Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Chrome Software Firefox Microsoft Mozilla Opera Safari Upgrades Windows

Tom's Hardware Pits Newest Firefox, Opera and Chrome Against Each Other 272

Posted by timothy from the do-the-windows-numbers-hold-for-linux? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Firefox 7 was released a couple days ago, and now the latest Web browser performance numbers are in. This article is the same series that ran benchmarks on Mac OS X Lion last month. This time around the new Mozilla release is going against Chrome 14 and Opera 11.51 in 40+ different tests on Windows 7. Testing comes from every category of Web browsing performance I can think of: startup time, page load time, JS, CSS, DOM, HTML5, Flash, hardware acceleration, WebGL, Java, Silverlight, reliable page loads, memory usage/management, and standards conformance. The article also has a little feature on the Futuremark Peacekeeper browser benchmark. An open beta of the next revision has just been made public. This new version adds HTML5, video codecs, and WebGL tests to the benchmark. It's also designed to run on any browser/OS/device combination — e.g. Windows desktop, iPad, Droid 2, MacBook, Linux flavors, etc. Another great read, a must for Web browser fanatics!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tom's Hardware Pits Newest Firefox, Opera and Chrome Against Each Other More

Tom's Hardware Pits Newest Firefox, Opera and Chrome Against Each Other

Comments Filter:

  • Is performance really an issue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @06:48PM (#37586114)
    I've not worried about browser performance for a long while, lets face it, they're all fast enough. What matters to me is how they behave, their interface and site compatibility.

    • Re:Is performance really an issue? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mgiuca ( 1040724 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:14PM (#37586240)

      In the mobile versions it's very important, especially JavaScript performance.

      • Did TFA do any mobile browser comparisons? If so your point is rather moot.

        The platforms are different, the specs on individual phones are different, the networks are different (never mind location performance on each network can and will be different), and the goal for mobile browsing is different.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )
      It all depends on the hardware - I just got an old P4 for my kids to use, and the web suddenly seems surprisingly bloated and slow.

      • A netburst P4 is a horrible CPU to use today. They were always slow and power-hungry compared to contemporary offerings, and compared to a modern $50 CPU they're GOD DAMNED AWFUL. Running one today is like running a car from the 70s.

        • And like a car from the 70s, it's possibly more environmentally friendly to keep it if you run it sparingly instead of sending it to the dumpster and buying new cheap crap made by an underpaid drone, ultimately directed by a bunch of sociopaths in grey suits.

          I don't get this: In the beginning browsers were judged by how they rendered... well, respond to broken sites made for other browsers. When chrome was the new kid on the block, suddenly browsers' performance matters to the millisecond. When FF catches u

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jbolden ( 176878 )

            That's the general policy for all technology. As they get better the focus moves from features to reliability to price to convenience. At this point browsers render most stuff correctly, so the focus is on convenience.

            • It figures, yet the obsession with performance seemingly tied with the establishment of chrome seems out of place to me.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jbolden ( 176878 )

                Think about it this way.

                Netscape and IE battle for dominance. I.E. wins in a landslide and websites design around I.E. (trident's) quirks. Netscape creates a whole new rendering engine (Gecko) and stars building browsers based on it. Gecko is standards compliant and somewhat compliant with the older Netscape renderings. Website designers essentially consider trident not W3 to be the effective standard.

                In that environment getting rendering to work right was a major focus. But the problem was solved.
                1)

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by otuz ( 85014 )

                  Safari was out before Firefox. Camino was out before Firefox. The Mozilla guys saw the benefits of dropping the bloat and created Firefox.

              • It figures, yet the obsession with performance seemingly tied with the establishment of chrome seems out of place to me.

                Google is betting that the future of computing is Javascript. /Excuse me while I throw up...

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by bipbop ( 1144919 )

                  Google is already barely usable for me with Javascript enabled. I imagine it will only get worse. With JS on, it seems to catch every keystroke and send it over the net, and does weird and stupid things with the keystrokes it catches. My cursor hops around in the input box--I thought it was a bizarre new browser bug, but it turns out to be Google's JS messing it up. Scrolling down doesn't work right anymore, because Google catches the arrow keypresses, but not repeats--so if I hold down the down arrow,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by X3J11 ( 791922 )

        My younger son uses an old P4 hand me down and doesn't have any problems with the (numerous) flash and Java laden sites he enjoys. Perhaps "ur doin it wrong lol" or whatever the kids are saying these days.

    • I would argue it doesn't even depend on site compatibility anymore. They are all plenty good enough in that regard.

      So that leaves the interface, and how they behave. For me, that puts Safari squarely at the top on Mac OS X, and Chrome on windows.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @08:13PM (#37586560)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Indeed. I would add reliability (it seems every browser releases a shitty version from time to time, last culprit was firefox before they started turbo-numbering), bfore that I had issues with Opera 10.x or a long time. All fixed now, I guess it's Chrome's turn ?

    • Exactly. Speed is always nice, but I would rather Firefox fixed the basic usability/functionality gaps:

      • Give us independent tabs, so the browser doesn't freeze every time I open half a dozen bookmarks at once.
      • Fix the basic drawing bugs: poor kerning for text, embedded content not redrawing properly any time you scroll the window...
      • Sort out H.264 support. (I don't care if it's not free-as-in-whatever, it's a much better format, and it seems like it's starting to win with an increasing number of sites I visit

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sort out H.264 support. (I don't care if it's not free-as-in-whatever

        You may not, but the Firefox developers do, and they care because Firefox is a free product and they're the ones who will be sued by MPEG-LA.

        it's a much better format

        Let's all pretend you can notice the difference between H.264 and WebM at the resolutions and bitrates employed for streaming on the Internet.

        • You may not, but the Firefox developers do, and they care because Firefox is a free product and they're the ones who will be sued by MPEG-LA.

          Sure, but if they want to compete with the other browsers, that's their problem. IE can do it. Chrome can do it (though they pretended they were going to stop for a while). Browsers on mobile devices can do it. Firefox can't do it. One of these is losing to all of the others.

          Let's all pretend you can notice the difference between H.264 and WebM at the resolutions and bitrates employed for streaming on the Internet.

          I do notice, because one of my jobs is working on a site that provides custom high quality videos. In our experience, H.264 also takes significantly less bandwidth than the open(ish) video formats for the same quality, and that means re

    • What about stability? Firefox has been crashing quite a bit on my lately (though I think Pandora is mostly to blame - ever since they overhauled the UI, memory usage goes up by hundreds of MB). When will Firefox be able to run tabs in separate processes? Can it properly sandbox buggy plugins? I think these are the most pressing concerns right now and it seems that Firefox is a bit behind the curve.

      That being said, I'm pretty impressed with its performance since upgrading to 6.0.2.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pmontra ( 738736 )
        FF has got a plugin sandbox [mozilla.com] since 3.6.4 (maybe not on OS X). All plugins are in a separate process, but only one process for all plugins of all tabs.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • A+++++ WOULD BUY AGAIN... (Score:5, Funny)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @06:49PM (#37586116) Journal
    "Another great read, a must for Web browser fanatics!"

    Seriously? Could you sound any more astroturfy if you tried?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jhoegl ( 638955 )
      What does that even mean?

    • I was a little put off by this too. The advances in web browsers were exciting when IE 4, 5 were pushing out major changes like Active Desktop and file manager integration, and then later when they sandboxed them off from the rest of the operating system. Online bookmark syncing is a pretty neat feature, but for the most part browsers are pretty homogenized and well... boring. Unless you work in online advertising, I think most geeks' interest in browser tech has waned quite a bit now that the playing field

      • As someone working in business eLearning, which has been dominated by flash for the past decade, I am very interested. I've also been interested in some of the better scaling backend systems as well. We're almost to a point where we can nuke flash player. Still need a broad implementation for compressed audio and video streams from the client.... Also, in need of a few other tweaks, such as better offline support. Most of all, what's needed is better tooling. So far Adobe, Microsoft and Sencha seem to

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by aitan ( 948581 )

          But do you know why it won't be possible to use those new grid features introduced in IE10 for a long time?

          You won't be able to use them because IE10 will be available only in newer versions of Windows, (I don't know if even Vista is supported), so taking into account the people that just stick with the browser that came preinstalled and the long time until all those older versions of Windows disappear, it will take several years until the number of users with those versions is low enough.

          The rest of the pe

  • Outdated (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, 2011 @06:56PM (#37586150)

    No point - by the time you finish reading it, FF8 will be out and the benchmarks will be obsolete.

    • Heck, I've been using FF8 for a couple days now on the home pc. FF10 on the laptop (64 bittyness). This article was obsolete before it was written.

  • Something's missing... (Score:3)

    by trogdor8667 ( 817114 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:04PM (#37586188)

    Why doesn't the summary have the fact that they say Firefox 7 as the winner? Seems like a big glaring omission from this summary...

  • You have Opera, Chrome and Firefox for most current desktop platforms, could be interesting to see how much of this keeps being valid in most of them. Also to see how this holds under Mac OS X in the Safari front.

  • Now if only they could measure user experience... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bl4nk ( 607569 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:17PM (#37586256)
    The constant barrage of updates for Firefox is frustrating to say the least. Having to go through the installer every month and have your extensions checked for compatibility and consistently get disabled... it's just not worth it. I switched to Chrome and have progressed through 8 whole versions without ever noticing and without ever having my extensions break. It's divine, and how all software upgrades should be done (in a perfect world).

    • "The constant barrage of updates for Firefox"....
      "I switched to Chrome and have progressed through 8 whole versions"

      Really? Is the release cycle really the problem for you or something vague about extensions? I find the release cycle of Firefox rather awkward but I'd never switch to Chrome if that was really my problem.

      Further, it doesn't really need to measure user experience as that is going to vary based on the audience. You can take this benchmark and then compare that with your own user experience t

      • Re:Now if only they could measure user experience. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @09:02PM (#37586750) Homepage

        Really? Is the release cycle really the problem for you or something vague about extensions?

        People have a problem with the rapid release cycle because of extensions, the point has been made many times now with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer. If you can't wrap your head around that concept, you must be a Firefox developer.

      • I agree with bl4nk. This new release schedule sucks. As an example, Firefox doesn't have a global setting for zoom. You have to zoom each page individually. I hunted down an addon to fix this called NoSquint. Works like a champ. It always worked right up until they started this ridiculous release schedule. Now it's disabled and my browser is back to everything being tiny again. That's not the only one... that's just the one that broke the camel's back.

        I switched to Chrome this weekend. It has a glo

    • Re:Now if only they could measure user experience. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zullnero ( 833754 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:40PM (#37586364) Homepage
      It's not that difficult. I'd rather have more updates...including security updates...than fewer and far between. People who complain about updates are like people who complain about having to have bumpers on their car or safety belts on a plane. Besides, the updates install themselves now automatically. Good for you, switching to Chrome for that reason...it only does the exact same thing Firefox does now.

      • Or they're someone managing releases for something larger than themselves. Distribution packages and those working in medium to large businesses are all having a little bit of hell with the fast release schedules... Either you give your users admin rights so the software can update itself (BAD IDEA), or you use something else, unless there's a 'long term support' version. Which neither Chrome nor Firefox have.

      • Re:Now if only they could measure user experience. (Score:4, Informative)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday October 03, 2011 @02:26AM (#37587720)

        Besides, the updates install themselves now automatically. Good for you, switching to Chrome for that reason...it only does the exact same thing Firefox does now.

        No they don't, not even remotely. When Chrome updates I normally hear about it on a Slashdot post. It does so without any user interaction at all, and without breaking any updates. It does so when the browser is not being used via the Google Update service so there's never even a blip in the user experience.

        Firefox downloads updates while running. On next restart it pops up a window and as it updates it blocks you from using the browser until it's done, and requires user interaction. When it finishes it frequently disables plugins due to compatibility issues. Then after you hit ok it pops up YET ANOTHER BLOODY WINDOW in a browser tab this time to let you know YET AGAIN that it has updated something, just in case the last 5 minutes of your life weren't any indication. Not a problem if you're just starting the browser but if you open the browser by clicking on a link the least it could do after wasting 5 minutes of my life is actually show the bloody link I clicked on.

        There is nothing automatic about Firefox's update process that is even remotely comparable to that of Google Chrome's. Actually it is only marginally better than any other application which has an update process, and even then only because it downloads first and asks questions later not giving the user the ability to ignore critical updates.

        • . When it finishes it frequently disables plugins due to compatibility issues.

          Even better - if there are no compatibility issues, it sits there waiting for you to click 'OK' instead of going about its job of reloading your tabs.

          Yes, even if an upgrade is totally successful, you're forced to babysit the upgrade. I guess we should be grateful we don't have to dismiss a "Congratulations!" dialog...

  • Will this finally shut the trolls up? (Score:3)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:17PM (#37586258)

    Seems like just about every article that comes out about Firefox there's a dozen or so folks that keep complaining about how slow Firefox is and how much memory it leaks. Perhaps this will point out to them that it's really not that bad, it's actually quite good over all in that respect.

    Or, they'll just keep posting it over and over again like a meme because it hasn't been about actual performance in a long time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pbhj ( 607776 )

      >"it hasn't been about actual performance in a long time" //

      Well I noticed a considerable increase in performance with FF7 on one of my computers that was running FF4. It appears to use less processor time and less memory ... but you say any improvements are just a myth??

      The other much faster system running Nightly 6 didn't appear much changed, FWIW.

    • The problem isn't how well a browser behaves with properly coded sites and no addons. It's how it behaves with all the other sites, the ones that have crappy JS and Flash animations while the user has 15 addons loaded. You know, the real world? This test is interesting and gives some general idea about how a browser should behave... but should rarely equals does.

    • Seems like just about every article that comes out about Firefox there's a dozen or so folks that keep complaining about how slow Firefox is and how much memory it leaks.

      ... And this is the problem with Firefox. The horrible memory leak problems have been traditionally dismissed by the Firefox team as only seen by "trolls". I gave on Firefox because it constantly sucked more and more and more memory, and I had to constantly restart the damn thing when it got over 2 gigabytes with a handful of tabs open.

      Now, maybe the Firefox team (FINALLY) fixed it, and maybe they didn't. But we can't tell from this test, because they didn't do a memory leak test. What they need to do is open 41 sites, close 40 sites, open 40 sites, close 40 sites, on and on and see what happens. I know what will happen with Chrome -- since it uses a process per tab, all that memory will intrinsically get given back to the O/S. Firefox -- who knows?

      But what I do know is that it's too little, too late for me. I love Chrome, and Firefox has no compelling features to make me come back.

      • For what it's worth, I have 14 tabs open right now, all with big demanding webpages, and my browser's been running for at least 5 days. I'm using less than a GB, which I don't mind because it gives me instant back.

        I should note that I have more than 2GB free on my machine at the moment, and that's after Windows 7's aggressive caching. When I become RAM-starved, Firefox drops down by about half.

        I haven't ever had memory leak issues with Firefox, at least not in the last 5 years, so I'm inclined to believe th

        • I haven't ever had memory leak issues with Firefox, at least not in the last 5 years...

          Sheesh. If you say you don't experience the problem, why are you commenting on the issue at all? I don't use extensions. And I don't give a crap what the devs think, all they have to do is look through their own bug tracking for literally hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of bug reports on this issue. And ultimately, there is only one bug report that matters to me: my own. IT SUCKS FOR ME. No extension, and the memor

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by syousef ( 465911 )

          I haven't ever had memory leak issues with Firefox, at least not in the last 5 years, so I'm inclined to believe the devs when they say it's shitty extensions that are causing the problems...

          So what if it is. THEY designed the plugin system did they not? Is there a way to easily identify and stop offending apps? No. Is there a reason to install Firefox apart from the extensions? Not really. This cop out has always irked me. It is buck passing at it's worst!

      • Not to mention all the Firefox fanatics that say the problem doesn't even exist, and/or blame it all on Flash/Reader/Java/Whatever.

        I've heard all kinds of numbers from 300MB to 2GB, and I usually get to 400MB after 10 minutes of browsing, which is when the random pauses and freezes start to kick in. I love Firefox, but I'm sick of having to restart it every 15 minutes, let alone every day. The pauses cause missed clicks and keystrokes, and they drive me nuts.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by UpnAtom ( 551727 )

        Well Firefox isn't spyware. Nor is Opera which would win any speed test involving an actual user.

    • Re:Will this finally shut the trolls up? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @08:24PM (#37586626)
      The problem is that people compare performance of add-on-free Firefox against the others, then compare features as if every possible add-on were installed and working perfectly with no decrease in performance. That's why I like Opera. It's like Firefox with the add-ons I like, but I can leave the add-ons on and not take a performance hit. Given the performance/features of Opera, they beat Firefox for every test that isn't contrived by Firefox fanatics where they are similarly featured.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbolden ( 176878 )

      I had to use FF2 recently for a very old site. And I commented to friends how wonderfully speedy and light the browser felt.

      Its going to be several years till the performance complaint dies with respect to FF. People like me who switched away because of performance aren't going to look at the performance again until we have to switch browsers for some other reason or have to use FF regularly and notice the change.

    • Seems like just about every article that comes out about Firefox there's a dozen or so folks that keep complaining about how slow Firefox is and how much memory it leaks.

      Perhaps it's because it is true. I like Firefox, but i wont hide my head in the sand and claim that its memory handling is flawless.

  • Browser wars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgiuca ( 1040724 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:22PM (#37586280)

    Although it's only been one month since Web Browser Grand Prix VI: Firefox 6, Chrome 13, And Mac OS X Lion, the browser wars show no signs of subsiding.

    Browser wars? It's competition, baby, not war. We're not waiting for a war to end so we can announce a winner and all switch to that browser. We're enjoying every glorious moment of a many-browser ecosystem. The "browser wars" were a time of nasty piling on of proprietary features in an attempt to gain an advantage. This is a glorious golden age of competition and (mostly) an emphasis on standards compliance.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbolden ( 176878 )

      I agree with your main point that this is competition. That being said the "nasty proprietary features" were incredible. Heck I'd love some of the features of I.E. 4 even now.

      1) Almost native speed applications delivered over the web fully integrated. (And yes I understand the security reasons this doesn't exist anymore but it was really really nice before abuses).

      2) Push technologies with full featured sites. Especially for things like cell phones this would be terrific. I can imagine youtube subscr

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mgiuca ( 1040724 )

        The problem with all of those technologies is that they were Microsoft Windows only. Not like some of the Chrome features which are "Chrome only" (but anybody can implement them and hopefully one day they'll become part of a standard, e.g., NaCl [wikipedia.org]), but truly Windows only and could never possibly hope to become standardised (unless Windows extinguished all other platforms forever). Take #1, ActiveX, and compare it to NaCl of today's Chrome. Yes, it took ten years to get back to the same native speed applicati

  • So many different results all over the place with zero comprehension of the results, such a shame.
    There's so many "wrong" that I don't want to start listing. This is a purely sensationalistic thing with nearly no value.
    Oh and they'll make sure NOT to report errors they found while loading sites so that they can use their test again and again. Fixing bugs? Nah!

  • ,,, locks up the whole damn browser when negotiating certain downloads.

    Why can't that be fixed??

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msobkow ( 48369 )

      Amen! Lately it's been pissing me off enough that I may finally switch over to Chrome. I held off on Chrome because it didn't have AdBlock Plus at first, but that's been taken care of.

      During that connection freeze, Firefox is COMPLETELY unresponsive. It doesn't paint. It doesn't respond to user events. It just locks up, hard.

      This was NOT a problem with earlier versions of Firefox.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by BZ ( 40346 )

      I'd love to fix this. Reproducing would be a good start. Please point me to a url that shows the problem?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msobkow ( 48369 )

        Any URL that takes a noticeable time to negotiate an HTTP or HTTPS connection causes the problem. For whatever reason, this blocking IO hasn't been spun to a seperate thread, causing Firefox to block.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by BZ ( 40346 )

          All HTTP socket IO is most certainly on a separate thread in necko.

          Just to make sure, you see the problem in safe mode (or with all extensions disabled) as well, right?

  • Stability Tests (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ohnocitizen ( 1951674 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @08:19PM (#37586604)
    I'd love to see a multi-platform (where possible) stability benchmark across the major browsers:

    Opening the same site in 10 tabs. in 100. At what point does the browser crash? What is the memory usage?
    Now open the same youtube video in 10 tabs. In 100. Repeat the above.
    Do the same with trailers.apple.com.

    Next, open a youtube video in 10 tabs for each browser, and log how long that pid remains active. Is it still there after a day? After a week? Or does it crash with no user interaction?

    I wonder where Firefox would stand in the ranks after tests like the above.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by DJRumpy ( 1345787 )

      Although the curious side in me might want to see the results of such tests, the likelihood that someone would find such results useful in real world work is highly unlikely. In short, what's the point? At this point browsers have gotten to be fast enough that gains go largely unnoticed. I'm more interested in compatibility, recoverability, and feature set.

      Opening the same site in 10 tabs. in 100. At what point does the browser crash? What is the memory usage?
      Now open the same youtube video in 10 tabs. In 1

      • Although the curious side in me might want to see the results of such tests, the likelihood that someone would find such results useful in real world work is highly unlikely.

        You say that, but it was the constant crashes that finally drove me away from Firefox.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by higuita ( 129722 )

          you know that plugins run now at a separated process, right? so all the constant crash of the past are gone... also, update your flash, java, whatever, FF by itself doesnt crash for me, but flash did crash alot... and i usually have MANY tabs open for several weeks

      • It isn't a question of speed gains, but a question of stability. Under normal user patterns, will the browser crash? How many users have multiple tabs open (with slashdot, facebook, youtube, and gmail all open at once)? How many users leave their computer running at night, with the browser open to a few articles they wanted to read, but won't get to until tomorrow?

        I've found in these situations (on Linux Mint or Ubuntu), Chrome keeps chugging along, and Firefox inevitably (as of versions 6 and 7) cras

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbolden ( 176878 )

        youtube videos take a long time to load. My normal usage pattern is to click on a bunch of videos and let them load in the background. 2-5 videos at once is common.

        And I might get distracted and want to look at something else. I'd love my system to be reliable with 10 video streams.

  • I've been hopping back and forth still depending what I want to do. At the end of the day, addons have more to do with my choice than the browsers themselves. Both can be configured roughly for what I need to do, with only minor annoyances.

    Firefox 7 seems to be more stable for me than the previous version. The instability before was part of why I was messing with Chrome to begin with.

    The main thing about Chrome that was annoying, honestly, had nothing to do with Chrome itself. I didn't like how AdBlock (an

    • Both can be configured

      1. show "http://":
        firefox: browser.urlbar.trimURLs
        chrome: impossible to configure
      2. no graying out of url:
        firefox: browser.urlbar.formatting.enabled
        chrome: impossible to configure

      in chromium/chrome these two settings can only be "configured" by modifying the source code [google.com]. these are just two settings that I wanted to change in chromium and found out I couldn't.

      Firefox wins!!!

  • In the closest conclusion this series has ever seen, Mozilla is finally able to take the crown, earning its first Web Browser Grand Prix championship with Firefox 7. Although Firefox has two fewer wins than Chrome 14, Mozilla's browser manages to earn three more strong finishes than Chrome, which we consider sealing the deal, if by only a hair.

    Chrome 14 obviously places second; no surprise there. The big surprise is our third-place finisher. It's not Internet Explorer 9! Rather, Opera finally breaks out of

  • As the information "services" team at work continues to use Microsoft tools that put out non-conforming javascript, I need to see that category. Oh wait! IE wins hands down! >;->

  • On Windows, Firefox 7 beats Chrome 14 by a negligible margin. Opera takes 3rd place, IE 9 takes 4th, and Safari comes last.

    On OS X Lion, Safari is still king. And that is pretty much all the author states.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close