Slashdot Mirror
Browser Tests Show Edge Fastest, But Weak On Standards (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: The Internet and web browsers are an ever changing congruous mass of standards and design. Browser development is a delicate balance between features, security, compatibility and performance. However, although each browser has its own catchy name, some of them share a common web engine. Regardless, if you are in a business environment that's rolling out Windows 10, and the only browsers you have access to are Microsoft Edge or IE — go with Edge. It's the better browser of the two by far (security not withstanding). If you do have a choice, then there might better options to consider, depending on your use case. The performance differences between browsers currently are less significant than one might think. If you exclude IE, most browsers perform within 10-20% of each other, depending on the test. For web standards compliance like HTML5, Blink browsers (Chrome, Opera and Vivaldi) still have the upper-hand, even beating the rather vocal and former web-standards champion, Mozilla. Edge seems to trail all others in this area even though it's often the fastest in various tests.
I use it daily, It doesn't have Adblock right now but blocking hosts works perfectly. Pretty amazing what Microsoft accomplished rebuilding their browser
By that metric, I'll go you one better: Links. Very, VERY fast, but very shit on standard (by design).
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
sudo apt-cache search edge
Too many listings - nothing interesting.
sudo apt-cache search edge-browser
Nothing...
Try as I might, it doesn't seem to work. I guess, by default, that makes it the fastest browser, no?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Trident has been lagging behind on standards for more than a decade. Just because MS stripped a ton of cruft out of it and slapped a new "e" word on it doesn't make it more compliant.
The fact that IE11 and Edge run SunSpider—and just SunSpider—so fast is rather suspicious... Feels like they optimized the engine for those specific routines until they could claim 'Twice as fast as other browsers!'
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
It's easy to make a program fast if you don't care much what it does.
Microsoft Edge browser runs fastest on Microsoft Windows. Metrics such as memory commit are meaningless as most of Edge gets loaded at boot and such processes aren't counted. What are the results on other desktop operating systems. You know the computing ecosystem that exists outside the Microsoft universe. Brand new browser same ole MICROS~1 shuffle.
"First make it work. Then make it work right. Then make it fast."
What use is a program that fails in the most efficient manner?
Captcha: swiftest
Edge isn't bad. The devtools are decent too, so it's not terrible to test your stuff against.
But the fonts. Omg the fonts. With only basic grayscale antialising, unless you have a 4k display and scale at 125% or higher, the fonts are worse than Linux's were in the late 90s.
Its unbearable.
Correctness is not optional. Get it right first, then make it fast. Everything else is just premature optimization, and you know that that's the root of all evil.
That word does not mean what you think it does.
The only browser I would ever use is cross platform. Like any other software I use, including programming languages. Anything else would be impractical and is too 90s.
Given that the standards seem to result in browsers that don't handle increasing the font size very well, maybe it's standards that are for cows?
"Edge Fastest, But Weak On Standards"
Great, so Edge will show me a crappy, mangled page really really fast!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
if you want to render a webpage the fastest: cut corners (standards be damned!)
if you want to render a webpage properly: don't use a microsoft product
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Almost every sentence contradicts itself! It's a never changing congruous mass of contradictions and weasel-words! However, although timothy has his own catchy name, he has a lot in common with a metal fencepost. Regardless (i.e. never mind everything thus far), if you are in some artificially constrained hypothetical example, go with timothy. He's the better writer of the two by far (shittiness not withstanding) [sic]. If you do have a choice, then there might better options to consider, depending on your use case, price point, form factor, hat size bigness number, and mental intelligence index coefficient number index point factor.
The title is a coinage my wife would drop into discussions when engineers would try to deflect bug reports with claims of how fast the new code is.
Related, for speedups of crash-buggy code: "So you've shortened the mean time to failure?"
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Don't cha know, the cow level is a lie!
You are all cows. Cows say meow. meow! meow! MEEOOWW cows meow. Meow say the cows. YOU EDGE COWS!!!
FTFY
You can stop making browsers faster, putting more megapixels in camera sensors and resolution on phones, tablets and laptops, thanks. It's done; no-one's going to either notice or appreciate the difference any longer (apart from marketing, perhaps). You need to work on battery life, waterproofing (as in, actually waterproof), security and making the mobile experience better than the embarrassing ginger stepchild it currently is.
When Chrome came out I remember TV commercials saying that its browser was lightning fast meanwhile it was so new that it didn't even support SSL yet!
When Chrome came out I remember TV commercials saying that its browser was lightning fast meanwhile it was so new that it didn't even support SSL yet!
Please show me where chrome didn't support SSL
Don't cha know, the cow level is a lie!
You are all cows. Cows say meow. meow! meow! MEEOOWW cows meow. Meow say the cows. YOU EDGE COWS!!!
FTFY
It sounds like your cows are a bunch of pussies...
Just saying...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Well, try to understand. Browsers weren't designed with the intent that users read web pages with size 20 or larger fonts either. The real problem is modern site design.
I'll think about trying Edge ONLY after it is supported by AdBlock Plus!
I haven't read the original article, but i know that a lot of the 'html5' standards aren't all finalized yet, and edge would only support finalized stuff as i remember..
Not being open source and platform agnostic was the problem, it wasn't IE.
Poor thing :-/
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
So use it with Firefox.
Just like the Internet Advertising Bureau is starting to realise, this constant hosts file engine spam just ends up alienating people. Friends don't let friends spam the Internet. Cease the hosts file engine spam, friend.
HTML5test is not a test of standards compliance; the title is misleading. It's a wishlist of features, some of which are standardized, but many of which are not (or are not part of HTML5).
Yes they may call it 'edge' but for most website designers it's probably just an other msie 12, a new browser, for which they needed to test extra. It's probably better than msie 11, like that one was a little better than 10. But who cares if it's faster, if you need to add several extra not paid hours to your work time, just for testing your website again an other browser.
HTML5test is not a test of standards compliance; the title is misleading. It's a wishlist of features, some of which are standardized, but many of which are not (or are not part of HTML5). For example, html5test doesn't (in general) test whether you've really implemented a feature correctly (or really - at all) it just uses feature detection to check whether you've claimed to implement a feature. Fortunately, browsers are never buggy and this distinction doesn't matter.
Then, html5test follows the whatwg's "living standard" instead of the less-cutting year-old actual standard html. This makes sense at first glance - we want to know which browsers support "new" features too! As a developer, that's great. As a score for a browser, that's questionable. Many features are added to the standard because one of the browsers initially experimented with a non-standard extension; lately that's been webkit/blink due to the mobile push, but previous names have included IE6. By *intent* the whatwg living spec is a few steps ahead of the browsers. What this means is that if you use this as a score is that you're going to penalize whoever is following the spec, and promote those leading the spec. That deserves at least a separate score.
Then, there are HTML5 features that are deprecated, like . The continued support for scores chrome two points, and edge+firefox none. Is that really what you wanted to know? I bet there are *lots* of deprecated features in old IE; if you're going to start counting those...
Then there's features like speech synthesis and recognition. Those aren't part of the spec, have never been part of the spec, yet they're worth 5 points together. Or worse, the Web SQL features, that have explicitly been rejected, also worth 5 points (only webkit-derived browsers support this).
Almost all of the point differences between browsers can be explained by features that are experimental, deprecated or rejected.
In short: don't use html5test. It's pointless.
That's their measure of "standards compliance". Unfortunately it's rather bogus. It includes non-standard stuff like WebSQL, which is not a standard at all and was only ever implemented in Webkit (which Blink inherited). Also, it's just checking for the presence of features and doesn't do any testing how well those features work. So it incentivizes browser to provide a bare-minimum buggy implementation of every feature under the sun, which isn't actually good for the Web.
Who the fuck cares about drive space these days????
Users of big Steam games on a PC with a relatively small SSD, for one.
OK, but Edge misses many features that are standardized in both HTML5 and the draft of HTML5.1, like the template element or the output, keygen and meter elements. It misses OGG/Vorbis/Opus support because Microsoft opposed to their inclusion in the standard. It includes non standard features like Media Source Extensions. Basically Edge has the worst of both worlds: lacking support for standards and support for non-standard features.
The keygen feature has been deprecated. It's likely edge will support more open formats in the future: http://blogs.windows.com/msedg..., including opus+vorbis.
Between firefox, chrome and edge, I'd suggest that today it is chrome that has the greatest support for non-standard features, tracing back to the hastily designed extensions to webkit for the early iphones. In particular many non standard things like speed synthesis and recognition are only on in blink/webkit, as is WebSQL (which, to be fair, was at least once proposed as a standard, even though it was rejected). Those three features alone account for a 15 point headstart (17 if you count keygen) that chrome has over edge+firefox, even though their support should if anything, decrease the score.
It's no coincidence than non-webkit browsers started supporting -webkit- prefixed css properties - webkit has included a large amount of non-standard extensions over the years. Edge's declared preference for feature toggles (and firefox I believe prefers those too, exposing speech api's only if an about:config flag is set for instance) is friendlier to standardization because it means that non-standard features do not become entrenched and hard to fix.
If anything, a high score in html5test means a non-standard browser. Just take a look at the actual features where the major browsers differ and that amount to chrome's advantage - almost all of them are experimental, entirely non-standard, deprecated, or rejected. Why exactly should that count as standards compliant?
The keygen feature has been deprecated.
It has not. It is in the current standard (HTML5). It will be probably deprecated in HTML5.1, but that again doesn't mean that it shouldn't be supported. It will be probably removed in HTML5.2, but HTML5.2 is at least two years away from being released..
You're quoting out of context. What you say is true, but doesn't affect the validity of my argument that html5test is poorly designed.
Note that if you're going to exclude the living spec in an attempt to rationalize html5test's behavior, be aware that many features it checks for aren't present in the static html5, only in the living spec.
Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talkback
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talkback
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talkback
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (for reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past dns blocks
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver).
---
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
---
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in browsers via native browser methods!
---
Ab+'s paid to not do its job by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
---
Ab+ adds complexity in a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).
---
AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
---
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talkback
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talkback
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talkback
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (for reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past dns blocks
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver).
---
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
---
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in browsers via native browser methods!
---
Ab+'s paid to not do its job by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
---
Ab+ adds complexity in a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).
---
AdBlock's SLOWER vs. hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
---
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues!
---
It obtains its data vs. many types of online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!
---
It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!
---
It does all that via something you already natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
* "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".
APK
P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!
(Accept NO substitutes!)
...apk
See subject & these quotes
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"APK is kinda right... .I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
* So, what's that you were saying?
APK
P.S.=> You truly COWARDLY ac shills & trolls are FAILING... lol, & it makes ME laugh!
... apk
Which standards does links violate? As far as I know, ignoring tags (including script tags) is perfectly compliant with all standards.
It leaves out some features, of course. There are some things it does not do, but that's fundamentally different than doing it WRONG, as IE and Edge do.
All Firefox saved was 10%. That's way short of hosts efficiency by many orders of magnitude.
A team of developers starting a project from scratch, which knows that the product that the team is developing will have to adhere to standards, ignores them from the start...
Oh wait, I do understand - they're fucking morons...
See subject - YOU are a damn fool. Adblock @655mb vs. hosts @ 3-11mb? Bwaahahahahahaha!
* Not only are you TEARING UP RAM like mad, but also CPU + you're increasing messagepassing overheads too, in already SLOWER USERMODE (vs. hosts in kernelmode).
APK
P.S.=> What a HUGE fail for you, AND for "AlmostALLAdsBlocked"... lol! Your BIGGEST FAIL was vainly & effetely *trying* to hide these facts when you downmodded the last time I posted it here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
... apk
>"Browser Tests Show Edge Fastest, But Weak On Standards"
And single platform. Doesn't run on Linux, MacOS, Android.
... if I'm not constrained by having to deliver the correct results.