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."
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.
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.
"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.
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
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!
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
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 :-/
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).
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.
Despite what the summary may suggest, there's no evidence presented that edge lacks standards compliance or indeed that chrome leads in standards compliance. The test used (html5test) isn't a test of standards compliance nor of html5; it's simply a large grabbag of features some of which happen to be defined in html5 - and those features aren't even really tested for, they just use feature detection. Many of those features are experimental (i.e. it's probably better if a browser *doesn't* support those without a feature toggle or prefix), and a few are deprecated or even rejected.
html5test should probably be renamed webkit-as-of-2013-test. As is, higher scoring browsers aren't more standards compliant, they simply include more legacy and experimental features (i.e. are *less* standards compliant).
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.
What if Edge scored all its html5test points in legacy and/or experimental stuff?
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?
That would only further demonstrate the misleading nature of html5test. An test aiming to measure support for modern "html5" should not award bonus points for non-standard (speech apis), deprecated (keygen) or outright rejected features (websql).
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.
An test aiming to measure support for modern "html5" should not award bonus points for non-standard (speech apis)
Webaudio is a W3C standard.
deprecated (keygen)
It is not deprecated in HTML5, it will be in HTML5.1, and deprecated does not mean removed.
outright rejected features (websql).
In fact it does not award points for it: it is listed, but its inclusion does not award any points. Firefox does not nahve it and it still gets 35/35 points in that test.
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.
An test aiming to measure support for modern "html5" should not award bonus points for non-standard (speech apis)
Webaudio is a W3C standard.
At issue are the speech (sythesis+recognition) API's, not the audio API's. However...
outright rejected features (websql).
In fact it does not award points for it: it is listed, but its inclusion does not award any points. Firefox does not have it and it still gets 35/35 points in that test.
You're right - I was mislead by the fact that the feature is listed as providing 5 points, but that seems to be in error. The same also goes for speech api's incidentally.
The test isn't as bad as it seemed at first glance (though it's unfortunate that it's unclear what counts for what). Nevertheless, it counts proposed and experimental features, and misdetects at least keygen (which doesn't bode well for others), fails to do even basic validation whether a feature is implemented correclty, and it doesn't clearly make the distinction between html5 and the living spec, going so far as to link to the w3c spec for features like datetime inputs, even though that's not in the spec, but is in the whatwg living spec (from which likely later iterations 5.1 will emerge). It largely follows the living spec, but not everywhere (e.g. keygen, as you point out.)
In short: it's still not a good idea to read anything much into these numbers.
Nah, a DNS daemon configured correctly that works with all your devices and platforms is best in my opinion, just one system to configure, not every single system, having to root your tablets that can be rooted to get them to support hosts files etc.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
>"Browser Tests Show Edge Fastest, But Weak On Standards"
And single platform. Doesn't run on Linux, MacOS, Android.