Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
I guess it must have been becasue Windows is the only platform that supports all the browsers in the test set.
Not that hard too work out really...
Mac OS X was included in the results, and it does not support all of the tested browsers. Additionally, it is possible to run some of them on Linux using Wine, which would've provided some interesting comparisons (sometimes Windows programs run on Linux perform better than they do on Windows). However, it is possible the benchmarking software doesn't run natively on Linux, which would make the process problematic.
I thought Windows was the only platform *supported* by all the browser.
Clearly Opera needs to get it's act together (at the time of the launch of Opera 9, and pretty much until Safari 3.1 came along, it was simply the fastest and most memory efficient browser around), but if you don't take the beta's into consideration, and Firefox appears to have at least a month left before it comes out of beta, Firefox doesn't show a lead ahead of Opera at all. In both the SunSpider and iBench tests, Opera consistently outperforms Firefox for JavaScript, although both iBench tests say Firefox is slightly faster in terms of loading (not my experience, especially on Windows).
Does anyone know of some extensions to Safari that emulate Opera's Trash Can (restore closed tabs), Speed Dial (9 little mini-windows inside any new blank tab) and Sidebar (like a toolbar, but rather than across the top or bottom it's along the side, and you can access bookmarks, notes, downloads/uploads, and even full websites optionally formatted for the small width in the Sidebar)? Obviously has Firefox has these (probably with modifications that make them even better, except for the Sidebar, I doubt anyone would steal Opera's patented reformatting algorithm used to fit pages into the Sidebar), but as I've said, on my machine at least, Opera is faster than both Firefox and Camino. Safari does appear to be faster though, so I am seriously considering switching.
All you need to do is History > reopen windows from last session
Firefox' Ctrl+Shift+T == Opera's Ctrl+Z
It looks like the new Firefox is going to be a real winner, and I'll be looking forward to the final release which will probably become my preferred browser for web development, however I won't be dropping Opera as my primary browser for general use any time soon.
I've tracked various browsers for their vulnerabilities for a few years now, and Opera consistently comes out at the head of the pack in terms of security.
God only knows how you found such a stat against Opera. I am on Windows XP( b'coz i do not have enough money to upgrade my hardware with the change of OS.) Topic must be better if you choose Ubuntu also. In my experience on XP Opera 9.27 or Opera 9.50 Beta 2 (I tried portable) is better and more user friendly as it offers lots of features in-built. Opera has only one drawback - problem with some websites. Mozilla Firefox is good no doubt. Safari is fast but no add ons/widgets and no phishing filter, I stay away of it, though Safari is installed on my PC. IE is slow and I just hate to use it. Even to open a ".mht" file it takes a long time. To me Opera is best. Its fastest and safest too. Secunia finds no unpatched security hole on Opera. Users migrating from IE must like Mozilla Firefox, but when you like something better ,Opera rocks then ...
The only sites that Opera has trouble with are sites that are written for IE only using non-standard compliance. If you want to test a web site for compliance Opera is the BEST!
Why was Beta 1 used when Beta 2 was already out. at April 24
Significant improvements have taken place after the release of Beta 2 for the Windows platform. Opera became faster after compiling with Profile-Guided Optimizations: http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2008/05/09/profile-guided-optimizations . This build was released May 9th.
Looking at the dates makes me wonder why such old test builds of 9.5 were used; especially disregarding the PGO optimised builds from after May 9.
By using outdated test builds it is clear that Opera is put in a disadvantaged position.
Could anybody of the test team comment on the decisions that lead to using outdated test builds?
As long as safari for windows is so extremly bugged and Apple does not care the slightest, the browser is useless.
What does not make it better, is it's ugly look and lack of add-ons compared to Firefox.
Not even many osx users use safari.
Not sure where you've got the idea that not many Mac users run Safari. That's not my experience at all.... It's not fair to give all the credit to Apple though-I use it on Macs but have also been running the same code base (KHTML/WebKit) for years as Konqueror on KDE. I always found it to be the fastest. It'd have been interesting to see the stats for the current Konq release too...
Opera is not outdated here. As far as I concerned, this build number stands for beta 2 on Safari (it should, because Windows builds for 9.5 started from b9500, and Linux is still under 2000). Testing betas is more reasonable, than to use weeklies. Maybe only FF3 RC1 is missed here.
I'm sure the guy who wrote this article is a Mac/Apple lover .. .Safari is the best browser...whatever!!!!
Maybe you've right, but there's nothing really wrong with these numbers, they're supporting my personal measurements.
The real problem with this test, that its title suggest, this will be a comprehensive test. But it's only a performance test, based on 2-3 tests, not much enough for performance test either.
I miss some other tests (beside function comparison... etc. that should have followed from the title of the arcticle). Like DHTML running speed.
Two tests here:
http://people.opera.com/~pettern/performance-1.html
http://people.opera.com/~pettern/performance-2.html
Yes, this was made by an Opera guy, but sure Opera beats the hell out of any other contender I've measured: http://m.blog.hu/ma/magyaropera/image/DHTML_teszt.png :)
I'm answering to myself with this post. The linket test results above was made with two Opera pre-beta2 weeklies on Windows Vista x64 SP1. WinGOGI is the browser-core tester software used internally by Opera (but this version of it was publicly available). The higher the number, the better performer the browser is.
Nobody likes to consider the fact that this was a BARE Firefox install, which very few people actually use in the real world. Average users have at least a handful of extensions installed, and every one of these impacts the performance. Some way more than others.
I've had Firefox installed for years now, and with just a minor amount of what I consider necessary extensions to make Firefox worth using make it slower and more of a memory hog than Opera. It's why Opera is still my default browser. And I'm not even using the beta Opera right now. When Opera 9.5 comes out, Firefox 3 with extensions will be blown totally out of the water. Just as its always been.
Why does nobody test Konqueror (KHTML)? It would be great to see Konqueror also in action.
As horrid as it is, it is still the most popular browser on the planet. It should really be in the line up.
IE6 is so broken and out of date at this stage that it really wouldn't make sense to test its performance, no one's going to switch back to it because it loads pages faster than IE7(of course it almost certainly doesn't) and no one really cares how much it differs from its successor. IE 6 simply doesn't matter, users will gradually be forced to upgrade away from IE6 if they want to continue using ebay and paypal, this is wonderful news for everyone.
I'm amazed to see the kind of performance and memory management improvements that have been made in FF3, though i've experienced them myself since switching to the first betas some time ago it is hard to be objective. All those who snub Firefox purely because it's a popular browser, who come up with all manner of idiotic technical justifications for continuing to use microsoft's product, will have to think seriously about the imminent release of FF3, there is no doubt that this will be the best engineered desktop browser around.
"there is no doubt that this will be the best engineered desktop browser around"
I doubt that. But FF3 is a pretty nice upgrade compared to FF2 anyway
My tests of speed fresh browsers (no old builds):
http://www.opera-prehliadac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3240#p3240
Firefox is clearly the best browser and it is why it is gaining so rapidly users throughout the world.
now lift your eye patch and stop being so one eyed about everything in the world
You can talk, John. Being a 'windows is the only thing in the world' man you can hardly comment.
Maybe you're right when you say it's gaining rapidly more users, but it's not because it's the best! It's because it has a very widespread "marketing campaign" (with success) since specially the version 2.0 !! and of course the common user sees some improvement when comparing with IE6 or IE7 ... but doesn't know that are other browsers! The VAST Majority of the internet users in the world are "less browser educated".... and that's why, step by step, firefox is gaining much more users with that combination of factors. I've already tested (all recent builds) FF2, FF3, Opera 9.27, Opera 9.5, Maxthon2.1, Flock , IE7, IE8, Safari 3.1 ... and after 3 or 4 days of use all of them (independtly) I must say that I prefer Opera 9.5, it's WAY much user friendly, faster, secure, simpler, and with my range of tabs that I open everyday ( 15 to 30 , yes sometimes 30 tabs! or two windows of 15!) is the most reliable browser I've ever used! .... and have many features that , now, I don't want to live without. ..... So, for me , at this moment, Opera is the best, but the common user around the world doesn't know Opera exists.
Opera is fully featured out of the box .Load Fire Fox with extension's to match the features of Opera & then compare.
I love the speedial i have 30 speedial tabs (tweak speedial ini.)
Opera was the fastest browser when ver 9 came out i expect it's still the fastest now 9.5 is out of beta.
The slowest part of any browser is the user & using Opera with it's better interface it's easier to surf faster & be more productive.
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/safaribenchmarks.html
or read the wikipedia article on iBench.
They made the browser to declare preliminarily that it has loaded the page... Geez!!
I believe your memory use tests are misleading.
Although the numbers might be right, they dont take in account memory leak that happens over the course of a browsing session.
In my experience, Firefox can easily get over 200 megs with 10 tabs open, if you have been browsing for a while.
Telstra shareholders fear break up
What do Telstra shareholders think of the telco's new CEO David Thodey? And would they support the government'… Watch it now
Having problems with complex data center? Simplify your data center now.
| Apple iPhone 3GS 32GB | 33 plans |  3% |
| Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB | 33 plans |  5% |
| Nokia N97 | 37 plans | 2% |
| Apple iPhone 8GB | 33 plans | 1% |
| Nokia E63 | 33 plans | 1% |
| Apple mobile phones | 2% |
| Nokia mobile phones | 3% |
| Samsung mobile phones | 1% |
| Sony Ericsson mobile phones | 1% |
| LG mobile phones | 1% |
The long-awaited separation of Telstra
Google open-sources JavaScript tools
The key Topik is always money
What makes you click?
Tell us for a chance to win a $1,000 GAME gift voucher.
Click here for more.
Win an iPhone 3GS!
Sign up as a ZDNet Australia member during November and you'll go in a draw to win an iPhone 3GS!
Click here to sign up!
Best Laptops
Check out the best laptops here!
Click here for more.
Interesting article. Although a Linux (maybe Ubuntu) comparison with the Firefoxes would have been nice also.
I currently use FF2 but plan to switch to FF3 when released (critical bug free that is..).