Which Web Browser Is Best Under Windows 8?

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Yes and this is unfortunate. We need more competition in the 64-bit browsing world. I currently use Waterfox. It's only other competition (that I'm aware of) is IE 64-bit.[/citation]
forgive my ignorance, but what advantage could 64bit bring to web browsing?
I know at an OS level it allows for more ram utilization, more precise calculations, and occasionally more advanced commands... but in reality the only one that really makes a big difference is the Ram address issue for most people.
On the side of the browser you typically do not need more memory usage. You would think that 4GB per process would be plenty considering you can hardly get 1.6GB of total use out of 40 tabs. If a web page is requireing 64bit calculations (something that you pretty much never see except in extremely specialized workloads), it would almost always be better for the web designer to take the workload and have it processed on the server, providing a result in the web browser, rather than having the web browser and client machine (which is poorly optimized for the task) to such things.
On the last part I am going to have to plead ignorance. My understanding is that when you move to 64bit that most instructions are still 32bit instructions... but with a bunch of empty space tacked on to them to make them '64bit', and that optomizations can be made by tacking 2 instructions together so that they get processed at the same time, or that a more advanced or newer instruction can be made in that 64bit space which can do things in one step instead of 2 steps. But in the real world we rarely see such performance increases. I see the improvements in heavy multitasking due to the extra RAM being available, but given the same general workload using sub 4GB of ram it feels like there is no appreciable performance difference between 32 and 64bit.

Perhaps I am wrong? Please let me know if I am missing something.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

My understanding is that when you move to 64bit that most instructions are still 32bit instructions... but with a bunch of empty space tacked on to them to make them '64bit', and that optomizations can be made by tacking 2 instructions together so that they get processed at the same time, or that a more advanced or newer instruction can be made in that 64bit space which can do things in one step instead of 2 steps.

Thats SSE2/3/4. Not 64 bit.
Using 64 bit code, by itself does not increase performance. Your code has to be able to use the SSE instructions to gain performance.

 

[hexxx]

There should be some kind of penalty for not supporting WebGL ?

Also I think it's wrong that Chrome wins memory tests when it uses more then double the memory of firefox!

 

[Guest]

fyi i compiled firefox from source under VS 2012 express using x64 compiler, but 99.9% of mozilla source just can't be vectorized automatically, /Qpar also gives nothing, so performance should be about the same as for vs 2010, imho.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Yes and this is unfortunate. We need more competition in the 64-bit browsing world. I currently use Waterfox. It's only other competition (that I'm aware of) is IE 64-bit.[/citation]

I think that Opera has at least an x64 alpha or beta version (I haven't kept up and might have missed it leaving alpha/beta testing). Honestly though, there are actually several x64 customized FF *distros* going around from what I've heard (For example, Pale Moon has a 64 bit compilation), not just Water Fox. Honestly, I don't think that there is much point in having a 64 bit web browser anyway, but that's me.

[citation][nom]ghdjhgdhhgd[/nom]fyi i compiled firefox from source under VS 2012 express using x64 compiler, but 99.9% of mozilla source just can't be vectorized automatically, /Qpar also gives nothing, so performance should be about the same as for vs 2010, imho.[/citation]

IIRC, Mozilla is supposedly working on making Firefox more multi-threaded, but I don't remember which version number was supposed to launch their (hopefully successful) attempt at multi-threading. I think that it was supposed to be a different method than Chrome's.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]IIRC, Mozilla is supposedly working on making Firefox more multi-threaded, but I don't remember which version number was supposed to launch their (hopefully successful) attempt at multi-threading. I think that it was supposed to be a different method than Chrome's.[/citation]

That is project Electrolysis. It has been stalled "for the future". Probably it means almost a complete rewrite of the code, for which mozilla is woefully undermanned.
The advantage of Chrome is that its a completely modern browser, with no cruft and ckudges left from the older generation. Plus, it has been backed by a corporation from the very beginning. So it has hugely better code management.
Mozilla started as a project of a few people. So lots of stuff is undocumented.

 

[Guest]

@CaedenV

Well personally i prefer a 64bit browser for stability purposes, especially now flash is 64bit too, if the plugin dies it wont take the browser with it, and if the browser is acting up it wont slow down/freeze my machine

performance is negligible, with modern hardware we talking an extra second at max, i prioritize stability over that extra second

 

[afrobacon]

I'm sticking with Opera.
...At least until I can get Chrome to stop lagging (The problem seems isolated to my system.

 

[bison88]

[citation][nom]Cryio[/nom]And yeah....Opera is all over the place nowadays. I still use it because I like it's UI and loading speed (SPDY Turbo is insane), but scrolling problems, crashes, lock-ups, page rendering problems, really bad memory usage...Man...[/citation]


Agreed. I'll still use it over IE any day of the week. Chrome and FireFox just have too quirky of an interface/menu's with everything hidden. It's too clean of an interface. Shame Opera is everywhere. Each new version seems to bring nothing of real relevance. The memory usage is getting pretty bad as is the browser constantly hanging in memory because of it. Everything you mentioned has been bothering me since at least 9.0 and besides adding "Extensions" I haven't seen anything really stand out much up until 12.

 

[srap]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I think that Opera has at least an x64 alpha or beta version (I haven't kept up and might have missed it leaving alpha/beta testing).[/citation]
Stable Opera x64 versions are available since version 12.0

 

[Marcus52]

I get that you didn't test Firefox security with NoScript installed because NoScript isn't available for any other brand of browser (not because the developer won't make it for them, but because all the other browsers have code that prevents it from m working), but I'll continue to use Firefox becasue it is the most secure browser with NoScript enabled and used properly.

Good job though, thanks for the reviews.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]I get that you didn't test Firefox security with NoScript installed because NoScript isn't available for any other brand of browser (not because the developer won't make it for them, but because all the other browsers have code that prevents it from m working), but I'll continue to use Firefox becasue it is the most secure browser with NoScript enabled and used properly.Good job though, thanks for the reviews.[/citation]

Actually, there is a NoScript for Chrome. It's annoyingly complicated to set up IMO compared to its Firefox counterpart, but it does exist.

 

[mikeangs2004]

FF 17 will be released tomorrow and this review is one day before it.

 

[Guest]

There a new kid on the block. Maxthon. Give it a try on the next review

 

[DrinkTray]

MS can't even get their own browser to be competitive on their own OS.

 

[Guest]

Well as I never bothered to read the info above.
I just thought I might add to the hornets nest and put up 99% of the real users viewpoints out there.

Nobody cares about this review, because nobody uses M$-8 ..

Most rival company's are very happy M$ made such a huge mistake in market direction.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

[citation][nom]mikeangs2004[/nom]FF 17 will be released tomorrow and this review is one day before it.[/citation]

Probably because these reviews are written weeks in advance.

 

[Guest]

Confused by the IE10 score in Hardware Acceleration test. I dont believe IE10 supports WebGL. How did it score so high when two of the hardware acceleration tests use WebGL?

 

[Guest]

I found that my experience with Chrome-Metro on Windows 8 is horrible and very frustrating.

I can't open several Chrome windows at the same time, can't make screenshots using my screenshot program,
can't install my favorite extensions, because they are just hidden in chrome web store or throws an error when installing, this happens on Windows 8 only!

I'm very frustrating. For me, the Chrome-Metro and Windows 8 start screen is like UAC on Vista.
Most likely I will move back on Windows 7.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]OzzyTwit[/nom]I found that my experience with Chrome-Metro on Windows 8 is horrible and very frustrating. I can't open several Chrome windows at the same time, can't make screenshots using my screenshot program, can't install my favorite extensions, because they are just hidden in chrome web store or throws an error when installing, this happens on Windows 8 only! I'm very frustrating. For me, the Chrome-Metro and Windows 8 start screen is like UAC on Vista. Most likely I will move back on Windows 7.[/citation]

That's a ridiculous thing to do in your situation based purely on what is written here. Why not simply use the desktop version on Windows 8? You already have the operating system according to you, so why change it? It's be easier and faster to simply install the desktop version of Chrome and throw in Classic Shell to ditch Metro.
If you have some other reason for downgrading to 7, then more power to you, just make sure that you're doing it for the right reasons.

 

[Cryio]

So...browsers now have x64 builds, out-of-process plugins, hardware acceleration on DirectX and WebGL, plugins, HTML5 parsers, skins, themes/personas, and Do not Tracks. All they need now is to be multi-threaded, and we would be in paradise.

 

[btdude6]

[citation][nom]Cryio[/nom]False, IE10 RTM on Windows 8 x64 is a 64 bit browser.[/citation]

[citation][nom]Srap[/nom]Stable Opera x64 versions are available since version 12.0[/citation]

And the Nightly versions of Firefox have had "official" x64 builds for a while now.

Since we have 3 out of 4 with x64 builds here, how about running a WBGP x64/beta version? Comparing normal builds against beta/alpha ones on Windows 8 sounds interesting to me, so the "it is faster because it is x64" could be put up to test, or so just to have a general reference at least.


[citation][nom]stabilityMatrix[/nom]@CaedenVWell personally i prefer a 64bit browser for stability purposes, especially now flash is 64bit too[/citation]

Indeed. If they don`t perform faster on the web in general, I`m sure at least plugin performance differences are noticeable. When I use x64 Flash (e.g. on Facebook) on Nightly it feels MUCH faster and crashes less often, for one.

 

[Cryio]

So Opera 12.11 released today. Yeei

 

[matter37]

I still like firefox better on desktop, for me it always renders pages noticeably faster than chrome, and it feels better to me, which I believe is because of a simply animation, which chrome doesnt have, instead just jumping to another part of the page when scrolling

 

[srap]

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]And the Nightly versions of Firefox have had "official" x64 builds for a while now.[/citation]
True. But it was never a Level 1 priority. What is more, they plan to completely stall x64 nightly releases, for many different reasons.

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]Since we have 3 out of 4 with x64 builds here, how about running a WBGP x64/beta version?[/citation]
These browsers have either a stable Win x64 build, or a dev (not Beta!) build. Stable ones can be tested, but dev versions are a completely different. They change daily, making the test results completely worthless.