digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blogs.zdnet.com

Firefox 3.0 Beta 5 faster on Mac OS X than Safari 3.1

blogs.zdnet.com — Previous benchmark tests that I ’d carried out on my Mac mini had shown that Safari 3.1 was the fastest browser for the Mac OS X. Firefox 3.0 Beta 5 changes that. Using the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark test my testing shows that Firefox 3.0 Beta 5 holds a 7% lead over Safari 3.1.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Rauby, on 04/08/2008, -22/+155Go, Firefox, go!!
    • thcobbs, on 04/08/2008, -56/+5Eat that memory! YAY!
      • bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -12/+8What, do you only run 512mb or something?
        • dafragsta, on 04/08/2008, -10/+3Are you an open source sycophant? I use Firefox because of the extensions available for it, but I gotta say it crashes and stalls every bit as much as Internet Explorer does, especially as of version 2. 1.5 and below were fairly fast and lean by contrast.
        • gameforge, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7I have a three-year-old ThinkPad w/ 512MB of RAM and have used Firefox since I got it on both Windows and Kubuntu with no problems whatsoever... in particular, on Linux, I've never actually *seen* a swapfile hit in my performance monitor, with plenty of Firefox tabs going, some on long Digg comment pages, etc.
      • netdroid9, on 04/08/2008, -2/+15I've just started Firefox and it is currently using 50mb of my 2gb of RAM. Under the exact same conditions, IE7 uses 50mb also. I don't have Safari installed, but I hope it would use at least that much too. Why? Because I have 2gb of RAM, most of which is currently unused (aside from Vista's pre-caching stuff).

        As for memory leaks, even if it does have minor leaks, I've yet to see actual performance degradation because of them. It's not how big or small your memory usage is, it's how you use it.
        • SteveMax, on 04/08/2008, -11/+3"I've just started Firefox..."
          How does it fare after 24 hours open with at least 10 tabs at a time?
          That's an honest question. Older Mozilla suite got away with something like that much better than current Firefox/Seamonkey builds do. Actually, Seamonkey does better than Firefox, at least comparing Seamonkey 1.1.9 to Firefox 2.0.0.13. Opera does much better than both, and Konqueror destroys anything else. If Firefox 3.0 will get it better, I will be able to go back to Gecko.
          And the leakage actually interferes, at least on this 1GB machine. When Firefox is using 600MB, considering the rest of the OS and the other programs that are running, the swapping makes the machine unusable. killing -9 the Firefox/Seamonkey processes gets it back to normal; after reopening the same tabs, it uses ~100MB. No matter how you put it, using 500MB as a "cache" on a 1GB machine is unreasonable.
          • Buu700, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Why is he getting dugg down? And btw, FF3 is a HUGE improvement there.
        • thcobbs, on 04/08/2008, -0/+14"but I hope it would use at least that much too. Why? Because I have 2gb of RAM"

          Its thinking like this that drives huge amounts of electrical, thermal, and computing work every year. It's also the driving force behind memory hog programs and is leading to crappier code because people just don't CARE about memory any more.

          "As for memory leaks, even if it does have minor leaks, I've yet to see actual performance degradation because of them. It's not how big or small your memory usage is, it's how you use it."

          And just allowing gobs of memory to be used for no apparent reason other than you're too lazy to program efficiently usually is an indicator of poor code all around... and a good indicator of more bugs to be found after prolonged use of the program.


          ============

          Disclaimer: I'm an embedded systems firmware engineer and my device has a grand total of 512k ram that encompasses both application space AND free RAM. I literally have to decide if I really need 32-bit buffers, or 8-bit... wether the buffers should be static or dynamic and I DO run out of ram if I don't take those into consideration EVERY TIME.
          • Kerrigore, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6Since Firefox is open source, why not join the project and help improve their code instead of just whining about it? I'm not saying your point isn't valid (I agree with it, but lack the programming skills to do anything about it), I'm just saying it sounds like you could make a really valuable contribution if you're good at conserving memory. That seems to be one of the bigger problems with browsers in particular these days, although aggressive caching and pre-caching probably accounts for a lot of it (and is actually preferable to letting RAM sit idle in my view).
    • marksmayo, on 04/08/2008, -4/+31It's only a single benchmark on the javascript side, but it's good to see all browsers improving. Whether it be support for standards, a race to reduce memory usage, or an attempt to pass increasingly complex Acid tests - competition is great, and we all benefit from it with better browsers.
      • javaroast, on 04/08/2008, -1/+23Amen to that. For a long time browser development was relatively stagnant. All I can say is long live the browser wars. It's definitely good for the consumer.
    • r3zonance, on 04/08/2008, -7/+20Not really, that much of a win for Firefox, as the nightly builds of Webkit (the core of Safari) is faster than Firefox 3.0 Beta 5.
      • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3WebKit does rock! It's also been pretty stable for me on two different Intel Macs (a 2.16GHz iMac and a 2.33GHz MBP). I had some problems with an earlier version on my MBP where it had issues with some Safari extensions and would crash, but the next nightly build fixed it.
        • r3zonance, on 04/08/2008, -3/+4What really makes this annoying, is that this article was posted about 1 day AFTER the article saying the latest Webkit nightly builds beat Firefox 3.0 Beta 5 (with no extensions).
        • kholburn, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Comparing a beta release to a nightly build is not exactly fair. Try a webkit nightly build to a Firefox nightly.
        • Phlake, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Likewise, comparing a beta to an official release is not fair. Try Firefox 2 vs. Safari 3.1.
      • cronot, on 04/08/2008, -2/+11Yes, but don't expect these nightly builds to be released (as a stable product to the general public, I mean) for a while... and FF3 is just around the corner.

        No that I think it matters though. I think it's nice to have this race for leaness and speed. Today it's Safari, tomorrow is Opera, then Firefox, then Safari again... And we users just reap the benefits.
    • kamisama, on 04/08/2008, -3/+3Have you guys never heard about tweaking Firefox? If not, check it out. Firefox with 2 digg pages in seperate tabs, 23mb ram in use, when I minimize firefox it shrinks to 6mb. Google "firefox memory tweaks"
    • andburn1, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/ ...

      Javascript isn't the only thing a browser does. "...browser speed has more to it than just raw JavaScript performance. Document parsing, DOM-tree building, rendering, and bandwidth and latency are also major factors that contribute to the speed of the browser." But even I could have told you that. I mean, I'm using the beta right now on mac (the new skin is sexy as hell) but let's not lie to ourselves. It's still not definitively the king.
      • andburn1, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Oh the link didn't show up properly. Just google "Firefox 3b5 fastest browser on Mac OS X? Depends on the test" and you'll get the arstechnica article.
    • dissurmom, on 04/08/2008, -22/+7Buried for testing on an OS no one cares about.
      • MacBandit, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Buried for posting a comment that no one cares about.

        Oh wait how ironic of me, I just did the same thing.
      • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Are you so starved for attention that this is the only way to get people to talk to you?
      • Seidoger, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Ouuuuuh!! snap
        ..
    • BobOki, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Just add one addon and watch it plummet.
      Good for them cleaning the code more and more.
    • slythfox, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Eh, Firefox printing sucks. And most of the FF3 betas have been compiled to be worse than the nightly builds, imo.

      The latest few nightlies render acid3 quite fast. I can't wait to compare it with the Opera and Webkit rendering engines.
  • DeathJux, on 04/08/2008, -11/+86I've been using Safari ever since the beta version, due to its ability to render pages much faster than Firefox, but I am very happy to see FireFox slimming down and shaping up.

    I miss AdBlock/Flashblock/Extensions in general.
    • DMFDansken, on 04/08/2008, -6/+9you don't need to miss them in safari.. you just need to install them :)
    • jjustice, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net/
      This one is not bad. I think it's Mac-only, though.
      • tyywebb, on 04/08/2008, -3/+8Would someone really be using Safari in Windows?
        • pkaocdigg, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2i am... (webkit nightly)
          it looks nice .and is fast...and free...and not a beta :)
          its between that and firefox, i can hardly notice a difference between them in speed and performance
          • PathDaemon, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5You do realize that nightlies are like far less stable then betas, right? Like, super-betas.
          • Me1000, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2You mean like an Alpha?
        • jtjdt, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3In bootcamp, yah!
        • itcarey, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1The latest Safari release for windows is not as terrible as the first one, so it's a possibility (although not an extremely probable one I suppose)
    • heystoopid, on 04/08/2008, -8/+1You lose , as a cross scripting bug will have your system singing like bird about everything that is on your computer file system from a to z , now ain't that pure evil !
    • neckaros, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7WebKit is still a lot faster than FF Beta 5
      • AppleMacStud, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2"a lot faster..." Exaggeration isn't necessary. If your talking about default settings then this maybe the case. However a few simple default settings in Firefox only have to be changed to give Firefox a BIG speed boost. Once that has been done the difference between Webkit and Firefox 3 beta 5 are miniscule.

        But besides speed, Firefox offers far more in features and extensibility than Safari. I like Safari and sometimes I fire it up but overall Firefox is still King of Browsers. 
    • slythfox, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1You do realize that those extensions will probably work with FF 3 Beta 5 if there are FF 3 Beta 1+ versions of them... You just need to do some unziping and file editing. Nothing hard. :)
    • zongamin, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1So why not just install Safari block, or Pithhelmet, or Saft or one of the other extensions for safari?
  • Frost9999, on 04/08/2008, -32/+170Not really a fair comparison to put Firefox Beta's against a stable Safari release. I would like to see the same tests with the latest webkit build.
    • EBFoxbat, on 04/08/2008, -36/+8First off, it's not faster on my OS X. Secondly, even if it where twice as fast at rendering, I would never know it. This is so trivial it ***** me off.
      • Spuy767, on 04/08/2008, -6/+17While I don't agree that it doesn't mater at all, I do think that 7% increase in speed is rather trivial.
    • marksmayo, on 04/08/2008, -15/+32Actually it is pretty fair. Both got developed at roughly the same time. FF is just taking slightly longer to get through the final betas and RCs than Safari 3.1 did. If we brought webkit builds into it, we'd have to compare with the latest nightly builds on FF, not beta 5 which is practically what the released product will be.
      • Frost9999, on 04/08/2008, -18/+4So let's see a benchmark with all of these various builds pitted against each other. This set of graphs is just meaningless fluff.
    • AddictedToMosh, on 04/08/2008, -21/+5fanboys hahah
    • LaughingMan11, on 04/08/2008, -4/+60Arstechnica ran their own testing of this suite. Webkit nightly is slightly faster than Firefox 3 with plugins disabled.
      http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/ ...
    • wilhel1812, on 04/08/2008, -5/+4i got 5964 with latest webkit, that's a lot better than ff3b5
    • DEIx15x8, on 04/08/2008, -5/+7I did that test and Firefox got burned big time! WebKit is twice as fast as the latest FireFox!
    • iFlop, on 04/08/2008, -4/+10WebKit Nightly Build IS faster than FF 3.0b5:
      http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8558/sunspiderj ...
      • marksmayo, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10Webkit nightly is NOT a browser ready for release. That's why it's fair to compare Safari 3.1 with FF3b5 - it's a browser basically identical to what FF3 will be. The only Firefox that it's fair to compare Webkit nightly with is the Firefox nightly.

        It's great that Webkit is faster, don't get me wrong - any browser improving is a good thing. Just be fair when comparing :)
        • Kyan, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1If webkit is not ready for release, explain why? I honestly wonder, b/c I'm not a web designer or programming type _at all_. (I use Go ALive to crum together a site, that should tell you true web designers something).

          But I use Webkit and have NO problems with it and LOVE the speed.
        • marksmayo, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Kyan - with nightly builds, things go wrong. It hasn't been through a full alpha/beta release cycle. Developers often include an enhancement, only to find that developer B put in their enhancement as well - and the combination causes instability in a different area completely. Regression tests are the tests that get run before a release to ensure that nothing has degraded from last time, and this isn't just crash bugs - it could be performance issues as well. Sure, you use it and have no problems but you aren't representative of all users. There may be a big news site you don't use that millions of others do that causes a crash, or a music site, or a specific facebook app. All these things show up as you inch your way through the alphas, the betas, and finally the release candidates. That's why Firefox is on beta 5 and still isn't expected to release until June.

          Hope that clarifies somewhat. :)
          • Kyan, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I see now. Thanks. I was actually curious about that.
    • phoomp, on 04/08/2008, -3/+8You're absolutely right. A stable version of Firefox 3 will probably be even faster than a beta.
    • mehtajr, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1On my machine (1.83 Core Duo):
      Webkit r31446: 4073.8
      Firefox 3.0b5: 4464.4
      Safari 3.1: 4584.8
  • mlostracco, on 04/08/2008, -6/+216Competition + standards compliance = everyone wins.
    • dustinhoffman, on 04/08/2008, -5/+23This is to all of you who were bitching about Apple putting Safari on Windows... Web users everywhere needed someone to challenge the Firefox team... Safari may not be an extensible browser, but it had one thing on Firefox -- Speed. Now we are seeing the FF team taking the challenge and innovating. And for those of you who consider opera and IE as enough in this competition... not so... neither MS or Opera have the momentum Apple has right now to pose a threat...
    • skeletorcares, on 04/08/2008, -15/+7apple just says Safari is standards complient, it really isn't. Most of the stuff apple says isn't true. All their parts are made by the same people, vista is hated by everyone, macs just work and NNEEeeeEver crashes. lies. Why would talking about their browser be any different?
      • skeletorcares, on 04/08/2008, -8/+3Diggs a lot like the the gov, the true stuff gets buried, while the stupid speculatory stuff gets hyped. But from a web designer, it really isn't compliant. Sorry fanboys.

        Ex: try putting a negative margin on something. FAIL.
        • judgeFire, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3Negative margins work more or less exactly as on Firefox. Site example?
          • skeletorcares, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2I got rid of that hunk of junk mac a couple of months ago so I can't provide a specific example. Just do a quick test in DW, view in Op and compare to Saf, you'll see, if you don't trust me.
        • coolbru, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Spot the lazy git who can't be bothered to post a bug report but seems to have the time to whinge about it. All the bugs I've submitted have been fixed, and negative margins work just fine - if they didn't, just about everything on PIE would break, which it doesn't.
          • skeletorcares, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1'just fine'? you sound like an IE supporter. 'Just fine' is not 'standards compliant' either.
        • soopafly, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2Real designers don't use negative margins
          • skeletorcares, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1You're right, usually you avoid them. But that 1 in a thousand time when you need them... safari will be there to fail.
      • str1fe, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Independent testing showed that Safari (well, a recent webkit nightly, not Safari 3.1 itself) is pretty damn close. That's not Apple.

        Don't get me wrong, Macs and Safari aren't fool proof, but show me one 100% perfect program. I bet you can't do it.
        • skeletorcares, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Webkit != safari. show your references. And as far as compliancy is concerned, Opera is the damned closest.
      • Scaryclouds, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3This belief is of course supported by the fact Safari passes the Acid1, Acid2, and scores a 75 (my build) on Acid3. I'm not shilling for apple, just the truth.
        • skeletorcares, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Anything less than 100 on that test is inconclusive results and still open for interpretation. In my experience, when I want to push ahead with my CSS, the biggest hurdle is usually safari. It might only be 25 off from perfect on the Acid3 but that 25 seems to affect it a lot. Much more noticably than the potential 50+ differential on the Acid3 from the other browsers i (choose to and have to) work with.
    • t3hSLR, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Everyone except Microsoft, you mean.
  • HydrogenOxide, on 04/08/2008, -15/+3It certainly is faster on my iMac, but on my laptop running XP its speed is on par with 2.0.0.13, and uses 811k with both digg and gmail open vs Opera using 523k
    • Pfkninenines, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3What're you opening? With 2 sites open, I'm never above 50k.
      • HydrogenOxide, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1A vBulliten Forum, Chatzilla, and Gmail.
  • tobleronejones, on 04/08/2008, -8/+18Least detailed benchmarking ever? Did Firefox had all extensions disabled? We'll never know.
    • Frost9999, on 04/08/2008, -8/+2Yet it's enough to make the front page of Digg.
    • SteveMax, on 04/08/2008, -11/+67% difference in one specific test = "OMG ITS FASTERSER!!!!!!"
      And people used to criticize Apple for saying Safari was the fastest browser based on four benchmarks...
      • Pfkninenines, on 04/08/2008, -6/+7...And the fact that they had an automatically checked "upgrade" to all Windows users who had iTunes. Pretty sure they get a bit of criticism from that too.
        • SteveMax, on 04/08/2008, -5/+3Yes, but that's totally unrelated to browser speed claims.
          The point isn't "poor Apple, people are being mean to them!". I don't even use Safari. The point is that some time ago people thought that four benchmarks weren't a good representation of the whole web, at least not enough to claim one browser to be faster than another. Now, the same people come up with a single benchmark, and use it to claim that one browser is faster than another.
      • estvir, on 04/08/2008, -5/+7Apple has a reputation for dodgy benchmarks going back over a decade.
    • phoomp, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Are you complaining because if Firefox *didn't* have extensions disabled that it might be even faster if they were?
    • farfegnugen, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6Of course it did. Nothing is compatible with 3b5 yet.
      • baralo, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0I'm running Greasemonkey in Beta5 with no issues at all.
      • Zaneris, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2The latest dev builds of adblock work.
    • Chakat, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Of course it's compared without extensions. Do auto magazines hitch a trailer to one car when they're doing side-by-side testing?
  • Wakers, on 04/08/2008, -26/+48This release of Firefox is going to make it the best browser by a mile.

    Safari still not viable because it still, and probably always will, use too much RAM.
    • blackrave, on 04/08/2008, -16/+8Opera 9.50 is going to be the best browser by two miles. Firefox is overrated.
      • insertAliasHere, on 04/08/2008, -3/+13Funny, I had the same sentiment about Opera. Overrated.

        But really, they both have features that I would like to see implemented in the other. But until opera is as easily extensible as firefox is, I'm sticking with firefox. I don't use many extensions, but I really like the ones I do use.
        • blackrave, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2The fact is, Opera is underrated. You cannot say the same about Firefox, can you?
          Firefox has no useful functions Opera does not have. Firefox has simply copied all the functions from Opera. Just compare older version histories of both browsers. That's the truth Firefox users don't know or won't face. Go ahead, BURY ME, Fx WORSHIPPERS!
          • Trykt, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Who gives a ***** who did what first? Jeez, what a thing to get fanatical about.
          • insertAliasHere, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3I'm not a worshiper. I have Opera installed on computer too. Let me phrase what I said a little better. The browser itself isn't so much why I use firefox, but the ability to simply and easily extend the functionality. Like I said, when opera can have extensions or add-ons as easily as firefox, and my favorites are ported over, I wouldn't have a problem using either.

            Now ***** off. I buried you because I don't like your tone, not because I am a firefox worshiper. Just a user.
          • kuhlmeye, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2I think it was fairly obvious that you are not a fanatic. I believe he was talking about blackrave, who is, however, an Opera worshiper.
          • insertAliasHere, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2@kuhlmeye
            I know, I was replying to blackrave. Trykt's comment wasn't there when I replied. But I am glad I didn't come off as a nutjob.
    • cr4wl3r, on 04/08/2008, -6/+1Safari uses far less RAM/Functionality than any browser not currently in beta. Other browsers either use far, far more RAM, (IE, FF2) or use less RAM at the cost of functionality(Opera). I believe that the third incarnation of Firefox is good, but it is still in beta, which means anything is possible, likely? no, but possible. Safari is compete and finalized, & not in beta.
      Also, (this has been said before but bears repeating) this test is only for javascript.
    • alv22, on 04/08/2008, -2/+13No, it's not about RAM. Comparing memory usage (leaks aside) is pretty much only good for geek wankery. Most of the time, it just doesn't matter. What matters is the user experience. That's why Firefox owns Safari. Not the memory footprints. Unless you like nerd wankery. Yes, you wanker.

      (I'll just properly ensure my burial: Hey, firefoxers! ***** you! Opera will still always be the better browser!)
      • Raptor007, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Heh, I was actually going to digg your comment until I read the last part.
    • MikeCerm, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2I don't care about memory usage in Safari. The reason I don't use it is because Quicktime sucks so much. Apple can't bother to make a decent version of Quicktime (and iTunes) for Windows that performs quickly, renders in a standard window, and conforms to standard Windows conventions (resize from any edge, for example). Why should I use their browser?

      The Quicktime install process steals a lot of file associations. I'm certainly not going to risk installing Safari, even for testing. I already know that Firefox does everything I want it to do (and more with extensions), and I know that Mozilla looks out for the best interests of their users, unlike Apple. Even if it means sacrificing some javascript rendering time, I'm sticking with Firefox.

      Besides, I'll make up more than that lost rendering time with Adblock and by blocking unnecessary scripts with NoScript. Safari can't beat that.
      • coolbru, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3a) Safari 3.1 is resizable from all sides on win
        b) The QuickTime installer ASKS before changing any associations, just like WMP, WinAmp and Real do.
        c) Safari has plugins too, including ad blocking, greasemonkey-style script patching, tab management, validation, themes, and there's even a crippled version of firebug, though the built in dev tools and Drosera are better than that anyway. You've just not been looking.
        FF2 is horribly, unusably slow - I can open and load 6 windows with 30 tabs in Safari faster than FF2 opens 1 blank window! I only use it because Firebug is so wonderful. FF3b5 is a *massive* improvement, especially at the moment while hardly any plugins work to slow it down ;*) The release version will be much better I'm sure. FF3 CSS3 support is still a way short of Safari which in turn falls short of Opera.
        Either way, Both FF3 and Safari are excellent browsers and anything that gives incentiveto improve IE (by showing up how terrible it really is) has to be a good thing.
        • fullphaser, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Wha? Safari 3 and CSS3 Support? Have you actually tried to throw CSS 3 at the most recent stable release of Safari? It vomits all over it.
    • skyshock1, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Pfft... Opera FTW. Has this recent Beta fixed smooth scrolling yet?
  • koft, on 04/08/2008, -47/+6Mc ***** Donalds, Mc ***** Donalds, a Kentucky Fried Chicken and a god damned Pizza Hut.
  • ahze, on 04/08/2008, -3/+111This only tests the speed of JavaScript.
    • bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -6/+20Which a surprising large portion of the web uses a lot of.
    • pevensen, on 04/08/2008, -4/+10Yes, but most web pages aren't THAT JavaScript intensive. So you're claiming that most of the time a web browser spends displaying a page is executing JavaScript?
      • slythfox, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1With the work done to Gecko 1.9, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more speedy. However, it's not something to be noticed. Javascript is the lagger.
    • ZeroSumDivide, on 04/08/2008, -9/+6Welcome to 90% of the World Wide Web.
  • silfiriel, on 04/08/2008, -15/+7maybe, but Safari 3.1 is faster than Firefox beta 5 on Windows
    • Frost9999, on 04/08/2008, -4/+5If only Safari on windows had some kind of Adblocking. Disclaimer: I use Webkit on my Macbook and Firefox 3.b5 on my WinXP desktop.
      • ukblacknight, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Good job you put a disclaimer in there, I was about to sue!
        • Frost9999, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1heh.. I'm just wary of being painted as a fanboy in either direction. Thanks for not launching legal proceedings.
    • Michaelism, on 04/08/2008, -2/+0No its not.... Safari makes every pages look ugly too. And Safari itself is ugly.
  • MajorLeague, on 04/08/2008, -15/+5In other stunning news the sky is blue and the run rose in the EAST this morning.
    • marksmayo, on 04/08/2008, -3/+13What the heck is a "run" doing rising, let alone in what direction...
  • lnxfi, on 04/08/2008, -21/+5Fanboys, take your sides. Choose your favorite argument. Go!
  • ff1959, on 04/08/2008, -20/+9If it is faster, then that means it renders those washed-out looking pages that much faster. The one and only reason I do not use Firefox is: Safari "looks" better. Purely subjective, but I am the one using the MacBook.
    • mahenda, on 04/08/2008, -12/+5I can only agree with that ... having MacBook too, does it say something about our taste? :)
    • SSUK, on 04/08/2008, -7/+8Get themes for it then.
    • HerrSchnuff, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3That's because Safari properly supports color profiles.
      • EwMo, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1As someone who enjoys photoshop and photography, facebook and firefox are the ultimate annoyances, and THE reason I went back to Safari.

        Unless I'm missing something... Is there a plug-in, or one of these so called "themes" that enables Firefox to read the ICC Color Profiles?
    • Forky, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2install one of all the mac themes then.
      problem solved.
    • phoomp, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Worst reason *ever* to not use Firefox. Firefox can easily be made to "look" like *any* browser, including Safari.
    • Raptor007, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Uh, MacBook Pro here, I don't see anything "washed out" about my pages in Firefox.

      Are you talking about skins? Try this:
      http://www.takebacktheweb.org/
  • Holocaust, on 04/08/2008, -8/+33Firefox 3 is going to ROCK!
    • lnxfi, on 04/08/2008, -10/+3I'll never understand one's enthuasm for web browser.
      • bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -2/+16Mine is without a doubt the most used application on my computer.

        I'm pretty stoked.
    • srg13, on 04/08/2008, -1/+13Firefox 3 does rock - the betas have been better than Firefox 2 since at least beta 2. It's been my main browser since then
  • gfxluvr, on 04/08/2008, -23/+17Rabid Mac fanbois in 3.. 2.. 1..
    • Firehed, on 04/08/2008, -7/+5Um, no? I love my Macs, but I can't stand Safari (no extensions = lose). That said, it still feels subjectively faster than FF3b5, no matter what speed tests are showing.
    • meatmcguffin, on 04/08/2008, -1/+13And you don't think saying that makes you look like a fanboy?
      • lilaliend, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7I would say he's more deeply rooted on the anti-fanboy bandwagon then fanboys themselves.
    • AddictedToMosh, on 04/08/2008, -4/+0hahhaha look at all the apple fan boys digging you down...... what fags
      • EwMo, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2"Rabid Mac Fanboi?" I'd take that as an insult if I were truly one.
  • Lkxd88, on 04/08/2008, -11/+1I am still using less memory with Opera tbh...
    • bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -3/+7I have enough memory in my computer, I really don't care.
    • PlancksCnst, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Sure... if you're using Opera 8. 9 is a huge memory hog and dog slow.
      And the widget platform was idiotic.
      • BruceBogtrotter, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1"dog slow" huh? First of all, Opera 9 is one of the fastest browsers. Look up benchmarks if you don't believe me. I prefer firefox 3 beta 5 though. You don't have to like Opera 9 but don't make ***** up.
  • Berkana, on 04/08/2008, -14/+5Really, this is nice, but what I'm waiting for and hoping for is for IE 8 to pass Acid3.
    • Berkana, on 04/08/2008, -5/+3(...'cause IE has caused nothing but misery for web developers. Okay, maybe a bit of job security, but still, not worth it in the long run.)
    • jabz, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Don`t you ever say you wait for IE! That`s disgusting. Yes, I`m a webdeveloper...
    • init100, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Don't hold your breath. IE8 is at 18/100 for the Acid3 test.
  • DukeGamblor, on 04/08/2008, -7/+9It doesn't start faster, resize its windows faster (and OS X-"zooming" is still broken) or scroll smoother though. But it is an awesome improvement from the 2.x versions. Impressive.
    • nixfu, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Zoom works with (apple)+ (apple)- but not the mouse scroll wheel... I bet its a setting that someone forgot to map to the shortcut.
      • Mard, on 04/08/2008, -2/+0I assume he's talking about expanding Firefox to fill the screen (Window -> Zoom), which has never quite worked right for me. My solution was to give Firefox it's own Space and leave it maximized always. Spaces are the sole reason I no longer use Windows.
        • zumpiez, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2...the same functionality has been available in windows as a powertoy for years. fyi.
    • renegadeafk, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1It starts way faster for me on windows (Instantly)
  • perl08, on 04/08/2008, -7/+7By the way when will the non-beta release?
    • marksmayo, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6FF3 should release in June, if all goes to schedule... (fingers crossed, especially as I have Hubdub bets on it ;))
    • Psythik, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Just use the beta. It's more stable than FF2, IMO.
  • p0tent1al, on 04/08/2008, -8/+68In the end none of this matter; extensions are the thing that keep Firefox ahead of the competition.
    • jtsnyc47, on 04/08/2008, -4/+1Unless, ironically, you're testing for speed.
      • mercano, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7Well, the extensions are for the most part written in JavaScript, so a faster (and less leaky) JavaScript engine is still a win.
    • blackjack75, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Speed still does matter a little. I used Firefox only for web development because it felt significantly slower than Safari for daily browsing. With the the new Beta 4 as I started using FireFox only.
    • WomensUnderwear, on 04/08/2008, -2/+0the extensions are what knacker firefox - too many, no quality control, leaks and mess everywhere
    • Kelmon, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Assuming of course that the extensions are useful to you. I understand that some people do but I've never found an extension for Firefox that is useful to me and don't get what all the fuss is about.
      • Frost9999, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1You don't block ads? And that's a serious question, because I am honestly curious about people who choose not to. of course you could be blocking them before they even reach the browser... or you never surf web ages that contain ads.
      • p0tent1al, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2One of the selling points of Firefox is the extensions; if you haven't found at least 1 you like yet, you haven't been looking (or you are a casual internet user). Adblock, Flashgot, Greasemonkey, Stylish, IE Tab, StumbleUpon, All-in-one-sidebar, del.icio.us. Then you can really get into the specialized extensions. I used one for OneNote, and the most obvious one to even you should be the Digg extension for Firefox.

        When you get some free time you should really browse through some of the add-ons and take a look.

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/
    • skyshock1, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Absolutely. Gecko has been probably THE SLOWEST rendering engine for quite a few years now, yet people are using FF left and right now. It's purely because it's the most extensible browser out there. Until Opera, Safari, Konqueror, etc... wise up and provide the same extensibility, their superior speed unfortunately means jack-*****.
  • whiteeagle131, on 04/08/2008, -12/+3The hell with Safari, if you promote a WebKit browser, promote something that's cross-platform (e.g. not Windows + Mac OS X only! )... BTW, I use both Firefox 3.0b5 and Opera the latest snapshot for UNIX.... Yeah, I use Linux, so what?
    • insertAliasHere, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Defensive much?
    • ucg1, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Umm.. Where the ***** did that come from? This article is promoting Firefox by saying its faster than Safari. What, do you want them to just pretend like Safari doesn't exist?
      • whiteeagle131, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1I was talking to the people who left the comments and were defensive towards their Safari, I don't know why I am getting burried
        • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Maybe because it was irrelevent to the discussion? The discussion being the latest beta version of FireFox being faster than Safari on Macs. Also getting defensive because you're being dugg down equals fail.
    • mercano, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Is there any cross platform WebKit browser? I tried getting Konqueror to run under Cygwin to test with before Windows Safari came out, but never had much luck. Since I was already developing in Firefox and testing in IE, I just gave up, figuring I had most of the market covered, and it would probably be close to Gecko.
  • ColonelJessup, on 04/08/2008, -29/+1Well, last night I went to bed with a buzz
    I dreamed I was drinking, I woke up and I was
    I'll be a drunk mother ***** till the day that I'm dead
    I drink beer with my breakfast and before I go to bed
    I like to fish, and hunt when I'm drunk
    I like to ***** in the back of my truck
    You call me rude, and crude, and crass
    I'm proud to be a redneck piece of white trash

    I like to dip, and I like to spit
    I like talking on the phone while I'm taking a *****
    I'm proud to be a redneck piece of white trash
    If you don't like that pucker up mother ***** you can kiss my ass!
    • roodammy44, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3Watch idiocracy.
      That is the future of the world if you keep on like you are
      • Matty007, on 04/08/2008, -2/+0I'm ashamed to say that I saw that movie.
    • digitalpencil, on 04/08/2008, -1/+8Rednecks can use the Internet?1? Huh, who'd have thunk it..
      also.. what?
    • jabz, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1This guy is only on digg to comment....never saw that before.
  • tdskate, on 04/08/2008, -13/+4Not on my mac it's not !!
  • mahenda, on 04/08/2008, -17/+5Well except the fact Firefox is really ugly on MacOSX with unresponsive UI. They have to do something about it to force me to switch.
    • jcannonb, on 04/08/2008, -10/+10You are about the dumbest ***** I have seen on digg... How do they let you stay on? FireFox 3 actually streamlined their GUI for use on the Mac, and they started using Mac OS X's controls. There is nothing ugly left in FireFox, and on top of that its faster than Safari. That's why I switched back to FireFox.
      • ucg1, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4What the ***** kind of comment is that? Calling someone "the dumbest *****" for their OPINION on how the look/feel of an application? Are you that emotionally involved with FireFox that you can't even have someone say something negative about FireFox without you responding with a personal attack?
        • zongamin, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Because its true - the new Firefox skin for OS X is not ugly, and the shortcuts do work.
    • koft, on 04/08/2008, -4/+3I kind of agree. The nav icons look out of place on the mac version of FireFox. I keep firefox around for the odd site that won't work properly on Safari, which pretty much never happens. There really isn't much of a reason to use firefox over safari. Some people say firefox is faster, I haven't noticed.
    • talonstriker, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/623 ...
    • heystoopid, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3FF is completely customisable period , don't read instructions much do we ?
      • koft, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1most people don't care to customize their browser. They just use it.
    • saisumimen, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2If you haven't taken the time to change the GUI (which is incredibly easy to do), you have no right to complain.

      If, however you HAVE taken the time to do it (which you obviously haven't), and you're not satisfied with the results, you can complain all you want.
  • frazw, on 04/08/2008, -11/+18As always the fanboys denounce that which threatens them. Why so scared of Firefox being better than Safari? No one is forcing you to switch, use what you like.
  • daxsymbiont, on 04/08/2008, -18/+11apple products are just shiny with little content. get used to it.
    • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3The fact that you don't like Macs means exactly what in a discussion about browsers? Nice addition there Forrest.
    • jabz, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2but he`s right! Compared to firefox, safari is still in the netscape era. I cannot watch myfriends working with this thing.
      • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Except he's not talking about the browser, he's talking about Macs in general which isn't relevant other than showing he's yet another troll
  • soulseek191, on 04/08/2008, -4/+41Firefox's new interface is very slick and easy to use. I love the new way that it auto fills your web address now.

    Keep up the good work Mozilla!
    • ElectricKetchup, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2actually, the interface is the one thing I don't like about firefox 3 beta 5.... and the fact that my extensions/plugins no longer work.
      Did firefox 2 not auto-fill your web addresses?!?
      • str1fe, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2It auto-fills in the URL bar more intelligently now. If you type in a page title (eg a name of a Digg article), it'll pick that up, and you can type any part of the URL instead of just from the beginning. And getting extensions to work on FF3 Beta is easy enough, this will work just fine until they've all been properly updated: http://www.jamesvandyke.com/2008/01/23/turn-off-ad ...
      • BruceBogtrotter, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1I have two forward and back buttons. That didn't happen in any other beta. Does this happen to anyone else?
      • barius, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3I'm with ElectricKetchup, I hate the way the new fill-in works. All the extra 'info' that it shows just makes it harder to see what it's actually trying to tell me, and the fact that it tries to bring up pages based on window name and not just domain name means that I get a lot of useless hits. In Fx2 I used to type a single letter and I'd get the page I wanted, now in Fx3 I get everything plus the kitchen sink but not the one page I'm used to seeing at the top of the list.
        I really, really hope there's a way to turn this 'feature' off.
      • soulseek191, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Actualy ElectricKetchup, I just realized what I just typed in. I meant I like the additional info that it displays. Of course only one thing I had ran into when using Firefox 3 Beta 5 is the fact that my minimize button sometimes gets disabled and I sometimes can't replicate that problem.

        But I have to admit, the way it stores information is very robust and easy to find.
  • elvenseven, on 04/08/2008, -10/+5"The world's best browser"? Assholes.
  • potenza, on 04/08/2008, -8/+1Far as I'm concerned this is a meh. I have the same problem on all my mac with Firefox 2, sometimes it just stops loading pages. have to close the browser & restart to get to work. Talking to my windows friends this is on windows as well. Hopefully FF3 fixes this otherwise I'll stay an Opera user
    • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1FF2 has worked well on my Intel Macs, though it doesn't SEEM as fast on the last PPC Mac I have in the house. More browsers and more choice is always better. While FF loads a little slower than Safari or WebKit, I like having it around for some of those $%*@)&^ sites that will only work with IE.
  • unionaire, on 04/08/2008, -2/+6"speed comparison" is only good for reviewers to write about and as long as the difference is within ms range, no one really cares that much. Okay maybe the web developers but hey users are the one driving the market...for the users rendering speed is a minor issue compare to memory leak and advanced features.
    Firefox's success is built on it's platform-like add-on features, i mean, with adblock plus and greasemonkey, the speed saved by not loading the ads is much greater than those gained by programming efforts...
  • Aidanjalali, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6The new beta works REALLY well on flash sites that have compiled the .swf using flash's "publish" setting, which creates a javascript list of all the variables to be used.
    • ElectricKetchup, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Are you being sarcastic or is their actually a reason that is useful?
      • Chakat, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1For the layman, it means that all the variables are initialized in one fell swoop. After the app starts, there's no pausing to reallocate more space for more variables.
  • Predater, on 04/08/2008, -7/+2Am I the only one having problems with flash on Firefox 3 beta 5?
    • baldgye, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5yes
    • saxreturns, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I am... as soon as FlashBlock updates to be compatible, I'm sure it'll be fine!
  • kujo740, on 04/08/2008, -10/+5Leave safari alone! I'M SERIOUS!
    • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Funny, your screen name seems to be kujo740 and not I'M SERIOUS!
      • kujo740, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Well MacParrot, I believe "I am" reflects who you are or a state or being. It's all a matter of opinion or just common sense. But whichever suits you best, MacParrot.
  • Flashman, on 04/08/2008, -3/+8It doesn't matter to me whether Firefox or Safari is faster. What matters is that they are competing, because that is always good for end users. We're seeing that here with dueling speed increases.
    • baralo, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0I agree wholeheartedly. I've been using Firefox and Opera both for a while now and am quite excited for the future of web browsing.
    • uziko, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1why does it not matter which is faster? do you like waiting or something?
  • nixfu, on 04/08/2008, -1/+13Firefox 3 is SMOKIN FAST on both my Mac and my Linux that I have been using it on...its noticeably faster, I can tell the difference using another browser like Firefox2 or Safari, or IE.

    Has been pretty stable since beta 3 too, and have found it pretty stable with most common extensions like del.icio.us etc..
    • blackjack75, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Actually beta 4 seemed very stable to me but beta 5 keeps crashing on a random basis, most of the time when the app loses focus. I hope this will be fixed for the final release.
      • GreenAlien, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I'm running beta 5 on Windows and it has been rock solid. Hasnt crashed once. I'm also using the portable beta 5 on a flash drive and that hasnt crashed either (which btw is lightening fast compared with Firefox 2 - the speed increases are amplified when running on a slow drive). Whatever is causing yours to crash, it's not a universal issue.
    • uziko, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1smoking like a bullet? you must be using a good computer cuz mine still takes a few seconds to load not even close to "smoking"
    • MicroBerto, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1A bit offtopic, but is there a Firefox 3 Beta repository that is kept up to date for Ubuntu 64-bit?

      Yes, I'm that lazy...
  • anand78, on 04/08/2008, -12/+4This is bunch of bull crap, Safari is still snappier both in windows and OSX.
  • peaceofwar, on 04/08/2008, -1/+8wait a min they never tell you what the numbers mean. They could be telling us how many people eat jello when using firefox
  • mcapplbee, on 04/08/2008, -15/+8Safari?
    Opera all the way baby.
    • blackjack75, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Opera has always been innovative (first to have a clean zoom and other features) but somehow they always had problems rendering pages that worked well on FireFox/Safari/IE.
  • sq2shooter, on 04/08/2008, -1/+11I like the FF beta so far but I would be cautious about claiming FF is the end all of browsers. I am using the beta because the current FF 2.0.0.13 was a crashing/freezing nightmare for me. This one is much more stable and quicker to load (thank god because the current 2.0 was absurdly slow) but it still does not render pages correctly. On sites with embedded video, I am lucky if half of them render correctly so I have a start/stop button on the video. I am curious to see just how fast this thing is when my add-ons finally work on it.
    • Darthmalt, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Most of mine work thanks to the nightly tester tools. And search digg for the beta version of adblock that works with beta 5. I notice a definite speed increase over FF2.
    • diggimator, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Looks like Google Browser Sync add-on isn't compatible yet, according to Wikipedia. :(
  • Trat, on 04/08/2008, -11/+6Sorry, it's better than 2.x but it isn't faster than current Safari 3.1. Safari renders pages faster. Anyway, I feel FF3 is better suited for the mac than 2.x but its still a far cry from a app I would want to use on a daily basis on my Mac: Safari FTW!
  • poonaka, on 04/08/2008, -1/+15This only tests the speed of javascript. Where's the benchmarks for rendering pages and DOM operations?
  • maximus434, on 04/08/2008, -4/+9Have to agree with others and say that Safari 3.1 is much snappier on OSX. I will be sticking with it for a while.
  • Michaelism, on 04/08/2008, -9/+4Safari sucks ass period! and its ugly too.
    • MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7What's an ass period? Sounds like something you would have though.
  • mizike, on 04/08/2008, -3/+3ugh, it's much too early in the day for yet another wankfest by the open-source fanboys.....
    • pyrates, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1As opposed to the apple fan boys?
    • sirhomer, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Most of Safari (Webkit) is also open source..
      • jake6730, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Only because they copied the open source code, its not like apple wrote it.
  • fogofeternity, on 04/08/2008, -1/+14I remain confused as to why this always becomes such a passionate issue. They are *web browsers*, so why are descriptions of them so often couched in terms of love and hate? I use Firefox because of its excellent add-ons, I use Safari because as a web developer it's usually the most accurate renderer of CSS as a base to tweak from, I use IE because my work has to be compatible with it.

    On a day to day "just browsing" basis I use Firefox. To be honest though, there's not that much noticeable difference in average web surfing capability between any of the major browsers so the over-excitement when people come to compare them always surprises me.

    While the news article in question does highlight that Firefox appears to be addressing one of the weaknesses of the browser prior to version 3 beta, the resource hog it's been, it doesn't provide enough detail to be any kind of useful benchmark.
    • breaknenter, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Because we are all passionate about the Web. Of course people here would care about the app that they use every day to get on what they love on the Web. (And because Firefox and Apple provoke intense reactions of love and hate.) It's all good and it's fun!
      • crampy20, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1find something living to be passionate about
    • NoNamesLeft, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1BS. Safari has some very strange display bugs which I have come across which do not affect either Firefox or IE7/6 - I have then had to perform 'Safari hacks'.
      • yardie, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Now that's BS. Safari is by far the most compliant browser out there. If the sites you visit can't build a page to spec does not make that less true. Trust me, most sites are built to FF and IE7, not W3C.
    • DeviateSeptum, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Get the HELL out of here, Mr. Reasonable!!! You have no business commenting on Digg! You and your sense of balance and portion. Screw that, you level-headed BASTARD!
  • inico, on 04/08/2008, -9/+1stay away! wait for the full version to come out! once installed i was not able to boot up my macbook and had to fresh reinstall... thank god i had time machine!
    • CJM32, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8How likely is it that a browser install made your "great mac" not boot.
    • DeviateSeptum, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Macs come with a time machine??? might have to get me one of those...
  • Ksg89, on 04/08/2008, -8/+3CARE FACE
  • heystoopid, on 04/08/2008, -6/+4I remember now , Apple's much vaunted supposedly secure Safari plus cross scripting allowed a Mac Book Air to be pawned in under two minutes flat , but where as running FF with no script shuts that door period !
    • jtsnyc47, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Yawn. The two minutes was the amount of time it took for the exploit code to execute on a webpage the hacker had scripted. He put a little more time into it beforehand, I assure you. I assume your avatar is eponymous. Please shut up, preferably forever.
      • pyrates, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Please address his issue about the extension noscript preventing that exploit where there is no such thing for Safari.
    • zumpiez, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Not to mention that it exploited a vulnerability in webkit, so even running FF with javascript enabled shuts that particular door.
    • SuperSunny, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Not to mention it was done with a direct ethernet connection...
  • Swift2, on 04/08/2008, -4/+14Hey, it's a race. It's called competition. Ain't it great?
    It's obvious that it WAS true when Safari 3.1 was introduced that it was the fastest browser. On the Mac at least. But now Firefox and Opera are moving up! And here comes Whirlaway!
    (Windows users: competition is what software are all about, not the meek acceptance of IE's latest. I have four browsers on my disk. They're what's called "different," and when one gets a new feature, the others will rush to provide something like it, only better. It made America great, once upon a time.)
    • Napalmhaze, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4What the hell are you going on about? Jeez you sound so arrogant with that condesending address to windows users. Ask around, i bet none of the windows users here use IE. Who in particular are you addressing? Were there hundreds of windows users here before you saying "meh! Firefox! IE = WIN"??? IE users probably outnumber firefox users, but this is DIGG, I very much doubt that statement holds true here. Some of us know how to get the best out of windows and arent strangled by corporate *****! Competition exists on windows, MS software isnt our only choice, open source is available for us too, sometimes I think the linux camp forgets this.

      Whats more, the speed of firefox's rendering is not what makes it great. It never has been a technically great browser. To compare its speed to other browsers is missing the point. YAY its nice it uses less memory now. Its now technically better, but like always thats still not the point!
    • kuhlmeye, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Good point, because Windows doesnt let you change the default browser. I use Firefox on my Vista machine because its better. I use Winamp because its better than the alternatives. I dual-boot into Linux because it offers features that Windows doesnt, and its better at somethings. Talking about things you dont know about doesnt get you very far in life.
  • Mhaddy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0Just need to get three finger forward/back navigation working in Firefox and I'm sold :)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.