9 Browsers Compared For Speed and Features 363
notthatwillsmith writes "Counting public betas and release candidates, there are a whopping nine different web browsers out today with enough market share to be considered mainstream. Maximum PC explains the differences between the browsers, future and present, so that you can make a more informed decision about the primary tool you use to browse the web. From the rendering engines used to the features that set the different browsers apart, this is a comprehensive, blow-by-blow battle between Safari 3, Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 3, Opera 9.6, Google Chrome, Firefox 3.1, IE 8, Safari 4, and Opera 10."
Whats with the Chrome tests? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we have 100% conformity to standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet standards are a known entity and have been so for a long time. Can somebody tell me why programmers of open source browsers decide not to code to standards? Why?
Why then should we expect Microsoft to code to standards?
Lynx? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who noticed this story tagged with "lynx"? Sure. We all know that no browser renders pages faster and with less resource overhead than lynx, but it wasn't one of the browsers being compared.
Origin of Webkit... (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement from page 4 of TFA bugs me:
It may be true that Apple started the Webkit project, but they did so by forking the KHTML codebase. Saying that Apple "gave birth" to WebKit is stretching the truth. It implies that they created it from scratch, when they didn't. Many other people put in a tremendous amount of work to create the foundations upon which WebKit was built.
A nitpick, perhaps. But it bugs me that the contributions of the KHTML team are being forgotten.
You idea gave us MySpace (Score:4, Insightful)
This idea of people making their own sites is what gave us myspace and the like. So sorry, but for the good of humanity and to stop your idea you must be shot. It is for the best.
Also, this function has been taken over by wysiwyg javascript editors in the website itself which is a reason the next bullet will go to the guy who thought this up.
Troll? (Score:3, Insightful)
He is simply stating the truth. Webkit is a fork of an existing project. Apple did NOT create webkit from scratch. Of course, that is not a bad thing, in fact it is one of the goals of opensource that you can take existing projects and modify them for your own needs BUT it is usually considered nice if you mention this. Apple sure as hell ain't advertising it loudly and sadly a LOT of people on the net seem perfectly happy to ignore it.
It also shows that Apple doesn't exactly return the favor because Safari is not available for Linux. So they used opensource code but do not contribute in the full spirit of opensource.
No law that says they should, but it is important to remember that the only difference between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is that Bill was succesful in being a monopoly. If the 'success' had been reversed things wouldn't be all that different and perhaps even worse (who do you think is in bed with the media companies more. Bill "MSN" Gates or Steve "Disney" Jobs? Though call)
because the standards are a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Can somebody tell me why programmers of open source browsers decide not to code to standards? Why?
The standards can be a bitch. Not just a bitch, but a major bitch. Standards at their best are forward looking and interesting because they are stated without much thought as to how they would actually be implemented and part of the problem is figuring out how too implement them.
In a perfect world, yes, you could go and code something completely to a standard, but a turn of a phrase could blow a design. Then you have to backtrack, re-implement, and repeat the process. You could go for years without a release and one thing that the world shows is that someone who implements most of the standards and delivers on time is better than the guy who is perfect with them. Indeed, quite often, shipping "enough" of a standard is quite often cause for a midcourse correction in the standard itself.
HTML isn't the only culprit here, but it stands out to end users because it is as prevalent as it is comparatively complex. C++ itself relies very heavily on standards and even with numerous holes to allow for vendor implementations, it took years to get good implementations of C++.
Why then should we expect Microsoft to code to standards?
The basic simplistic explanation is that Microsoft recruits what it feels are the best programmers from the best universities and has in the past been willing to invent some rather complicated products and forward looking designs. One asks Microsoft to comply with standards, because, if anyone could be able to, they would, and that, in some circles, is sort of thing a responsible leader of the computing community should do. They are members of these standards bodies, after all, and as such, -agreed- to them.
But, Microsoft is just as prey to the backtrack problem as anyone else, and having all those brains can sometimes mean that when they do have to backtrack, they have to do it spectacularly. That is, the degree to which you have to backtrack in a design tends to raise the costs of modifying your product significantly, and its likely that even they cannot resolve some issues in a timely fashion.
Of course, in the case of IE, they damn well could, but have chosen not to. For them IE is a problem. If they spend money on IE, they might well lose it all because the EU and other anti-trust bodies might well make them give it away or discontinue it or, something. And, until recently, IE has been "good enough for government work". But, with Firefox really coming on, and Google Chrome showing so much promise, now IE8 looks like Microsoft is to re-engage.
Re:Why don't we have 100% conformity to standards? (Score:1, Insightful)
I think its because standards are more like ideals, rather than limitations. You create a standard for technologies that no-one has really done yet, then hope that when browsers do implement the technology, they follow the standard. I think, for example, that the makers of opera created all the acid tests; and it took them a year or two after the standard was created for them to actually implement it.
And then there _is_ Microsoft, which is a standard simply because it is a monopoly. The right question is, why should microsoft follow the standard of some competing company that they either don't care about, or want to loose, when they can easily make up their own standard? And patent it even!
From a financial perspective, they shouldn't; and they don't. Anyway, what do I know.
Re:because the standards are a bitch (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:because the standards are a bitch (Score:3, Insightful)
Standards at their best are forward looking and interesting because they are stated without much thought as to how they would actually be implemented and part of the problem is figuring out how too implement them.
That's absolutely false, of any good standard.
Mobile Browsers (Score:4, Insightful)
With all this talk about people giving up their computers for mobile devices, it would be nice to see a mobile device browser rundown. From what I have seen, most mobile browsers are atrocious.
For instance, Safari on the iPhone, which is a descendent of Konqueror, has no option to constrain text to the screen (just as Konq-e did not). There is no Firefox derivative for the mobile world. NetFront is ugly and slow and missing lots of character sets, but at least constrains text. PocketIE is so stupidly slow, memory inefficient, and painful to use it is hard to discuss without liberal use of expletives. Android's webkit browser is designed not to link to local URLs (ie: file:///).
That is only one criticism each, but a more appropriate figure would be much higher for each. The bugs in these browsers are sort of unbelievable. Even worse, unlike downloading from the net, these browsers all have a price. When one buys a mobile device, these browsers are included and part of the purchase price goes to these browsers. Why are the for-pay browsers worse than the free ones?
About the only mobile browser I would even say nice things about is Opera. Opera is missing some features I want, but considering the competition -- or lack thereof -- I cannot complain too much.
It is hard to believe that when everybody seems to believe that we are on the eve of the mobile computing revolution that there can be only one decent mobile browser to choose from. Further, it seems absurd that with all of this browser code floating around on the net, one cannot download and install any given mobile browser but must, instead, be stuck with a device vendor chosen browser for good or ill.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:9 Browsers compared (Score:5, Insightful)
They also didnt bother to test how fast each browser rendered html either, which is just as important, if not more so than how fast it can render javascript.
I disagree. HTML always renders fast enough. Slowdowns are from scripts and ads.
Re:Troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Webkit is a fork of an existing project. Apple did NOT create webkit from scratch.
true. The original poster shouldn't be marked as a troll for saying that. This is a self-correcting issue. he is currently marked +4 insightful.
Of course, that is not a bad thing, in fact it is one of the goals of opensource that you can take existing projects and modify them for your own needs BUT it is usually considered nice if you mention this. Apple sure as hell ain't advertising it loudly and sadly a LOT of people on the net seem perfectly happy to ignore it.
You can't make a list of rules then go "oh yeah, this would be cool too, but it's optional". and then get pissed when someone adheres to all of your rules but chooses not to do the optional one. If you don't want it optional, make it part of the license. They're not assholes for not doing more than is required of them.
This argument seems a bit hypocritical coming from someone who chooses not to use the Gnu/Linux moniker in his next sentence.
(yes, i'm aware linux is not a fork of a gnu kernel project. the point is that the essence of Stallman's argument for that term is the same argument being made here.)
It also shows that Apple doesn't exactly return the favor because Safari is not available for Linux. So they used opensource code but do not contribute in the full spirit of opensource.
Apple returns all of their modifications to webkit back to the open source project. They are under no requirement, morally or legally, to provide a linux safari. The essence and full spirit of open source is for the source to be available so that if someone desires to port it to linux they can do so. That spirit has been satisfied.
I had more written here but your last paragraph is so irrelevant to the subject, i decided to delete it to avoid distractions.
The true cost of Microsoft's monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the browser wars, round 1? It seemed that everytime you turned around, there was a new version out with new features and new tags to learn. Features like VRML and javascript, CSS, a dizzying array of choices that seemed like it could go on forever.
That is, until MS killed the browser wars by bundling their browser and coming up with a browser that was 'good enough'. Innovation stalled almost completely. Webmasters, frustrated with the pain of developing cross-platform web sites, frequently bought the koolaid of the all MS dev stack.
The open, free Internet was, for a time, in danger.
But then the guys behind Mozilla, mostly funded by AOL who only used Mozilla to threaten MS in order to get an icon for the desktop, finally started to mature into something good.
And, though years in the making, the browser wars are suddenly back! Suddenly MS releases two versions of their browser rapid-fire, suddenly there's a reason to pay attention!
Just imagine where we'd be if there hadn't been that near-decade of stagnation in the middle? That's the price of the MS monopoly.
Opera Addons (Score:5, Insightful)
Most reviews don't get it and I'm sure a lot of people are mistaken about it, but even if Opera doesn't support "addons" they support a lot more than just adding widgets.
You can customize any and all Opera INI files. There is extensive resources [operawiki.info] about it. For a few examples, you can:
Of course the INI files are part of your profile so editing them won't affect other users. And I'm not even mentioning the per-site configuration.
Opera doesn't need addons IMHO. It's already really heavily configurable.
I understand some people can't do without AdBlock or a few other addons, so no need to mention it, we know you need it. But for the others there's more than enough functionality available through customization.
Re:9 Browsers compared (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree- I run with javascript OFF and some horribly buggy html saturates my CPU for tens of seconds while my poor browser tries to figure it out. Ebay pages- look at the code someday. Even slashdot- lots of html errors. I have my theories about it all...
Re:9 Browsers compared (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you're joking, but were you seriously expecting a solid statement anyway?
I can't remember the last time I saw a scathing review of... pretty much anything. Companies have reviewers so scared of lawsuits for libel and their publishers have become such milksops, afraid they might alienate an advertiser, that nobody will say anything is bad anymore. There are only varying degrees of "good" now.
Re:because the standards are a bitch (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't help that some standards were based on other standards and then broken. HTML was syntactically incompatible with SGML on purpose to make it "easier" to use. The most notable example is the fact that early in the HTML standard, you didn't have to close paragraph elements.
When you create something with built-in gotchas, of course parsing it correctly is going to be a problem. It continued to be for years until XHTML finally came around, but that still has its own design faults. Many web sites (including my own site which I haven't updated in years) still use the old, broken, but "standards compliant" HTML spec.
Personally, I think the whole WWW was b0rked from the beginning, and even the new browser wars aren't going to straighten it out in the foreseeable future. JavaScript imported from a 3rd party web site through an ad has all the same privileges as your own site's code? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Thanks, Netscape.
Re:The true cost of Microsoft's monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Features like VRML and javascript, CSS, a dizzying array of choices that seemed like it could go on forever.
That's not a good thing. You forget that many of the "innovations" of these browsers in the bad-old-days were to give themselves something the others didn't support. When we're talking about standards for the interchange of data, you want them to move slow so everyone can keep up.
Now I'll admit, the ubiquity of a browser with a lack of standards compliance and ui features like tabs are painful results of MS's monopoly, but let's be careful when we talk about "innovation" anywhere near standards.
Re:The true cost of Microsoft's monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
You aren't serious are you ?
The only innovation Netscape did was to introduce frames and layers, the first of which was universally hated and eventually kicked from the standard when it was already too late. And the second, which was a pathetic attempt to keep up with the DHTML and on-the-fly re-rendering that MSIE 4 was already doing so well. Except NS4 DIDN'T re-render properly, didn't resize the layer based on content, so all you ended up with was crappy looking content overlaying other content and a damn mess of cross-browser hacks to even achieve that.
Whereas, look at what MSIE did, taking innerHTML as a prime example. It was their innovation, it wasn't considered standard at the time, but it was so useful that Firefox and all the others implemented it anyway.
You really need to stop believing everything you read about the browser wars, and actually admit that NS4 sucked so badly, no one WANTED to buy it. Plus the fact that MSIE was being bundled for free, why bother paying for an inferior competitor. Netscape didn't deserve to survive, sorry. Not because of MS abusing a monopoly, but because NS4 browser was a dog, and needed to die.
To my mind that was the time when people were starting to realiss that a browser IS an integral part of any O/S and there was already becoming less market space for paid alternatives to survive. Let me ask you this ? As we're all so used to "free" browsers these days, do you think Firefox would have such dominance if it cost $5 ? or $10 ? Of course not, people want something that works most of the time as they expect, and if it's free, then so much better.
Re:9 Browsers compared (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a really cool idea, dude :-)
Post the code somewhere!