|
|
Post by Sephiroth X on Sept 8, 2009 10:11:09 GMT -5
Stumbled upon this while reading slashdot earlier. Basically a head to head to head test on a few key areas to see which web browser has the edge over the others. They used Chrome 4.0, Firefox 3.5 (with security fixes), and Opera 10. lifehacker.com/5352195/browser-speed-tests-chrome-40-and-opera-10-take-on-all-challengersIn short, Chrome seems to load up and get you out onto the web faster and seems to load javascript faster. However, Firefox thus far seems to be the most memory efficient once you start using multiple tabs. |
|
|
|
Post by ZaCloud on Sept 8, 2009 12:35:18 GMT -5
Lots of Chrome's fastness is probably due to it being new, thus not having a lot of vulnerability to evil-virus-people. But as it gets more popular, exploits will probably rise, thus baggage will be added to patch the holes. Unless they Did It Rite somehow, that'd be nice. Still wish it had cookie-handling though; that's the whole reason I'm avoiding it. And ironically I was just looking at speed-tests and specs for various browsers myself (Get outta my head Seph! XD ) www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed (though it is a couple years old, so doesn't apply to newer versions if you have a shiny comp, but gives a good baseline for alternatives) |
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth X on Sept 8, 2009 14:39:40 GMT -5
Lots of Chrome's fastness is probably due to it being new, thus not having a lot of vulnerability to evil-virus-people. But as it gets more popular, exploits will probably rise, thus baggage will be added to patch the holes. Unless they Did It Rite somehow, that'd be nice. Still wish it had cookie-handling though; that's the whole reason I'm avoiding it. I wonder if you have an older version of Chrome or something because mine has fully cookies handling and works just fine.  Otherwise yeah I agree, Chrome's speed I think is partially due to the whole "new-ness" of it. Although I have read reports and such of Google literally paying people to try and break it, and they've had a hard time doing it. So while Chrome's had a successful first year I wanna wait a little longer to see if it can survive the test of time. |
|
|
|
Post by ZaCloud on Sept 8, 2009 15:52:10 GMT -5
Ooooh, well the third-party cookies thingie is new. And that definitely does help. I'd still rather have control of individual sites and their primary cookies though. So unless it gets that feature I'll continue to wait it out. But at least that's an improvement over the previous version. Hopefully they'll continue to work on that; I could sure use a good browser. :3
|
|
|
|
Post by remixedcat on Sept 8, 2009 17:33:10 GMT -5
FF... more efficiant with memory usage. I beg to differ.
I've had nothing but problem with it.
I got IE8 and each tab its own process so if one tab crashes it don't bring the browser down.
FF devs say they won't have that feature till at least Q4 2011.
ALL you gotta do is get an extension called IEpro
get what's called a HOSTS file and put it in your system32/drivers/misc (or other) and you block most malicious sites and stuff before it hits your browser.
Also FF is exploitable using slidr and any sites that have slideshows. there's bad things becing injected into FF code. specially if you have extensions for thos apps.
Java and FF do not get along as well.
I also use server 2008 R1 so its a hell alot more secure than xp ever will be.
google chrome also has a massive spying backend. eveything gets sent to google and they mine it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monochrome Rainbow on Sept 8, 2009 18:26:26 GMT -5
I like Chrome as a browser but what it needs is add-ons. And not add-ons like weather or that other fluffy stuff. It needs a No-Script like add-on to block javascript. I do have a ad blocker installed but I want one that I can manually block ads/other advertisement. Something like Ad-block would be nice. But all-in-all, Chrome is good (although it did not work for a hill of beans when visiting 4scrape, but I guess that fact that 4scrape no longer exists makes up for that).
|
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth X on Sept 8, 2009 18:50:23 GMT -5
FF... more efficiant with memory usage. I beg to differ. Well their memory speed test was utilizing 8+ tabs at once, not just one tab. If it was just looking at one or two pages, I'd probably agree with you however I've seen Chrome chug a little when I'm doing some heavy multitasking where Firefox stays consistent. Also... in regards to all of the Chrome/Google spying on you stuff.... I dunno but in with all of that I say to the internet as a whole to stop being such paranoid fucks and if you're doing nothing illegal then you have nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
Post by remixedcat on Sept 8, 2009 21:29:05 GMT -5
8 tabs is nothing compared to the 23 I have open now. IE is 250MB FF would have bordered on 700 some-1GB.
The people who do those tests are 40 something soccer moms or office park dads who barely have any other programs open, go to just a handful of sites and have more "controlled" tests and go to a few extremely stable sites and don't have any other programs open. They also are people who review dell to be good pcs and they might be using it on a mac or linux pc.
Also they don't account for flash sites and sites with heavy AJAX.
Thye are inferior testers to my heavy usage. they only "stress test" using the acid test and mabye open 10 tabs. But they don't stress it as much as I do.
I had 50 tabs in IE and uasge was 512MB. FF was 1.5GB!!! and kept going up!
Oh you don't want to know the commit charge (paging file usage) It was 2.5GB and that is NOT COUNTING SYSTEM RAM. so the total memory usage (private working set_PF was around 4.5GB after letting it sit for 10 minutes with 50 tabs including 10 that had flash and most had some kinda AJAX or other scripts)
I should be a tester I would kick the shit outta others!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth X on Sept 9, 2009 11:52:42 GMT -5
...who barely have any other programs open, go to just a handful of sites and have more "controlled" tests and go to a few extremely stable sites and don't have any other programs open... I hate to rain on your parade but what you just said is exactly how a proper experiment is supposed to be conducted... when your test is focused on finding out speed and efficiency, introducing a series of other variables into the equation such as Flash or other programs isn't going to give you a pure test. When you want to test one thing and one thing only you have to test it with a few controlled constants around it, like stable sites while not running any background applications.... I'm sorry, but this is something we learned in the 7th grade... The way you want things "tested" results in far more questions then answers, which isn't the purpose of any test or experiment. Considering how many resources you seem to be using on your machine, and the number of tabs you are using (which, by the way, if you're using 50+ tabs you're going to run into PC bottle necks regardless) I think the stability of your actual system is more up for debate then the actual programs themselves because it seems like the web browser isn't the origin of the instability... I'd like to know what magic version of FireFox you found because I have nowhere near the memory issues you seem to have with it. Also, for the record, the people in that review get paid for their knowledge and research and there is more than likely a few reasons their opinions get noticed. Reason number one is probably that they don't lash out and call their peers soccer moms. |
|
|
|
Post by remixedcat on Sept 9, 2009 16:05:32 GMT -5
well most of the people that do these tests still don't know what application stress really is.
and testing a media player for playlist capactiy only loading it with 20 songs won't let you know if loading a huge library would break the media player.
with stress testing apps you gotta break em.
this is how game exploits and problems get found.
you not gonna get a good MMO stress test if you only let 100 people on the server you gotta fill it up as much as you can.
just like browsers and operating systems. Imagine if MS only tested windows with notepad, ms paint and one IE window/tab open and called it a day. Windows would not have made it at all.
The people who run these tests are so afriad to break it they don't know how bad the application really is.
I break photoshop, windows server 2008, game engines, 3d editors, and media players and I report the issues on forums all the time. I even broke the hell out of the cities xl beta by finding a HUGE bug.
In order for bugs to be squashed you need to do this.
this is why more and mroe software can't perform under pressure becuase no one is bold enough to put it under pressure.
and if you are stupid enough to waste 1000+USD on a system you barely multitask on what's the point. might as well go back to your athlon2700 2.1GHZ processor, 256MB RAM and xpsp2 x 32 bit and run the same amount of applications on it as your brand new system. Save some money while your at it. and not even bother getting that shiny new system.
The only way tech gets better is if us hardcore techies push it as far as it will go. if you keep holding back games to low polycounts garphics cards will not get any better nvidia would be out of business and we would not see new versions of direct x.
I am all for completly phasing out existing comp tech and going quantum! bring on the quantum computers allready and take these old 32 bit dinosaurs to the scrap heap!
|
|
|
|
Post by remixedcat on Sept 9, 2009 17:00:42 GMT -5
Ok I understand how you said that you would need a baseline test.I now see what the article was. it was more of a baseline test rather then a full out showdown.
I do realise it was still important to get a baseline test to make sure the browser are not epic fail to begin with even with basic stuff open like not having flash or java or extensions. If they fail at that then they suck even harder.
the soccer mom thing was more of a lifestyle stab since they don't have time to geek out and multitask on thier pcs like I or other geeks do. they are too busy with thier kids, dogs, careers, etc to multitask as much as most geeks do. they barely have time to check their email and stuff so they only have a few things open. Also those people are more intimidated by doing too much on the computer for fear it might explode or some funny shit like that. Just to elaborate on that.
|
|
