What is Digg?348 Comments
- mlostracco, on 04/08/2008, -6/+216Competition + standards compliance = everyone wins.
- 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.
- Rauby, on 04/08/2008, -22/+155Go, Firefox, go!!
- ahze, on 04/08/2008, -3/+111This only tests the speed of JavaScript.
- 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. - p0tent1al, on 04/08/2008, -8/+68In the end none of this matter; extensions are the thing that keep Firefox ahead of the competition.
- 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/ ... - weeFred, on 04/08/2008, -2/+54I get those with FF2 and FF3, I was under the impression it was a problem with digg's scripting and not the browser.
- 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! - 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.
- inactive, on 04/08/2008, -8/+33Firefox 3 is going to ROCK!
- 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. - 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.
- 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...
- 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.
- bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -2/+16Mine is without a doubt the most used application on my computer.
I'm pretty stoked. - poonaka, on 04/08/2008, -1/+15This only tests the speed of javascript. Where's the benchmarks for rendering pages and DOM operations?
- 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. - 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. - bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -7/+20Which a surprising large portion of the web uses a lot of.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.. - 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
- meatmcguffin, on 04/08/2008, -1/+13And you don't think saying that makes you look like a fanboy?
- 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.
- 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!) - 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.) - tobleronejones, on 04/08/2008, -8/+18Least detailed benchmarking ever? Did Firefox had all extensions disabled? We'll never know.
- 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.
- 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. - marksmayo, on 04/08/2008, -3/+13What the heck is a "run" doing rising, let alone in what direction...
- 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 :) - jjustice, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net/
This one is not bad. I think it's Mac-only, though. - 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. - MrTulip, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10digg is also ***** up when using the latest firefox 2...
- 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. - CJM32, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8How likely is it that a browser install made your "great mac" not boot.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- lilaliend, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7I would say he's more deeply rooted on the anti-fanboy bandwagon then fanboys themselves.
- digitalpencil, on 04/08/2008, -1/+8Rednecks can use the Internet?1? Huh, who'd have thunk it..
also.. what? - 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.
- MacParrot, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7What's an ass period? Sounds like something you would have though.
- 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).
- 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?
- iFlop, on 04/08/2008, -4/+10WebKit Nightly Build IS faster than FF 3.0b5:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8558/sunspiderj ... - neckaros, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7WebKit is still a lot faster than FF Beta 5
- 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 342 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 