Web Browser Grand Prix 7: Firefox 7, Chrome 14, Opera 11.51

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Startup time: It is approximately 4-5 seconds faster than FF7 after a reboot and 1-2 seconds faster on any later startups. This is with google.com as my homepage.
Click to expand...

4-5 seconds? Do you have an idea how much 4-5 seconds are? Are you sure? If that's true i can click on FF, go to the kitchen and make me a coffee.
I also did this kind of test on my pc and i did find FF a bit slower, but nothing that can make me change browser, maybe a second at max. Than i tried Chrome add ons and that really made me cry, "Uninstall Chrome" was already on my mind. Those minutes of Chrome use, i felt like i was really missing FF.
In my opinion there's no contest. Chrome can take that second, i'll take everything else with FF.
Chrome you can keep your second, i'll keep everything else.
 
[citation][nom]makaveli316[/nom]4-5 seconds? Do you have an idea how much 4-5 seconds are? Are you sure? If that's true i can click on FF, go to the kitchen and make me a coffee.I also did this kind of test on my pc and i did find FF a bit slower, but nothing that can make me change browser, maybe a second at max. Than i tried Chrome add ons and that really made me cry, "Uninstall Chrome" was already on my mind. Those minutes of Chrome use, i felt like i was really missing FF.In my opinion there's no contest. Chrome can take that second, i'll take everything else with FF.Chrome you can keep your second, i'll keep everything else.[/citation]


Yes, 4-5 seconds. I just did a comparison test with a stop watch where I opened Chrome and Firefox alternately four times. Chrome too an average of 1.6 seconds to load and Firefox took an average of 3.8 seconds. While a stop watch is not very accurate, it certainly cannot account for a 2.2 second difference. Both had been previously open so I'm assuming they were cached in the memory to at least some degree.
 
It's not just about performance. I love Opera on non-Mac platforms, but until recently, it was unusuable on the Mac when using a trackpad. (A recent alpha fixed that!) That's just for scrolling reasons. But also it's not as comopatible as FF, likely the fault of web developers, but still. Commenting systems don't work (e.g. Engadget), incompatible with full Google+, etc.

These tests would be more interesting if they concentrated on one platform (not just Windows) and then assessed them along a variety of dimensions, not just these imperceptible performance ones.
 
Chrome seems more responsive in my experience. Also, FF gives you an annoying message when it wants to update and needs you to restart it for that. Or it gives you the update window when you open it. Chrome? I never see it opening. In fact, I thought the latest version was 13. I just clicked Wrench>About Google Chrome and discovered I had 14. I never even noticed it doing that. And THAT is the way they should do it.
 
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Some add-in crash issues in FF a couple months ago forced me to use IE again for a while. Wow, I never realized how many sites had so many ads, and ways to show them! I'm glad FF is more stable again so I can use it once more, although there are still a couple of sites where IE9 is more compatible.[/citation]
I totally agree. I don't mind a little UNobtrusive ad, but when the ad gets in my way, I get an ad portal instead of the page I asked for, popups, videos that show on the side that hog CPU cycles (even worse if they have sound), little things that appear in the middle of the screen and I have to close, etc...UGHHHHHHH!!!!! If it's just a simple image, sure, I'll allow it. When they are annoying like that, I block them and the damn advertisers don't get their point across. Oh, and giving me ad tracking cookies? That REALLY goes too far - I run Adblock Plus and Noscript to get rid of them.
 
I just tried Chrome once again and once again there's no option to change cach files directory and size. I have to edit the .exe with a command to do this, but that affects only the shortcut and not the main directory .exe, so when i click on my gmail gadget, it opens the main exe and i don't want to write cach files on my SSD, i want it to have an option to change the directory. So once again Google Chrome - uninstalled.
 
I prefer fixfox since switching from IE 4 years ago. I also have chrome, Opera, Ie and once Safari all on my computer. I just use Firefox the most, the weird thing is they have an update it seems like every week. (I using some beta)
 
I'll admit I'm completely surprised by the Page Load Reliability test. I just very recently gave up on Firefox 6.0.2 because it appeared to me that it was at best maybe 50% reliable. I upgraded it to 7, but by then, my confidence was shattered so I use Chrome now. I may revisit Firefox, but for now, its too little too late.
 
The page load reliability numbers were very important to me, and confirm what I already suspected about Opera. It's important because I use several sessions with dozens of tabs apiece, and resuming a session would be painful if half the pages were broken.

Would there be a way to test overall CPU time used by these browsers? Because IE9 and Chrome14 should be using all four CPUs in several of the tests, while Firefox and Opera (probably Safari too) should be using mostly just one core. It's really cool to browse on 1-2 CPUs while Handbrake is using the other pair, but this is not possible when using Chrome.
 
In my eyes, IE9 is still the big winner. 10 years+ support from release. That's the kind of thing corporate users need for all the applications that are being shifted to web. If you're sinking a bunch of money in a web application, why develop for browsers that give you no guarantee that they'll even work 6 weeks from now?

I'm hoping Firefox gets some of Chrome's user share, because almost certainly IE is going to gobble up what was previously safe territory for Firefox.
 
"1. Startup time: It is approximately 4-5 seconds faster than FF7 after a reboot and 1-2 seconds faster on any later startups. This is with google.com as my homepage."

Sorry,but here my everyday experience gives me different results:
It takes for FF7 with 110 addons enabled,exactly 7 seconds to load completely.
For FF7 with a clean profile,it takes exactly 1 second to load completely.
Chrome with clean profile needs 1 second as well to load completely.
I dont have a Chrome profile with 110 addons,because it simply crashes so it's useless.

So i think the problem with your results as startup time goes,is the PEBKAC factor rather than Firefox itself.



 
"1. Startup time: It is approximately 4-5 seconds faster than FF7 after a reboot and 1-2 seconds faster on any later startups. This is with google.com as my homepage."

Sorry,but here my everyday experience with the two browsers is quite different:

FF7 with 110 addons enabled,needs exactly 7sec to load completely.
FF7 with a clean profile,needs exactly 1sec to load completely.
Chrome with a clean profile,needs 1sec to load as well.
I dont use a Chrome profile with 110 addons enabled,simply because it crashes when it starts so it's useless.

In other words,any kind of problems you have with FF is because of the PEBKAC factor rather than the browser itself.you should start maintaining and using your hardware better.
 
Rofl.i sent the first comments with Chrome,but it didnt appear so i thought it wasnt sent.i sent a new comment but again it didnt appear.i loaded the page in FF,and here they are.the irony,eh?
 
I find your testing irrelevant for the following reasons:
a) I read a page, and may stay on a page for minutes. I don't load 8 pages at a time and concern myself of milliseconds. My eyes blink in millieseconds. To read a headline takes almost 150 milliseconds.
b) I am more concerned about memory footprint and the average cpu utilisation to render a page readable.
c) I am concerned about network hogging. While loading a page, what is happening to my download that is in progress.
d) What is the browser causing as a load on the isp's server. Which of the browsers has a smaller impact is what an ISP would be concerned about.

So open up control panel, and look at the sizes reported for each of the browsers, and factor that in.

Sorry, I draw no winners from your evaluation. If I had to draw a winner, I would choose the one I find as the most user friendly for me.
 
FF is named after a cool movie by Clint Eastwood where he steals a Russian jet, more importantly it has a sidebar for bookmarks.

It wins all day and everyday until Google fixes this really dumb problem that should have been fixed before it was released.

I have had Chrome installed since its first Beta but never use it because I hate this one missing feature. I try to use it, try to get used the bookmarks not being there but it just a waste of time. I even went so far as finding a extension that could give this functionality but all tried are a poor replacement for a feature that is a standard.

GG Google, I have talked to a few of your engineers it could take as much as a day to code, and another month to get through your engineering testing before release? I consider this along with the redesigned "News Features" as my two biggest failures in Google history.

Both prevent me from using things that I want to use.

 
"Some add-in crash issues in FF a couple months ago forced me to use IE again for a while. Wow, I never realized how many sites had so many ads, and ways to show them! I'm glad FF is more stable again so I can use it once more, although there are still a couple of sites where IE9 is more compatible."

The problem here is that MS has to try to keep as many sites as possible only IE compatible. MS's whole existence is based on OS monopoly and forcing either IE or some MS closed technology like SL is the way.
As you can see, MS does not do HTML5. If MS wanted, HTML5 would be is use already.
 
"Also, I hope Internet Explorer 10 will arrive soon. My short experience with IE10 under Windows 8 was very pleasant, even better than that of IE9."

You (intentionally?) seem to forget what makes IE to improve. Competition.
And compete MS does not want. And that why it still tries to make web-sites IE and/or Windows only.
For all of us, it would be better if there was not any MS applications while MS has the monopoly for OS. Who can compete in application development with company that owns the platform?
Competition is all that matters if we say we live in a market economy. That's what makes things to evolve, like in nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom