Web Browser Grand Prix VIII: Chrome 16, Firefox 9, And Mac OS X

Page 5 - 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.
Thank you! A very detailed review of the browsers! =)
But not enough testing browsers for Linux. I would be very grateful if you add Linux.
 
Opera better improve - I've been using it for years but of late but there are a number of webpages which simply don't work properly with opera. I know it's not always opera but if the same page can work in IE9, Firefox and Chrome then it should work in opera.

I have to say that IE9 for me personally is very quick with Chrome pretty good as well. Firefox has been more annoying with all the "in your face updates"
 
Pretty much the only reason why I use Chrome over FF is for one little feature: "close tabs to the right". I might get a few, "dimwits!" for this. 😉 Maybe I can do it if I have a plugin. I also don't see that FF has a page where all the common pages are up for display when you open the browser.
 
@mayankleoboy: Ubuntu updates a browser only when the new version has big security fixes, and they know a new version isn't in the pipes; so, there was no rush in delivering Fx9 over Fx8.0.1, since the former didn't fix big security problems and had a bugfix release pending too. So, they waited a little while to ensure the package was stable - there was no rush, and they'd rather not update their packages for nothing. Moreover, the Ubuntu integration package has to be tested and updated too - it had annoying menu bugs, and now it doesn't. Instead of releasing 9.0 and a busted integration package, then 9.0.1 and a busted integration package, then yet another integration package, they delivered 9.0.1 and a fixed integration package all in one go. I can't fault them for that.
 
Toms browser benchmarks always seem to be rigged, equalizing important tests with unimportant ones, resulting in inaccurate final results.

First, let's differentiate between important and unimportant tests:

Important:

Startup time, Light
Startup time, Heavy
Page Load Time, Uncached
Page Load Time, Cached
Javascript
Flash
Memory Usage, Light
Memory Usage, Heavy
Proper Page Loads

Unimportant, and reason:

Silverlight - Microsoft attempting to replace Flash? Don't need it if you have flash.
HTML5 - a more promising replacement for flash, but since it's so new, it shouldn't really be tested like this.
Hardware acceleration - also new, shouldn't be tested yet.
Memory management - flawed; some browsers retain cached images and pages in memory on purpose.

.
Another issue is features or problems not tested:
Addon support
Built-in features
Cross referencing speed slowdown on browsers with built-in features compared with browsers that require addons to supplement those features
Browser tests on low-end hardware (Atom netbooks, old single-core Celerons, etc.)
Control over bandwidth (for example, Chrome periodically attempts to spontaneously download an enormous quantity of data without permission, and there is no way to stop it short of closing the browser or disconnecting from the internet and reconnecting several seconds later)
GUI lag, aka non page-loadtime browser responsiveness (Firefox is very bad with this one. Pages may load fast, but try switching tabs or using the menu with 8+ tabs open. Massive GUI lag ensues.)
 
@jaquit: Firefox has integrated spell checking too, ever since version 2.0. Even better, it can handle several languages (open a context menu to change the dictionary used). Useful when one posts in English and in French.

As for the 8-tab lag, it may happen ONLY when ALL tabs are loading SIMULTANEOUSLY - otherwise, switch is instantaneous. This is due to Firefox's single process design, which Mozilla is fixing through the Electrolysis project.

Personally, I prefer 8 tabs loading CORRECTLY and switching slowly, than a browser that can switch instantaneously between loading tabs - with a quarter of them not loading correctly.
 
So select a GPU wise poor product, would be interesting to see how much a "real" GPU would add rather than the Intel HD Graphics 3000 used in this test. Idea for future article, explore how much GPU acceleration adds?
 
@mitch074: Maybe on an i7 it's instant, but on any dual core or older machine the lag is horrible. Btw there are browsers that exist that switch instantaneously as well as loading correctly.

But all I'm saying really is these tests done by Tomshardware always give skewed results, because they focus on a bunch of redundant or pointless tests and leave out other very important tests.
 
Firefox 9.0.1 that replaced 9.0 that was crashing on many systems, is also very unstable.
On some days I have 5-6 crashes with it on a Win7 laptop, where it used to crash maybe once or twice a month.
Also, it leaks (doesn't release after closing browser windows) memory. It can easily get up to 500 -800 MB with just 2 simple HTML webpages open, after all other windows (tabs) are closed
 
[citation][nom]st_ranger[/nom]Firefox 9.0.1 that replaced 9.0 that was crashing on many systems, is also very unstable.On some days I have 5-6 crashes with it on a Win7 laptop, where it used to crash maybe once or twice a month.Also, it leaks (doesn't release after closing browser windows) memory. It can easily get up to 500 -800 MB with just 2 simple HTML webpages open, after all other windows (tabs) are closed[/citation]

Report it on Mozilla bug zilla!! Add steps to reproduce your bugs!!
It fixed bug for me in 2 days 😀 (on Nightly)
 
[citation][nom]waldemar_yan[/nom]Thank you! A very detailed review of the browsers! =)But not enough testing browsers for Linux. I would be very grateful if you add Linux.[/citation]
No, thank you! I'm working on bringing Linux back to the WBGP (see previous comments on the subject).
 
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]@mayankleoboy: Ubuntu updates a browser only when the new version has big security fixes, and they know a new version isn't in the pipes; so, there was no rush in delivering Fx9 over Fx8.0.1, since the former didn't fix big security problems and had a bugfix release pending too. So, they waited a little while to ensure the package was stable - there was no rush, and they'd rather not update their packages for nothing. Moreover, the Ubuntu integration package has to be tested and updated too - it had annoying menu bugs, and now it doesn't. Instead of releasing 9.0 and a busted integration package, then 9.0.1 and a busted integration package, then yet another integration package, they delivered 9.0.1 and a fixed integration package all in one go. I can't fault them for that.[/citation]
The Unity integration package seems to be holding it up much more than anything else. Part of the solution there is to ditch the stupid global menu 😉
 
@Pherule:
Thanks for the feedback, let me get to the "unimportant" first, then the not tested.
HTML5 is definitely not unimportant as it represents the open Web's next big bet, poses a serious risk to the now ubiquitous Flash (which powers nearly all online Video content), and is something all five major Web browser vendors are banking on - When is the last time Microsoft, Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera agreed on anything? Silverlight, although I'm no fan of it, powers a little thing called Netflix, which as of October was responsible for over 30% of Internet bandwidth. Hardware acceleration is part of HTML5 and represents how well these browsers are equipped for tomorrow's Web. Memory management is not flawed. If you're referring to Opera, we've tried several times to clear that trash can and see if it effects anything, so far it hasn't. However, newer versions of Opera are releasing more and more memory back to Windows than when we started the WBGP two years ago - clearly that's an area where they are actively improving.
As far as feature set and older hardware, both are in the cards for future editions of the WBGP. As far as Chrome 'phoning home', I'd also be interested in seeing those results. Any suggestions on how to go about testing for that?
BTW, where do you rank Java, WebGL, and standards conformance?
 
[citation][nom]Rantoc[/nom]So select a GPU wise poor product, would be interesting to see how much a "real" GPU would add rather than the Intel HD Graphics 3000 used in this test. Idea for future article, explore how much GPU acceleration adds?[/citation]
It seems to greatly effect the results of the WebGL tests. But so far we're not seeing much (if any) difference in HTML5 hardware acceleration, oddly enough.
 
[citation][nom]nurgletheunclean[/nom]I think the one thing that can be concluded from all this is that whatever browser you choose, run it on Windows 7 instead of OSX.[/citation]
Other than Safari (which actually rocks on OS X), that is generally true. However, Firefox for Mac has also been noticeably improving over the past few versions.
 
Let's not forget MemoryFox. If you were running this for the memory tests, Firefox would demolish all the others, hands down. That's what's so nice about FF - you can configure it to fit your needs!
 
All I learned from this is how to collect a bunch of meaningless benchmarks, run the results, then decide that even though Firefox didn't win the most of them, it won anyway. Please you wanted FF to win so it won. Thats all there was to this whole piece.
 
[citation][nom]joeman99[/nom]well well well , Apple's "elitist" platform is crap compared to windows. i just love how those elitists install windows on their "elitist" devices to have access to real software and not just toys. get that isheeps , safari is slower on macos than on windows. trolololo. speding a lot of money on your hipster devices and you're still loving the pack.[/citation]

You should get yourself a Mac, seriously. It will stop your hatred against other people's computers and help you lead a more satisfied life. *g*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom