster technically but just feels so, it improves usability a lot.

    3. Re:Memory by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IE 8's multiprocess architecture hurt its tab opening responsiveness. Most of the plugins apparently have to be reloaded for each tab and some of them take forever. I discovered that if I turned off some stuff like Macfee scriptproxy and Java SSV helper, I could make new tabs open .5 sec. Still, if Chrome can do it fast, I have no clue why IE 8 can't do just as well.

    4. Re:Memory by whoop · · Score: 5, Funny

      everything just seems fast

      So true. More benchmarking tests need to include seems per second. I mean, come on, it's the 21st century and all! At least, it seems to me they should. That way their reports will seem much more seemingly accurate to what I want them to seem. ... I think.

    5. Re:Memory by Ash+Vince · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please bear in mind they tested on the latest stable version firefox, not the latest alpha 3.6 which has various speed improvements. Yet Chrome they used a development branch. Seems a bit biased in Chromes favour.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    6. Re:Memory by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could measure the average time from clicking a UI element to something happening. Actually I wish people would test things like this rather than how quickly the Javascript implementation can crack brute force crack DES or whatever benchmarks Google are pushing so their prototype stuff can finally be released without people mocking it for being bloatware that is worse than Vista.

      It would also let me avoid Java applications - we have some horrible intranet ones at work that feel like your mouse has a dodgy button or something - you click stuff, assume it didn't notice it and click another couple of times before you see an hour glass cursor. If people tested for UI responsiveness at least I could avoid things that don't have it in situations were I have a choice.

      And, as a bonus it would encourage people to stop doing things that could potentially take more than a few milliseconds in the UI thread of Windows applications. In a very real sense UIs are a real time system and it is time more people realised the implications of that.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Memory by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speed isn't the only important criterion.

      Empirical evidence appears to show that Firefox is not always the fastest browser around. However, it offers a comprehensive and mature set of add-ons or extensions that make it almost indispensable for people like me. Not that I use so many (Zotero, Adblock, Flashblock, Better Privacy, Page Saver), but just enough to make me reluctant to change.

      In the past, my choice of browser used to revolve around whether my bookmarks were easily importable. But over the last few years, I have tended to go straight to Google, and I no longer have any idea how useful my bookmarks file really is.

    8. Re:Memory by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The user's subjective experience will sell a product - or not.

      I don't care HOW MANY benchmarks a browser might win. If I click a link, and the browser changes to a plain white page, then sits there for 5 seconds, it sucks. On the other hand, if I click a page, immediately see title, wait second for the background, another second for banners to fill in, yet another for the adverts, etc, I can SEE something happening. Even if it takes a full second longer for the page to be finished, I feel like the browser is faster.

      So many professionals shoot for the ultimate benchmark figures, with no clue about what the user perceives.

      Go ahead, fire up all the browsers you can get your hands on, and test them on some really shitty overbloated page with nonstandard code. Something that you KNOW actually works, but takes three eternities to load. Then come back and talk about seems/second. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  7. Raw speed is probably a moot point.... by gadget+junkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having read the article, I found two things particularly interesting:

    1. the author did not put any version of MS internet explorer in the Arena. Now that's understandable, all windows system come with IE installed, so the rationale, as I see it , is that there's no point in benchmarking a program that no one has to choose on its own. I only wonder what will happen if Europe goes forward in forcing MS to sell OEM copies of Win7 without IE installed.

    2. the whole "speed" thingy is rather moot in my view. I've been using Firefox for some time now, and I DO appreciate the fact that fewer resources are used, even at the expense of a couple of seconds of starting and/or loading time. After all, it's not a multiplayer game where milliseconds seem to count.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    1. Re:Raw speed is probably a moot point.... by gbarules2999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      After all, it's not a multiplayer game where milliseconds seem to count.

      You forget you're on Slashdot. The Windozers will race to post XKCD 619 on every Linux-related story, and it gets neck and neck for the karma boost that "+5 Insightful" offers.

    2. Re:Raw speed is probably a moot point.... by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Windozers will race to post XKCD 619 on every Linux-related storyWell, first I misread your post as talking about http://xkcd.com/629/ and wondered what the hell you had been smoking.

      But are you claiming that http://xkcd.com/619/ is somehow a completely silly point?

  8. Re:Summary: by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What debacle are you refering to? The awesome bar is fast and useful. I rarely click bookmarks these days, I just type the name in the location bar and it will pop up soon enough. It's possible to search through pages titles instead of urls. It's never failed me. So what debacle?

    --

    This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

  9. Re:Summary: by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 4, Informative

    Agreed on the extended functionality - I hate the 'Awesome Bar', but no other browser offers keyword searches or the ability to easily add search engines to the search box (save for IE which I dont want to use).

    Start Opera. Go to a website not included by default in its search options. Right click on the search field. Choose "Create Search".

    Give me something to replace 'wp rabbits' and I will dump Firefox in an instant for Chrome or Safari.

    Built into Opera before Firefox had it.

  10. Choices? by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, being a Linux user, my current choices are limited to Firefox and Opera.

    So, what you are saying is that if you used XP, you wouldn't be limited by those choices. Windows gives you more choice?

    Well, it does, unless you limit your choices by placing preconditions.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  11. "Centrino Duo Processor" by Timosch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry guys, but Centrino is not a processor. It is a platform, specifying a certain processor, graphics chipset etc..

  12. Re:Graphing Fail. by AmaranthineNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're assuming they don't want to exaggerate the difference in results.

  13. Re:Summary: by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can't disable it - thats the debacle. A lot of people don't like it, but the Firefox devs have essentially told us to shut up and live with it.

    Pretty much.

    Although at least you can disable some of the more annoying aspects of it via Tools - Options in 3.5.x. Basically, I jumped from 2.20.x to 3.5.x after getting frustrated with 3.0.x and deciding to stick with the 2.20.x version for a good long while.

    While I don't think we will ever get the proper revert to the 2.x style URL bar that SHOULD happen, as long as we can easily disable the crap parts of the Awful Bar without having to dig in about:config I'm satisfied.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  14. Re:Summary: by macshit · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can't disable it - thats the debacle. A lot of people don't like it, but the Firefox devs have essentially told us to shut up and live with it.

    C'mon, they haven't really said that -- you can actually config it in various ways, e.g., setting "browser.urlbar.matchbehavior" to 3 (using about:config), and using "browser.urlbar.maxrichresults" to control the display. There's also some more configuration being added in newer versions, e.g., see this bug.

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
  15. Fabulously useful Firefox speedup by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Informative

    on Unix, anyway. Exit Firefox, then do:

    for i in ~/.mozilla/firefox/*.default/*.sqlite; do sqlite3 $i "vacuum;" ; done

    FF3.x does everything in sqlite. Some of the tables fill with crap 'cos deleted rows are marked "deleted" rather than actually being deleted and compacted. I hope future versions will run a vacuum automatically every now and then.

    On this Ubuntu 9.04 box I had to apt-get install sqlite3.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:Fabulously useful Firefox speedup by mindcorrosive · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or use the Vacuum Places Improved (what kind of name is that anyway) addon from AMO:
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13878
      Available for FF 3.5+. Labelled experimental at the moment, but works just fine. Works magic with the "awesomebar" suggestion speed: fetching suggestions has never has been so snappy.

      --
      + 3.14 Transcendental
    2. Re:Fabulously useful Firefox speedup by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep! Until someone suggested this (compacting the tables), I'd assumed the only way to fix this was to delete my profile. An extension is a good place to put it, with a view to it going into the base.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  16. How incredibly important! by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We don't care about security. We don't care whether the browser hogs half a gig or more. We don't care whether it can render a page correctly or makes CSS look like a 5 year old had a field day with some sharpies.

    We care whether a page renders 0.223 seconds faster.

    Sorry if that sounds like flamebait, but do I care about speed in a time when speed difference is measured in fractions of seconds? Even if it's seconds. Does that really matter? I'm not too convinced that the browser speed plays any significant role in the loading speed of a page when you have crappy servers crammed into farms that oversold their capacity hundredfold and ISPs doing the same.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How incredibly important! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let' *again* calculate why your browser "hogs" half a gig of RAM:

      How many tabs do you need for that? Well, Let's say your average tab has 4 pages. With 1660x950 pixels (without the window borders & co) in uncompressed (what you need in memory) full color they are coming to 18 MB. Now add the uncompessed source files in the cache, the DOM/parse tree, the JavaScript instance, and the other tab object data, at, let's stay low and say 2-10 MB. And we get to 20-30 MB. Then add Flash (which is leaking all over the place itself) for another couple of MB per tab.

      Now we're getting to 25-17 tabs, when leaving out the Flash.

      So how many tabs do you have open usually? Does it fit?

      What do we learn: Don't expect that because the page, stored on disk, is only a couple of kilobytes, that it won't take up much RAM or CPU. After all it's highly compressed!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  17. Poor tests by mariushm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's obvious Chrome would be faster becuase of its simplicity...

    What always bothers me is that these "testers" don't test the browsers after some "normal" or "not quite so normal" use.
    People don't just start a fresh install of a browser and open eight tabs, people have lots of bookmarks, passwords, saved forms in browsers and after a time, these affect the speed and performance of a browser.

    A good tester should bookmark about 200 sites in various categories, save passwords for about 20-30 sites, have some forms saved, and then he should see how much latency browser has from the moment you start typing an URL in it's address bar and bringing URL's or suggestions from its separate SQLite databases that hold bookmarks and previously accessed websites history (it shouldn't matter but in reality users usually stop from typing when they see something changing on screen and check the url and suggestions and time is lost)

    Also, in my case I work with various web apps that basically make me access hundreds of url's like site.com/page.php?id=[number] , so all these are saved in the history and after about a week, I basically have to clear the database because Firefox becomes too slow to load, it takes up to a second from the moment I start typing a website in the address bar and so on, I have to empty the history to make it work properly again...

    I use Firefox and it's not perfect and not the fastest, but I still prefer it over Safari or Opera simply because of extensions like Firebug or Live HTTP Headers or even Screengrab, which make my life way easier.

  18. Firefox is unstable. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The results about memory use were nonsense, as now mentioned in a revised version of the article.

    Also, Firefox has bugs in its event handling, apparently. If you open a large number of Window and tabs, and keep opening and closing tabs over a period of hours, eventually Firefox will crash. Firefox has had that problem for many years.

    Firefox also apparently has problems with its cache handling, apparently. For example, here is a comment to the Lifehacker.com story referenced in the Slashdot summary:

    "Firefox 3.5 seems to get slower for me over time. It was really crawling the other day so I got the latest chrome and it seems blazing fast.

    "I'll have to try some of the tricks to clean up FF. I'm sad to see it falling behind in speed because I like so many FF features."

    If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus, I'm guessing that people will abandon Firefox. There seems to be no hope that Mozilla Foundation will ever be managed well.

    (I like seeing ads, I just don't like flashing, moving ads. "Marketing" people are amazingly ignorant, in my experience; they often don't realize that annoying people is not a good way to get customers.)

    1. Re:Firefox is unstable. by metamatic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus, I'm guessing that people will abandon Firefox.

      Yes. I'm sick of Firefox's crashing and periodically hanging for 30 seconds while it garbage collects or something.

      I'm willing to switch to the first browser that gives me the equivalent of Firefox + CS Lite + NoScript + AdBlock. Personally, I'd have thought that a simple UI for allowing the current site to use cookies and scripts would be a basic feature of any browser, but it seems the browser makers are more interested in not annoying site owners who want to track users and show them ads.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    2. Re:Firefox is unstable. by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus, I'm guessing that people will abandon Firefox. There seems to be no hope that Mozilla Foundation will ever be managed well.

      If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, it's performance will be on par with FF.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    3. Re:Firefox is unstable. by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're really that sure the FF codebase is that very close to optimal, for what it does?...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Firefox is unstable. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlikely.

      Firefox addons run in the same process as Firefox, likely in the same thread. Firefox tabs are similar. All it takes is one slow extension to slow down the entire experience.

      Chrome, on the other hand, is implementing addons as just privileged webpages. This means that, except for the very small part of an addon that might be interacting with the current page, the addon won't block the browser -- it's mostly going to be running in a separate process. And even the content script that's running on the current page, well, there's one of those running per tab, so an extension being slow in one tab won't block another tab.

      Not to mention, if you're going to implement a nice, cross-platform Firefox addon, you're doing it in Javascript/XUL. Chrome addons are Javascript/HTML. Thus, Chrome's faster Javascript engine does count here.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Firefox is unstable. by NotBorg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, it's performance will be on par with FF.

      What do you base that assumption on? I haven't seen any benchmarks that compare the difference between Firefox without and without add-ons running.

      In fact it's standard practice to benchmark products "out of the box" and note any changes from the out-of-box state (i.e. anything you've done to it beyond the install process from the manufacture). A Firefox vs Chrome (or whatever) benchmark wouldn't have a Firefox loaded with add-ons. So how can you conclude that Firefox's benchmark performance is suffering from add-ons? Do you mean something else by "performance"?

      Even if add-ons slow Firefox to some extent, if Firefox still gets its ass handed to it without extra add-ons installed... what the hell is the point in bringing them up?

      --
      I want this account deleted.
  19. Memory hogs by Theovon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Firefox still has lots of problems. (For instance, preventing sleep on the Mac and using excessive CPU for completely idle tabs.) But the first reason I keep using it is memory. It uses less memory than any other browser for the same set of open tabs. Also, it has PROPER built-in crash protection and session restore. Safari doesn't unless you install Saft, and Saft costs money and keeps breaking every time Apple upgrades Safari.

  20. Chrome dev version vs. FF/Opera release versions? by MikeUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know about Opera, but as far as I am aware, FF has preview versions 4.0 already. So if we're going to be testing the not-even-beta version of Chrome, isn't it fair comparison to do the same with the other browsers? I realize that TFA has results for FF 3.5.99 and a beta of Opera, but these are relegated to a less prominent position in the results...in contrast, Chrome's 4.x dev version is highlighted with the 2.x version is being downplayed in the results, and no mention is made of the (perhaps more relevant) Chrome 3.x beta. Not that I really care, it just seems like a bit of favouritism is playing into the presentation of this analysis...

  21. My own anecdotal rating by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Interesting
    on a MacBookPro...

    FF 3.5 is a crashy mess. I have NO plug ins. It regularly refuses to render a page. I click try again and BANG, it renders. I'm pretty sick of FF doing that. It also crashes a lot.

    Opera works fine - its quick and has never crashed. I don't care for the UI much. It has a built in Torrent client, so I like using it in te background sometimes.

    Chromes is not on the mac. Boo.

    Camino is also lightweight but not super snappy, and sometimes things render completely wrong and ugly.

    Safari sucks hairy donkey balls.

    So, as a consequence, I tend to run FF or Camino. If Chrome was on the Mac, I'd certainly give it a solid run. I am very serious about FF's screw ups. It's very disappointing.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  22. IE has been VERY vulnerable. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative

    That doesn't make sense. IE had had a long, long, long list of very serious vulnerabilities. Literally billions of dollars have been lost because of sloppy coding in past versions of IE.

  23. Re:Summary: by JohnBailey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I keep hearing a few loud people complaining about the awesome bar, but I can't for the life of me figure out what they don't like about it.

    Because people using the same computer will see their porn bookmarks. Embarrassing for a 15 year old when their mothers find the carefully hidden list by typing in something innocent in the address bar.

    --
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  24. You are on slashdot... by coryking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Slashdot is a technology website dedicated to of people who take great pride and joy in disabling every new bit of technology in their stack.

    Personally, I leave all that stuff on. I used to disable javascript out of the same "spite" most of slashdot commenters seem to have--but that was before Kuro5hin came with their fancy dynamic comments in what, 1999? So far, my CPU's have never melted, my power supplies are still purring, and my mice haven't keeled over and died.

    Wonder what rigs these people run? 386DX 40mhz's? Orange screen VT100's hooked up to the local time-share in the university basement? ... remembers when his public library still had those VT100's.

  25. Unintuitive graphs by anilg · · Score: 4, Informative

    ..insignificant the discrepancies are..

    Mod parent up.

    The Tab loading graph (http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/17/2009/09/500x_eight_tab_load.jpg) seems to suggest Opera takes 4X, and Firefox 2X the time to load tabs than Chrome.. however, the X-axis is drawn from 6.0 to 9.0

    If the Graph was rendered from 0-9, it would look like below:

    Opera
    ================
    Firefox
    ==============
    Chrome
    ============

    .. which shows that page loading is pretty much the same everywhere.. blowing the OMG-Chrome-loads-fast!!!! myth.

    --
    http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
  26. How about correcly rendered HTML? by Otis_INF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't really care about speed, all browsers are pretty fast. The main issue I have with for example Opera is that it doesn't always render HTML correctly (even in 10 RTM), and sometimes hangs when you resize windows. I rather like a correctly rendered page which is done in 0.012ms than a badly rendered page which is rendered in 0.003ms

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
  27. Re:Summary: by lolwhat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like most cool people, I don't care.

  28. Electrolysis by Bj�rn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mozilla's Electrolysis project aims to change that. The first bootstrapping step was completed 15-July-2009.

    "The Mozilla platform will use separate processes to display the browser UI, web content, and plugins. The working name for this project is Electrolysis. "

    --
    Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
  29. Re:Summary: by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Funny

    15 year olds? Dude, I'm thirty, its just as embarrassing when my mom sees them now.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  30. Which is the best car? by slyborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These debates start to get sillier and sillier over time, or perhaps just more irrelevant. As the browsers' available features and performance exceeds what most people will veer use in practice, the "reviews" become a lot like reading Motor Trend or Car & Driver - which car has the coolest looks? Which car has the most massive supercharged 500 hp engine that will be mostly used driving to the local Starbucks?

    Personal preference is of course valid, and perhaps the most valid metric - if you like something and you are happy with it, then there you go. Other than that, what I'm interested in these days is security and quality, and this "review" had jack on these topics. It basically was a typical fanboi-ish survey c. 2004 on which application has the biggest e-peen, and I just don't care anymore.