Firefox 4.0 Beta VS. Other Browsers - by Renzatic
Renzatic on 7/7/2010 at 00:17
(
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/beta/) Link here for testing future browser fun
Played with it, looks neat. Now it's time for the scientific testing!
Chrome 6 Vs. Opera 10.60 vs Firefox 4.0 Beta
Test one: Browser speed.
Testbed: (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums)
Inline Image:
http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/test_graph.pngWinner: Chrome by a huge margin. Firefox gravely disappoints in this category, taking almost twice the amount of time to load TTLG as Chrome.
Test Two: Fist Fight and Memory Hogging
Each browser was put side by side and told to beat each other up.
Round 1 - (
http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/fight.jpg) Opera 10.60 Vs. Firefox 4.0b1.
Opera loses out just slightly to Firefox, which managed a win without using up as much resources.
Round 2 - (
http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/fight2.jpg) Chrome 6 Vs. Firefox 4.0b1
Holy fucking hell damn, Chrome is a huge fat hog. I mean look at that shit! Sure I was running Grooveshark, Gmail, and TTLG alongside a bunch of extensions on Chrome...but whateva! Firefox beat the stuffing out of the shiny browser by the company we all love so much.
Winner: Not me. I need more ram.
So there. Use Opera I guess. It's made by whiny Swedes or something.
Sulphur on 7/7/2010 at 23:04
Chrome's memory usage is all down to that multi-threading and independent memory space per tab thing. Guess it's a choice between having the entire browser crash on you or just the one tab. Though to be honest I've never had Firefox crash on me in, like, ever.
Also: how about a browser startup time comparison?
Renzatic on 8/7/2010 at 00:22
Yeah, I'm well aware of that. It's one of the main reasons why I prefer Chrome over the rest. On the rare occasions I've had flash or an extension die, it doesn't effect anything else. I just close whatever tab is crashing and move on. It's almost worth the upwards of 600 meg of ram it can eat at times.
And startup times? Well, I rebooted my comp, fired up each browser, and counted. Opening a single tab, each one opens in about 3-4 seconds on a cold start, and near instantaneously when warm. I adhered to trusted scientific veracity by using my fingers while counting. This is about as exact as you're gonna get.
Koki on 8/7/2010 at 06:21
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Winner: Chrome by a huge margin.
I just wanted to point out said huge margin is 300 miliseconds
Al_B on 8/7/2010 at 06:56
Yes - but that 300 milliseconds was waiting to get his fix of ttlg.
Renzatic on 8/7/2010 at 15:43
Quote Posted by Koki
I just wanted to point out said huge margin is 300 miliseconds
Appalling, isn't it? One nearly half bar on the chart is nigh inexcusable. You'd think in todays fast paced modern world that these lazy developers would at least try to speed their damn browsers up to fit with my hectic lifestyle. I mean damn...by the time Firefox is done loading, I could already have my mouse cursor 1/20th of the way towards the reply button in Chrome. Pathetic.
As is, I don't consider the Firefox 4.0 beta even remotely usable until Mozilla gets off their asses and fixes the speed issues.
SubJeff on 8/7/2010 at 20:40
I want to like Chrome last time I used it it would frequently just.not.load.a.page. For no apparent reason.
I can't get off my FF kick. Opera is ok but it's just a bit... flimsy somehow. And I suppose it's all the extensions I use in FF that I like, and tbh there aren't that many. Perhaps it's time to look at Chrome again.
What would be nice would be the option to turn off that "separate process per tab" thing. Especially as the only time Chrome flopped on me (don't know why it was) the WHOLE thing flopped.
Edit. Yeah, just tried it again. Crud. It responds slowly, the extensions install thing is awkward, I got the wikipedia extension and it doesn't work, loading gmail took noticeably longer than it does in FF. Meh. Get it together Google, ffs.
Renzatic on 9/7/2010 at 00:05
Can't you people tell I ain't surious hur? Now I gotta actually discuss crap. :mad:
SE, you know my experiences with Chrome have been nothing but good since I first tried it, even back when it wasn't much more than a fairly basic, speedy browser with a nice minimal interface. I liked how clean and simple it was, and it made it hard for me to consider reverting back to FF. Now, with the addition of extensions, Flash built into the browser, settings synced to your Google account, and the advent of sandboxed processes (as memory intensive as they are), it's hard for me to consider going back to FF. Add in all the nice hidden features you can activate in the dev releases, and you've got about one of the most fully stocked browsers out at the moment. And even after all these new additions, it's just as slick and easy to use as it's always been.
Course now that FF has minimalized its UI, and already has a bunch of extensions to back it up, the only real advantage Chrome has is the sandboxed processes. Sure, they make it hard to crash the whole browser, and they supposedly make it more difficult for malware to invade your sytem, but it comes at a fairly big cost. Firing up Chrome with a single new page tab and a couple of extensions running eats over a hundred meg of ram right out the gate. Firefox? 30-40 meg. And the extensions don't eat up quite as much, either. If you really like FF, there won't be a vast amount in Chrome that'll change your mind...unless your browser crashes on you constantly or something.
Enchantermon on 9/7/2010 at 00:50
Quote Posted by Renzatic
If you really like FF, there won't be a vast amount in Chrome that'll change your mind...unless your browser crashes on you constantly or something.
Or unless you don't use extensions.
Koki on 9/7/2010 at 17:49
Not use extensions. In Firefox.
That's just failing at Internet.
