Web Browser Grand Prix 4: Firefox 4 Goes Final

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]slo[/nom]I'd like to see maxthon included in the next test aswell. I have all browsers in the test installed on my pc but i still end up using maxthon for the last 4-5 years. I find it to be faster in real world compared to Firefox 4 (havent fiddled with the lastest IE version tho.) and it also has the easiest to use interface and really just makes you do your thing faster.[/citation]
Probably not going to happen unless we do like a 'Minor League' edition. I'll take a look at Maxthon later, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that article.

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]As was stated, the whole point of these tests was to run them on the "default" settings, with nothing changed from a normal install.If the browser makers have this "wow" feature, then they should enable it by default. Most don't because they don't always work, thus causing crashes, thus causing lower satisfaction ratings. I understand that you run some of these test from an in-house web servers to get "equality", but in the real world everyone here does have to deal with the "live" internet, and having the browsers trudge across the internet with all the other traffic would be a good test. And since you can all have them use the same IP from the testing site, that shouldn't be a bad thing and "considered" equal. My two-tenths of a dollar.[/citation]
Only the page load times were run from the local web server. This was changed from live Web sites due to the large number of comments asking for that, LOL. The scores are much closer together per iteration now, and on that tiny, tiny scale, that's probably a good thing.

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]I'm rather certain OSX isn't on version 1.7 Any word on GPU acceleration in Safari?[/citation]
Doh! Fixed it. I wish I could answer that for you. There has been no word from Apple, period. They're the only outfit who won't give us any input for the WBGP. We ask all of them for suggestions/criticism on the planned line-up of benchmarks. Nothing from Apple, ever.

 

[Guest]

It no doubt depends on how you are weighting it. In your own tests, IE was first 13 times while Chrome was first 12, but if one weights the places simply as a 1st is 5 pts, a 2nd is 4, and a 5th place is worth 1pt, then Chrome 10 actually beats IE9 by 119 to 117. After all, if IE9 were still 1st 13 times but LAST in all the rest, would you still declare it the winner?

 

[davewolfgang]

That's a popular request and one that we'll be exploring at some point (probably not when we're trying to coincide a WBGP installment with a new browser release, though). Quick question: How low do you want to go? Laptop or netbook? Price range?

I would agree also, but I think a quick look at the latest MicroCenter email or Newegg.com prices on systems, from what I can see the ones pushed to the "non-expert" users are probably Athlon II 630/i3(m)/i5(m) processor range (m - for laptops), and 3-4 GB of RAM (2-3 GB for non-sale, non-loss leader systems) depending on the system. (Those were all in the $399-499 price range which is what most people would buy on sale - for a non-gamer, regular internet, basic home "Office" user.)

Most also don't have a dedicated memory graphics card, but one that uses shared or "Dynamically Shared" memory, which would lower the system memory able to be used.

Yes, it would be an extra set of machines and tests, but that would give a much closer real world experience for what is probably the "average" internet user, not us Power Users that we are.

 

[alimirjamali]

I tried IE 9 (both RC and current final). Loading speed is not everything for most users. Ease of use and flexibility is more important in most cases. I myself as well as all of my friends, colleagues and family switched back to Chrome or Firefox after trying IE 9

I currently use Chrome as primary and FireFox 4.0 as secondary browser. It is impossible for me to live without some of FireFox plug-ins (Adblock Plus, DownloadHelper for downloading Youtube Videos, Flagfox to see hosting country of each site, Cookies Manager+, FoxyProxy etc).

Fore some reason, proxy setting between Chrome/IE/Safari is locked. It is only FireFox that allows independent proxy setting. (I did not test Opera).

 

[Guest]

Just checked out how the tab grouping works. One thing is for sure... I will never use it. The way Opera has implemented tab grouping works much better. For now Chrome is my favourite browser... I expect them to come up with a tab grouping functionality that at least matches how Opera did it. Time to go back to the drawing board.

Another issue I have is how little Firefox is able to pick up new stuff from their competitors. Look at how the Chrome is handling typing allready visited domains in the address field. In Chrome you can type the first letter of a domain (not having to include the http or www part ... thank you god), then Chrome show the full matched URL in the field, but grayed out... if more than one match is found type another letter to make Chrome show another URL in the address bar... when you see what you want ... just hit ENTER .... bam...
The way this works in Chrome is just top notch.... Why cannot Firefox learn from this? The way this works in Firefox where you have to use the mouse or scroll down using the arrows is prehistoric these days.

That said Firefox is a fantastic browser. But it is how these trivial day to day stuff works which makes me use Chrome. If this is not changed... I'll never go back to Firefox....

Another "minor" thing ... why on earth do Firefox has to "copy" the way Opera splashes their Name/Logo on top left of the browser window. It was not pretty when Opera did it, and is not pretty when Firefox does it. It never will. Chrome UI is so uncluttered... that is how we want it!

 

[assafbt]

Internet explorer with 4 appearances on the WEAK column, Firefox 4 only with one appearance there and Internet Explorer wins??

I mean, results for "winner" and "strong" are almost identical in the detailed test results in most cases, and if you join these columns you get an FF-IE tie, so I thought the number of WEAK appearances would be the deciding factor, because here there was a noticeable difference in the benchmarks, to the worse. So as IE scored so many "WEAK" crowns, I was really surprised that it got to be the winner. I suppose now I can be sure, if IE can be declared a winner after such an embarrassing display, then Tom's is indeed, after all, slanted in favor of IE. How sad that it happened to this site.

 

[davewolfgang]

Just checked out how the tab grouping works. One thing is for sure... I will never use it. The way Opera has implemented tab grouping works much better. For now Chrome is my favourite browser... I expect them to come up with a tab grouping functionality that at least matches how Opera did it. Time to go back to the drawing board.

Another issue I have is how little Firefox is able to pick up new stuff from their competitors. Look at how the Chrome is handling typing allready visited domains in the address field. In Chrome you can type the first letter of a domain (not having to include the http or www part ... thank you god), then Chrome show the full matched URL in the field, but grayed out... if more than one match is found type another letter to make Chrome show another URL in the address bar... when you see what you want ... just hit ENTER .... bam...
The way this works in Chrome is just top notch.... Why cannot Firefox learn from this? The way this works in Firefox where you have to use the mouse or scroll down using the arrows is prehistoric these days.

That said Firefox is a fantastic browser. But it is how these trivial day to day stuff works which makes me use Chrome. If this is not changed... I'll never go back to Firefox....

Another "minor" thing ... why on earth do Firefox has to "copy" the way Opera splashes their Name/Logo on top left of the browser window. It was not pretty when Opera did it, and is not pretty when Firefox does it. It never will. Chrome UI is so uncluttered... that is how we want it!

Huh?? What in the world are you talking about?? FF has had this for YEARS, and yes, WITHOUT the arrow keys too. I do it at least 10+ times a day in FF. And it's NOT with an add-on either, it's part of FF.

Do you have something unchecked in the options of FF?

You might want to check before you complain about something another browser has had for years.

 

[dark_lord69]

Excellent. I will stick with IE9.

 

[thrasher32]

Stepping back and looking at reality:

They're just web browsers. Besides the developers and their parent companies, who cares???

I'll use IE9 because it's already installed and virtualy every website works well with it. Why go through the hassle and overhead of installing a myriad of browsers on my systems.

 

[marciocattini]

F***...
Toggle Quick Tabs (thumbnail view) was taken off in IE9...
It was the one original feature of IE that they should not have taken off... it competed quite well against Firefox tab grouping thing.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]Hahahahahahahahaa.Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha.Suck it Firefox Fanboys. Bitching and whining about FF4 not being included in the last test, and when it finally does get tested it still falls behind.[/citation]
If I could give this a +1000 I would, I would even settle for a Facebook "Like"

Million and millions of people rushed to download a so-called superior browser that was simply slower.

Oh, the car analogies are just waiting to burst over here, something about passing up the chance to have a Ferrari and getting a tractor instead, but for now i'll just sit back and bask in the glow of satisfaction.

 

[rhino13]

I know you did not. You just said FF was not the best browser in the world :O
The fanbois gonna burn down the forums.

And to IE9! That's sacrilige!

No wait, this just in... fanbois no longer care about performance they're just concerned about having a fox icon in their browser. Oh, but that's why they're 'bois isn't it.

 

[CvP]

@marciocattini internet options > tab settings > enable quick tabs > press ctrl+q

@no_adblock_in_ie9_omg
either subscribe to a proper adblocking list or use http://simple-adblock.com/faq/internet-explorer-9/

@Adam Overa
Please stop using html5test.com
It tests* a lot of non html5 things and tests a lot of things that are still in active development (changing rapidly; for example: websockets/indexdb).
MS also supports these but they chose not to include it in production browser to avoid breaking sites.

*Actually, it doesn't even test! It just asks the browser if something is supported or not and scores accordingly. It does not make any attempt to see if the browser actually supports it or not. If it does, whether the "support" conforms to the standard or not.


PS: please fix your site. it is producing script error during comment posting (in IE9).

 

[ericburnby]

LOL at the Firefox fanbois still foaming at the mouth. When another product does something better than yours, start to talk about all the "must haves" that yours supports and make sure to state that you absolutely "can't live without them" or that "browsing is unbearable" without your addons.

I use IE9 and I have absolutely no problems with all the websites I visit (I went through my entire bookmark list to try them all out). I don't have trouble with scripts or ads. My browsing experience is fast, efficient and there isn't a single feature FF has that I want or need to make it better. Of course, if I really tried I could probably come up with a feature or two IE9 has and talk about how I can't live without it, so I HAVE to use IE9 (like pinned sites, which neither FF or Chrome does nearly as well as IE9 does).

All you FF fanbois who say you can't live without your addons, why don't you put up a list of 10 sites that you visit that requires the use of such addons? I'm really curious where you browse since I don't seem to have these so-called "problems" with my favorite sites.

If you can't show me 10 real-world examples of why your addons are required (in the form of a list of bad sites), then you can STFU about your addsons.

 

[marciocattini]

[citation][nom]CvP[/nom]@marciocattini internet options > tab settings > enable quick tabs > press ctrl+q[/citation]
Thanks bro!!

 

[of the way]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]Huh?? What in the world are you talking about?? FF has had this for YEARS, and yes, WITHOUT the arrow keys too. I do it at least 10+ times a day in FF. And it's NOT with an add-on either, it's part of FF.Do you have something unchecked in the options of FF? You might want to check before you complain about something another browser has had for years.[/citation]

Maybe it takes some time to put it in the list for FF? T+ENTER takes me to Tomshardware in Chrome, but it does a google search of t in a fairly fresh install of FF that has visited Tomshardware a few times.

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]assafbt[/nom]Internet explorer with 4 appearances on the WEAK column, Firefox 4 only with one appearance there and Internet Explorer wins??I mean, results for "winner" and "strong" are almost identical in the detailed test results in most cases, and if you join these columns you get an FF-IE tie, so I thought the number of WEAK appearances would be the deciding factor, because here there was a noticeable difference in the benchmarks, to the worse. So as IE scored so many "WEAK" crowns, I was really surprised that it got to be the winner. I suppose now I can be sure, if IE can be declared a winner after such an embarrassing display, then Tom's is indeed, after all, slanted in favor of IE. How sad that it happened to this site.[/citation]
The WBGP is largely a speed test, hence 'Grand Prix' and IE9 takes in the most wins. When there is a tie, losses are obviously the deciding factor. But there is no FF/IE tie here per-category. Also, go back to the placing, definitely no FF/IE tie there.
As far as slanting towards IE, I don't know where you're getting that. The WBGP4 test line-up actually HELPED FF4 over the WBGP3 line-up. And the line-up has remained largely the same since WBGP1. There are only 2-6 changes in tests between each installment - in order to add the latest tests, improve existing methodologies, and remove gamed or dated tests.
Is it really that difficult to believe that the world's largest software corporation managed to make the latest version of their Web browser faster than the competition on the latest version of their very own OS? The real question is: How long will it be able to stay on top?

 

[mitch074]

@hixbot: if you want to go and fiddle with your hosts file every day, then please do so; also, consider that the hosts file applies to all installed browsers (actually, pretty much anything that uses the Windows TCP/IP stack), so your comment is not 'IE-only'.

As a matter of fact, when I modify my hosts file, Firefox requires a single hard refresh (Ctrl+F5) to take the modification into account reliably, while IE needs to be shut down then reopened.

 

[soulbro]

Yawn. You guys are boring. Of all the things to have a holy war over, you choose web browsers? Next you'll start flinging feces over which spreadsheet software is the best.

Compare web browsers of today to those of just 5 years ago. IE still has some catching up to do re: web standards compliance, but otherwise, it hardly matters which one you go with. Use what you like.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

IE9 looks interesting, it appears that it was designed with the same "fast browser, but no bloat" that chrome was at first (and opera has always had a reputation for, even if the results here don't seem to suggest that). That's the main reason I started using chrome in the first place, because it was fast, partially because it wasn't full of features I didn't want or wouldn't use.

As some have pointed out above, it would be nice to see a comparison of browsers across more than just windows 7. Obviously, safari is a much better browser on macOS, and I'm curious as to how the browsers compare on Vista (or maybe even XP). Many people don't like Vista, but 7 isn't old enough that it isn't within reason for someone to have a pc they bought with vista that hasn't been replaced yet. Browsers don't exactly require cutting-edge technology to run either, so it's a lot more likely someone would be interested in how a browser runs on an older OS than they would be in how crysis 2 runs on an older OS.

 

[Guest]

Performance Benchmarks; Flash: "Windows 7 doesn't seem to have the consistent issues with Flash that Linux and OS X have though, so Flash sandboxing isn't nearly as essential on this OS."

No, that's not why you want sandboxing - you want it to protect your machine from flash vulnerabilities (of which there are a lot).

And it's most important on Windows, not on Linux/OS X.

 

[reprotected]

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]Hahahahahahahahaa.Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha.Suck it Firefox Fanboys. Bitching and whining about FF4 not being included in the last test, and when it finally does get tested it still falls behind.[/citation]
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hypocrite. You are too stupid to realize that these tests are stupid. I have both Opera and Firefox, and they both rendered all my web pages properly. I also care more about add-ons rather than memory usage or how long it takes for a browser to open. since the differences are at the millisecond. Unless you are a fanboy of Chrome or IE who care about the slightest millisecond, or care about renders which most websites don't even use, shut up.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation]But Windows makes up 90%+ of the PC market, and Windows 7 is their newest product, so I can't really agree with you on the "niche product" statement.[/citation]

The 90% is a bogus figure, IE( can only run on around a third of home PC's and around 2% of mobile devices, that's what I call niche. Surely in any other test on software marks are awarded for compatibility? I could claim to have the fastest Browser in the world but it only runs on one machine, should it get a Tomshardware award? A simple solution is to multiply the final scores by the percentage of machines it will run on. Opera, FF and Chrome would score highly.