Which Web Browser Is Best Under Windows 8?

[yorgos]

do I dare to ask a waterfox benchmark?

 

[btdude6]

[citation][nom]Srap[/nom]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]
Source? I can`t see a reason for stalling the x64, specially now that WebGL/CL and the likes are making their way into browsers. 4GB might be a lot for HTML and scripting, but what about when robust games start arriving on the browsers? It will probably happen sooner than the ever-arriving electrolysis...
[citation][nom]Srap[/nom]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.[/citation]
Yes they`re obviously not as stable as beta, but even though there are daily changes, they could do a 'special' WBGP, like on new years or something...
Sure, It`s certainly not gonna be the most accurate review, but I really want to see an official 32 vs x64 comparison to see if there`s real-world browsing changes.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]Source? I can`t see a reason for stalling the x64, specially now that WebGL/CL and the likes are making their way into browsers. 4GB might be a lot for HTML and scripting, but what about when robust games start arriving on the browsers? It will probably happen sooner than the ever-arriving electrolysis...Yes they`re obviously not as stable as beta, but even though there are daily changes, they could do a 'special' WBGP, like on new years or something...Sure, It`s certainly not gonna be the most accurate review, but I really want to see an official 32 vs x64 comparison to see if there`s real-world browsing changes.[/citation]

They'd also have to use the same version numbers for the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of each browser if you want a true 32 bit versus 64 bit comparison for web browsers with as few uncontrolled variables as reasonably possible. It should be fairly accurate that way, albeit it'd be outdated before it's even published. However, I don't think that that would detract from its accuracy as a decent 32 bit versus 64 bit web browser comparison, just from how the current dev versions perform.

 

[srap]

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]Source? I can`t see a reason for stalling the x64, specially now that WebGL/CL and the likes are making their way into browsers. 4GB might be a lot for HTML and scripting, but what about when robust games start arriving on the browsers? It will probably happen sooner than the ever-arriving electrolysis...[/citation]
Source. AFAIK, both WebGL and WebCL rely on the GPU, not the CPU. I don't see how they could benefit from x64 builds.
If robust games start to arrive for browsers, than I know the web is screwed. Neither the browsers nor the web are designed to deal with 1+ Gigs of gaming. Those should simply written in C and get their own installer .iso-s.
Other: moz already has a bug list related to web gaming.
[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]Yes they`re obviously not as stable as beta, but even though there are daily changes, they could do a 'special' WBGP, like on new years or something...[/citation]
A single special WBGP... I wouldn't mind that either. But stability isn't the main reason I said what I said. Dev channel is where they can land/enable supports whenever they feel like it. Let's say that Adam Overa runs these tests with a recent FF nightly (with disabled update), and a few days later Moz enables CSS Grid Layout support that was disabled before. That would be a few CSS points missed for Moz.

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]Sure, It`s certainly not gonna be the most accurate review, but I really want to see an official 32 vs x64 comparison to see if there`s real-world browsing changes.[/citation]
Will comment on this one too, but ATM I have no more time :S

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]srap[/nom]Source. AFAIK, both WebGL and WebCL rely on the GPU, not the CPU. I don't see how they could benefit from x64 builds.If robust games start to arrive for browsers, than I know the web is screwed. Neither the browsers nor the web are designed to deal with 1+ Gigs of gaming. Those should simply written in C and get their own installer .iso-s.Other: moz already has a bug list related to web gaming.A single special WBGP... I wouldn't mind that either. But stability isn't the main reason I said what I said. Dev channel is where they can land/enable supports whenever they feel like it. Let's say that Adam Overa runs these tests with a recent FF nightly (with disabled update), and a few days later Moz enables CSS Grid Layout support that was disabled before. That would be a few CSS points missed for Moz.Will comment on this one too, but ATM I have no more time :S[/citation]

You're thinking too big on the game thing there.

It doesn't matter if the FF build would lose points like that against the other browsers if the goal is merely comparing the 64 bit to 32 bit versions of each browser, not comparing each browser to other browsers.

 

[gamecube]

I hope the WBGP for Android is not that far off. One month already since the iOS one.

Talking about Windows 8, looking forward to the WBGP running their "metro" versions. And also, when are we gonna see some competition on Windows RT?

 

[srap]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]You're thinking too big on the game thing there.[/citation]
You are right, my mistake.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]It doesn't matter if the FF build would lose points like that against the other browsers if the goal is merely comparing the 64 bit to 32 bit versions of each browser, not comparing each browser to other browsers.[/citation]
Here is a comparison. Not as detailed as Tom's, but it shows the main point.

 

[klink01]

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]And the Nightly versions of Firefox have had "official" x64 builds for a while now.[/citation]
Mozilla is no longer support Win64!

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=814009
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/jpX_z5zieD4

 

[lenasomers22]

Jayden. although Dennis`s st0rry is unbelievable, I just got a new Volkswagen Golf GTI after having made $4238 this - 4 weeks past and-in excess of, ten grand this past-month. it's certainly the most comfortable work Ive had. I started this 4 months ago and almost straight away began to make over $70 per/hr. I follow the instructions here, http://www.Fox76.com

 

[Afrospinach]

I have access to something few people do these days - a really shit internet connection. In this domain opera with its turbo mode is seriously awesome and does not seem to have any competition either. I am not much of a browser browser(I pretty much use chrome 100% except for a few sites which only seem to work in IE) but opera impressed me with this feature, and also the ability to resume any file d/l natively without having to start from the beginning(also something to worry about with a dodgy connection). A bit of a disappointment to see it dead last because it may be the only one (imo) that is actually differentiating itself right now in any meaningful manor, the rest have followed chrome and each other, they are more or less the same though googles google account integration is another feature I found useful, what with having all my bookmarks and addons etc installed immediately from the cloud when getting a new computer, that used to be such a pain.

 

[bitmaiden]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]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.[/citation]
Actually, 64bit per itself decreases performance due to using more memory (the same basic data unit needs 64 bits to be stored instead of 32) and hence getting less efficiency from processor cache and cacheram bandwidth.

 

[btdude6]

[citation][nom]Srap[/nom]Source. AFAIK, both WebGL and WebCL rely on the GPU, not the CPU. If robust games start to arrive for browsers, than I know the web is screwed. Neither the browsers nor the web are designed to deal with 1+ Gigs of gaming.[/citation]
Disregard WebGL/CL, I wrote in a hurry. Well I was thinking way more on the long run when I mentioned 4GB+ RAM games.
Still, I`m pretty sure I`m not the only one to have used over 2GB RAM on a browser with tons of tabs and flash videos etc, so having a x64 build sure is a huge plus.
[citation][nom]klink01[/nom]Mozilla is no longer support Win64!https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=814009https://groups.google.com/forum/?fr [...] pX_z5zieD4[/citation]
Well, fuck. Mozilla is on it again. I guess they simply don`t care about half of their dev users. We all know how disregarding what users want went (playing catch up with chrome), I hope it doesn`t happen again...
Oh well I suppose my Nightly will be stuck for a while on version 19/20 with better java and flash.

People like lordkit...@gmail.com, Justin Dolske, Chris Peterson, Nicholas Nethercote and a lot others have some very good reasons why it shouldn`t be discontinued in here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/Giij-AZfUAM/discussion

I`d say the most compelling argument is: "We're going to have to do it some day, so why not now?"

 

[Usersname]

Still preferring Safari under Windows 8. IE 10 is a mess (both versions on 8). Chrome? Well, who needs Google snooping around their affairs.

 

[jaideep1337]

netscape navigator FTW!

All these browsers are good at specific things so I guess it all depends on your uses and stuff. A normal user would benefit from opera thanks to the lower load times but occasional coders like me might want chrome. IE is just plain dumb I don't like it for no specific reason whatsoever. So there's no top dog I guess.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]Disregard WebGL/CL, I wrote in a hurry. Well I was thinking way more on the long run when I mentioned 4GB+ RAM games.Still, I`m pretty sure I`m not the only one to have used over 2GB RAM on a browser with tons of tabs and flash videos etc, so having a x64 build sure is a huge plus.Well, fuck. Mozilla is on it again. I guess they simply don`t care about half of their dev users. We all know how disregarding what users want went (playing catch up with chrome), I hope it doesn`t happen again...Oh well I suppose my Nightly will be stuck for a while on version 19/20 with better java and flash.People like lordkit...@gmail.com, Justin Dolske, Chris Peterson, Nicholas Nethercote and a lot others have some very good reasons why it shouldn`t be discontinued in here:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!t [...] discussionI`d say the most compelling argument is: "We're going to have to do it some day, so why not now?"[/citation]

I've had several hundred tabs open and barely used more than 1GB of RAM and that was with multiple Flash-heavy sites open. IDK how I'd manage to get anywhere near 2GB and even then, you can increase the 2GB limit up to 3GB on most 32 bit systems anyway.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]usersname[/nom]Still preferring Safari under Windows 8. IE 10 is a mess (both versions on 8). Chrome? Well, who needs Google snooping around their affairs.[/citation]

Comodo Dragon is Chromium based, but with added security features and the removal of the Google snooping issue. Besides, Safari isn't much better than IE, if any better at all compared to IE 10 on the desktop.

 

[btdude6]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I've had several hundred tabs open and barely used more than 1GB of RAM and that was with multiple Flash-heavy sites open. IDK how I'd manage to get anywhere near 2GB and even then, you can increase the 2GB limit up to 3GB on most 32 bit systems anyway.[/citation]
Well if that`s the case then it`s probably addon memory leak here, I always browse with over 10 addons at any given time. I don`t know why but after every major update (on stable) it only seems to get worse. The other day I had it using 2.3gb with less than 30 tabs and no videos at all.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]btdude6[/nom]Well if that`s the case then it`s probably addon memory leak here, I always browse with over 10 addons at any given time. I don`t know why but after every major update (on stable) it only seems to get worse. The other day I had it using 2.3gb with less than 30 tabs and no videos at all.[/citation]

I only have Noscript, Ghostery, and Faster Fox addons. It seems like you're correct and some of those addons may need some work done

 

[srap]

Take a look at about:memory. It might help you guys to find the culprit.

 

[eodeo]

Cool story. I like.

 

[aapje]

Isn't it strange that the browser that uses the most memory with many tabs open, is labeled as most memory efficient? yes, it dumps memory easily, but it also consumes it with great ease: chrome uses twice as much memory as firefox with 40 tabs open. furthermore it uses least memory in only one of the measurements, IE in two of them.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]aapje[/nom]Isn't it strange that the browser that uses the most memory with many tabs open, is labeled as most memory efficient? yes, it dumps memory easily, but it also consumes it with great ease: chrome uses twice as much memory as firefox with 40 tabs open. furthermore it uses least memory in only one of the measurements, IE in two of them.[/citation]

It uses memory that is available. Using resources that aren't needed by anything else does not harm efficiency. Should those resources be needed elsewhere, they can be given to that elsewhere. The same is not true for a browser that is less efficient in memory usage like some other browsers.

 

[aapje]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]It uses memory that is available. Using resources that aren't needed by anything else does not harm efficiency. Should those resources be needed elsewhere, they can be given to that elsewhere. The same is not true for a browser that is less efficient in memory usage like some other browsers.[/citation]
If those resources are needed elsewhere, you have to close tabs to release it, so it isn't efficient. furthermore, in contrast to chrome, other browsers don't need to release the memory because they simply don't use it, that seems much more efficient.

 

[dvo]

last time i checked Opera Next supported hardware acceleration, however its beta. i dont know if that is out of date now though, as the last time i checked was months and months ago when Opera Next first came around. that version would probably score better in those tests, but being labeled as beta probably voids it from the lineup i suppose. oh well. doens't bother me really. I use opera beta and i love it, so i'm happy. lol.

 

[LEXX911]

Even though Chrome beat FF in scores it still a POS next to FF in functionality. What I mean by POS is the Ctrl-F and Bookmarks(if you have tons of them scrolling down to them is slow as a snail, not only that it doesn't remember where you last scroll down to so you have to scroll from top to bottom all over again) functions in Chrome. A millisecond speed and ram(got plenty of ram) doesn't mean anything to me so FF is still the best for me with it's add-ons.