Interesting browser comparison

[whs]

Interesting and extensive browser comparison.

Now that Mozilla has finally released Firefox 4 to the masses, it’s time for a BIG browser benchmark where we take the leading browsers and pit them against four of the toughest benchmark tests available to see which is the tortoise, and which is the hare.

Here are the browsers that will be run:

• Internet Explorer 9 (9.0.8112.16421) 32-bit
• Internet Explorer 9 (9.0.8112.16421) 64-bit
• Firefox 4
• Chrome 10.0.648.151
• Safari 5.0.4
• Opera 11.01

Source...

 

[IntelCoreI3]

well... nice
i use only IE

 

[whs]

IE is my main browser too. But for certain things I also use Opera and Chrome. In Ubuntu I use only Chomium because the default Firefox is a dog.

 

[Gornot]

The only thing that kinda doesn't make sense to me is IE9's performance in Peacekeeper. With my rig I score above 5000 easily. Who knows...

But as the article states, javascript performance is no longer an issue for any major browser on the market, and the differences are so small that the browser preference is, still, just a subjective experience.

For me, this preference is IE9 as the main browser and Chrome as the backup. Though I tried Firefox 4 and loved it, it had some problems (just like Opera) with sound which were just too annoying (Opera still having slight Flash performance problems too), so there... my two cents.

 

[Orbital Shark]

Shame they didn't check the flash performance of IE9 as it's utter pants!

 

[oreo27]

Pretty nice comparison. I personally think that browsers, with the exception of the 64 bit IE, are all but a user's preference. Hopefully, these browsers continue to be developed as we, the end-users and the real beneficiaries of their development

 

[unifex]

Well, benchmarks are nice and dandy, but in real life I don't see as much difference between browsers. Granted, I do not and will not use Chrome. But, between IE8, IE9, FF3, FF4 all in both 32- and 64-bit the performance difference is really minor, also, some of them are faster on some sites and slower on others.

As an example, if I disallow third-party cookies, then sites with lots of ads and "partner" content - such as most newspaper sites - will load way slower right away. This slowdown is so much noticeable than any difference between browsers.

So at the end of the day I believe one's choice of a browser just reflects personal preference. If you want to base your decisions on benchmarks, it's fine as well. For my taste, the GUI is so similar in all of them, I don't even consider it an issue. Speed is similar as well. So my choice is to keep several browsers and use them for completely different purposes - one for secure browsing, such as online banking, another for forums and mail (spell-checking for IE, hello?), another for random sites and so on.

 

[Nigsy]

Agreed bench marks are all ok, but it's what the user needs that matters.

I've switched to Chrome from FF, I notice that it's a little faster (but maybe all the add ons I had in FF didn't help), but the main reason for the switch was so I can print direct from my android phone to my home printer using my Google account..sweet!

 

[Bootz]

I question how extensive the tests are, they dont even touch on HTML5 like some of the comments mention.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Shame they didn't check the flash performance of IE9 as it's utter pants!

Ever since Macromedia was killed off by Adobe, Flash has sucked, regardless of the platform.

 

[smarteyeball]

I personally think that browsers, with the exception of the 64 bit IE, are all but a user's preference.

That about sums it up.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I would agree, and I'd even question the need or purpose of an x64 browser at this point. Yes, I know we are moving to x64 only, and I'm in favor of that, but I see so many people making the assumption they should be using the x64 browser...it would be nice if it wasn't even present. Let those who are developing and testing do a manual download of it.

 

[unifex]

I would agree, and I'd even question the need or purpose of an x64 browser at this point. Yes, I know we are moving to x64 only, and I'm in favor of that, but I see so many people making the assumption they should be using the x64 browser...it would be nice if it wasn't even present. Let those who are developing and testing do a manual download of it.

A x64 browser is what I am using on a daily basis to surf the web. My laptop doesn't even have a 32-bit Firefox on it, just the 64-bit Minefield. Have absolutely no problem with it. Moreover, it's supposed to be more secure, although I have no way of corroborating this claim (that I have read several times) with any evidence.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Plug-in support is spotty, at best, so to make life easier, the x64 browser are usually avoided, other than for testing. They basically fall into the same category as Office 2010 x64.

 

[johnwillyums]

Lunascape6! Check this out, I think it's great. It's compatible with all FF and IE add ons and can use Gecko, Webkit and Trident engines.
Also it seems rock solid, is intuitive to use and has some really cool skins.
Like unifex I'm a big fan of FFx64 Minefield but this Lunascape has now become my default browser.

Check it out: What's New in Lunascape 6

I was recently introduced to this by David Ben Yosef, so thanks to him

 

[hangdawg]

i use 64 bit firefox with the about:config tweaks makes a big difference then test it here Test Parallel connections but dont crank it up past ten connections though

 

[unifex]

Lunascape6!
Also it seems rock solid, is intuitive to use and has some really cool skins.

I would not comment on your choice of a browser, it is after all your choice, but it's just always funny to me, when people claim one browser "easier to use" than another. How hard is it to use a browser? You type a URL or even just the main part of the web address (such as cnn, amazon, google, you know the drill) into the address bar and press enter. That about covers it. All browsers are identical in this respect.

Yes, there are little differences in the UI - such as single bar for URL and search in IE9, there are differences in cookie handling, supposedly there are big differences in security - but nothing of that constitutes "ease of use".

Did no mean to pick on you John, no offense?

 

[Fayla]

In my opinion, plugins developers hold Internet growth back somewhat (refusing to release 64 bit versions, etc.) Besides, with HTML5 around-- it nullifies the requirement for insecure, poor performing plugins like Adobe's Flash. I'd like to see the Internet using more open standards like HTML5 for audio/video/such more commonly.

Benchmarks in browsers do not matter to me. What I need is a browser that is configurable to my exact Internet needs and currently that browser is Firefox.

Plug-in support is spotty, at best, so to make life easier, the x64 browser are usually avoided, other than for testing. They basically fall into the same category as Office 2010 x64.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I completely agree, but unfortunately, Flash content is still very prevalent. Adobe has ruined what was once a great technology. By using open standards, we could truly get to a point where browsers were 100% a matter of opinion. We're close now, but some people also hold on to old thoughts and feelings...like anything from Microsoft is bad and evil.

 

[Fayla]

Well, I know HTML5 is far off from being mainstream, but I am glad that is around in a minor capacity. With the way things were going, more and more web sites were making a simple HTML welcome page then redirecting to a 100% Flash site. Then you have those free file/image host sites that are making their uploader area 100% Flash. A bad trend, since the Flash production suite is not free and its plugin is not as good as it was pre-Adobe. It looked like Adobe are/were trying to monopolize the Internet :/

There is one conundrum that I do not understand though, with the OS+Browser coming pre-installed with Sun Java. For such a plugin, that has minor web usage, it is extremely prevalent and poorly maintained/coded.

There's just too much proprietary software dependence going around Internet use currently, I hope to see that change just as you said. Computer security would be increased too.

As for the record of benchmarks, I found IE9 to perform near identical to Firefox 4 Too bad that it (IE9) doesn't have a spell check or default webm support. Catch up yes, but not catchup enough.

I completely agree, but unfortunately, Flash content is still very prevalent. Adobe has ruined what was once a great technology. By using open standards, we could truly get to a point where browsers were 100% a matter of opinion. We're close now, but some people also hold on to old thoughts and feelings...like anything from Microsoft is bad and evil.