Firefox 3.5 Benchmarked, Close To Original Chrome 338
CNETNate writes "The tests prove it: It's the third-fastest browser in the world, and over twice as fast as Firefox 3. In terms of Javascript performance, Firefox 3.5's new rendering engine places it squarely above Opera 10's beta and Internet Explorers 7 and 8 (based on previous benchmarks), plus it's getting on for being almost as quick as the original version of Google Chrome. Also, the new location-awareness feature was testing in central London, and pinpointed yours truly to within a few hundred meters — easily enough for, say, a Starbucks Web site to tell you where your nearest Starbucks is."
Web browsers, bah! (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer to read the html code and interpret them myself...
Re:Web browsers, bah! (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer to read the html code and interpret them myself...
You young punks make me sick. Back in my day, we used Gopher and were grateful for the upgrade over the teletype!
I still prefer content distributed via mimeograph, though. Get enough enough of that sweet blue text!
Re:Web browsers, bah! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still waiting for my last pigeon or else I'd have responded faster.
Re:Web browsers, bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Web browsers, bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Your clients are a bunch of Neanderthals too, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you. Seriously, what was it about the smell of mimeographs that made taking quizzes just a little less painful?
I don't even see the code anymore (Score:5, Funny)
"All I see is 'blonde...brunette...redhead...'"
Weird (Score:5, Informative)
Strange thing...when it restared, it of course had a tab opened saying it was upgraded, etc.
Trouble is...I can NOT close this fucking tab to save my life?!?!? I can close and open others, but, cannot close this one. I can go to other sites on it..but, cannot close it.
Re:Weird (Score:5, Informative)
set browser.tabs.closeWindowWithLastTab to false.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope..didn't work.
I can close and open and whatever with all the other tabs I have open. But that one that opened when it restarted, I cannot seem to close it by any means.
Re:Weird (Score:5, Funny)
Until you appreciate its value, you won't be able to close that tab.
So, start appreciating tabbed browsing, OK?
Re:Weird (Score:5, Informative)
If you follow SecondaryOak's suggestion, you can close the tab and the whole Firefox window will disappear - because it's going from displaying 1 page to displaying 0 pages.
But I'm guessing that's NOT what you want - you don't really want to "close" the tab, you just want to hide it like you're used to.
So go to about:config and double click browser.tabs.autoHide to change it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What score did you get on Acid3?
I got "Whoa dude, look at all the colours... my hands, my hands are so large they can touch anything except for themselves..."
Another thread, another flamewar (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very much looking forward to the <video> element - because every other solution tends to suck bigtime under Linux. There's a huge market for flash to do flash games and whatever but I really look forward to watching embedded video without it. I'll install x264 and not care about the codec wars as long it "just works". Opera is late to the party here, won't even be in 10.0 initial release :/. Too bad, because for various reasons I like it even better than Firefox...
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very much looking forward to the element - because every other solution tends to suck bigtime under Linux.
I'm looking forward to it because every other solution tends to suck under every OS. Flash is a resource hog and crashes frequently-- and besides, why should I need flash just to view a video? I don't understand that one.
AFAICT, the only reason we're all using Flash is that it was a stop-gap measure to deal with the fact that normal video support in web browsers wasn't what it should have been. It's like all the various mutli-column HTML/CSS tricks that people use because HTML just doesn't directly support columns. It works well enough for now, but it should be seen as "something to be fixed".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why Flash's enemy #1 right now is HTML5. Once flash video becomes unneccessary, flash will become as useful as java applets within two years. Adobe's biggest friend right now is probably Microsoft (really).
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. It's amazing how bad Flash is on the Mac. There is a reason Apple is trying to kill it (beyond lack of control).
HD video looks very nice. My Mac can play Apple's QuickTime h.264 clips, even those larger than the screen. It's not really a problem. It's a dual core 2.4GHz MBP.
Yet it drops frames on YouTube's 720p videos, and can do the same some times on other large (high pixel count) web videos (such as the HD 540p clips on GameSpot). There is no excuse for a 540p video not playing back smoothly and need ~85%+ of each core.
Download the same video in any format, no problem at all.
Flash video is just horrible. That's not even mentioning all the problems caused by every people on the 'net inventing their own Flash video player (some don't buffer content, some won't let you skip to arbitrary points, etc).
The video element is fantastic. I hope it catches on fast.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yes, but "zomg you're not supposed to use tables for layout!"
which of course has led to the similarly quaint removal of b, u, s and i tags for the sole reason that content and presentation should be separate. Nevermind that if you -now- want something to be bold, short of writing your own XML bits and pieces, you have do something insane like "<style>.b { font-weight:bold } </style>...<span class="b">this is bold</span>".
At some point, the scales tilted completely the other way and
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll install x264 and not care about the codec wars as long it "just works".
So far I haven't been able to get this to just work. If I point Safari at the YouTube HTML5 video demo, it all just works. But Firefox 3.5 doesn't have the x264 code, and fails silently, and I can find no mechanism to install that codec.
So, any pointers?
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:5, Informative)
I can't get that to work in anything but Firefox!
If the way it works out is that some sites work with Firefox, other sites work with every HTML5 browser other than Firefox, and none of them work with Internet Explorer...
Sites can provide video in one of two formats:
Microsoft has not commented on any of this as far as I know.
Of course, sites can provide fallback so that the content works in the absence of video tag support. The way to do it for the time being is 1) provide both Theora and H.264 in a video tag, 2) put Flash or something in the fallback for older browsers and IE. This can be automated through various tools, and will "just work" for the user. Eventually everyone will support the video tag with a single common format, hopefully, but you have to give it some time, it's new stuff.
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:5, Interesting)
Before Flash came along, web video on Linux was a great thing. MPlayer supported the big tree formats very well (Quicktime, Real, and Windows Media) and performed extremely well. Open Source browser plugins didn't disabled the controls, and made it easy to download the source of the video, no matter how obfusticated the web page code.
In fact, MPlayer supports all types of FLV video as well... The problem being the way its embedded into a page requires a SWF interpreter to even find the URL to the FLV file, and as of yet, nobody has written-up what should be a rather simple bit of code to do that, and pass the URL back to the user, or directly to a video player.
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:4, Informative)
No, there aren't, I'm afraid. There are numerous apps written that understand Youtube's naming scheme, but that's all. They don't actually parse the SWF, and any trivial changes to the site layout breaks them. Not to mention that FLVs on any other site still won't work.
Re:Another thread, another flamewar (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot the complaints that FireFox is a memory hog when you have 389 tabs open.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Looks like I need to go and get some snacks and pull up a recliner.
Don't bother. Flames will not last long.
To me personally the whole thing is senseless: benchmarking feature-full browser versus some puny, prototypical, essentially useless thing? Try again next time.
I understand Opera v. FireFox flames. Both are feature-full and useful. Both have their merits. That can be flamed about.
But Chrome?? They do not even have usable bookmark!? Who in their right mind would call it a browser? Even Mosaic 10+ years ago was more useful than Chrome is now. It would be forgi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Chromium is identical to Chrome in effectively every respect except branding
RTFA. We are talking here about official piece of alpha software released by Google called Chrome.
Until I have in Chrome the same functionality I have in vanilla FireFox + Google Toolbar, for me it is in deep "alpha", least 2.0 release.
But you aren't able to name specific, exact things that you can do in Firefox but can't in Chrome?
ZOMG. Where do I start?
1. AdBlock
2. FlashBlock
3. Bookmarks toolbar
4. Bookmarks menu
5. Keyword searches
6. Preserving text zoom level per domain
7. RSS feeds as bookmark folders
8. Searchable browsing history
9. Proxy configuration
10. Page Info screen which allows to save e.g. images used on the page.
We're #3 (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Nike, this means that your the second loser.
Not even 1st loser... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not even 1st loser... (Score:4, Funny)
I was high when I said that!
What the hell does that even mean?
You could be second, you could be third, hell you could even be fourth!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We're #3 - wow that's something to boast about.
Number three always gets the chicks in high school!
"Hey baby, I'm on the bench!"
Will it be fast enough to view slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or maybe make Anonymous Cowardon go away?
pffft (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know any of the ASCII porn sites were still online.
Re:pffft (Score:5, Informative)
Re:pffft (Score:4, Funny)
Sadly, lynx fails Acid3 [acidtests.org] for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, lynx may be a little extreme. But why does every site need to use javascript? I don't like web pages crashing anymore than movies (see: BluRay).
In other words, display it once so that it looks right; stop trying to make each website an application.
Big Brother... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Big Brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Brother... (Score:5, Informative)
You have the option of not using the web browser.
Beyond that, I tried one of the location demos. A Firefox prompt opened at the top of the window: "${site} wants to know your location: Share Location, Don't Share" with a checkbox to remember the settings for that site. Go ahead and explain how you could possibly be offended by that.
Re: (Score:2)
An extention that pings a private website every few minutes whenever it has a connection, combined remember sites that I have identified as ok could lead to problems. It would take a bit of work, but if I were say a victim of domestic abuse married to a hacker, I might hesitate to bring the laptop with me when I finally took off.
Re: (Score:2)
An extention that pings a private website every few minutes whenever it has a connection,
There are easier ways to implement this, like a cron job (or the Windows equivalent) that does the same thing whether or not a browser is open.
Re:Big Brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I ever want to share my location?
Seriously? Imagine you could search Google for something like "sushi restaurant near me", let Google access your location information (once or every time), and get a list of nearby restaurants. Location services are shaping up to be the killer app for mobile computing.
Why would I want part of my window eaten up by an option I don't like?
It's not. When you choose "share" or "don't share" the prompt goes away. It's exactly like the "remember this site's username and password?" prompt.
What happens when I click the wrong one at 5am cause I'm tired?
Oh, it clears out your checking account, sells your dog, and dumps your girlfriend. Honestly, what does any other random program do when you make a dumb choice? Whatever you asked it to do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then it's a good thing a computer-only browser implements this feature...
Someone has to make the first step. Also, Fennec [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because:
1. You can turn the feature off in the browser. (At least, I'd hope so.)
2. The browser doesn't have the ability to pass laws that make you a criminal.
3. You don't pay taxes to your browser, only to have it track you in return.
4. ????
5. You get the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This "feature" sounds as welcome as the Awesome Bar. Can it be disabled? Cos it's definitely a deal breaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mozilla today announced Firefox 3.5, which will be compulsory for all citizens to install on their machines.
"The public support these plans," claimed the Mozilla spokesperson, "So we have passed legislation that will require Firefox to be installed on all computers, allowing us to keep track of the population, which is essential in the battle against terrorism".
A copy of Firefox is expected to cost around £100. "Most people keep their computers for about 8 years," claimed the Government, "So it's only
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid I haven't missed it at all. I would LOVE to miss it, fondly.
This is such great science... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No. 84% of time statistics are made up.
Detailed Studies Show (Score:2, Funny)
In academics: 43.9% of statistic are made up. .009% were a sampling error.
In business: 72.3%, although banks were slightly higher than average.
In politics: 99.991%, although it's possible the
Now if I could just make this a pretty graph.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
The last study shows that exactly 78.34% of statistics quoted in a casual conversation are made up in the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
(...) but if you read the article you'll see they have a pretty graph, so I think the data is good.
Yes, because a picture lies more than a thousand words or something like that...
Opera 10 not benchmarked in either link (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opera 10 not benchmarked in either link (Score:4, Informative)
Using Chrome now, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Having used Chrome now for a little while after becoming irritated with FFX's memory utilization in particular, I'm going to have to admit that while it is quantifiably better than FFX (and Opera) in many ways, I don't find the speed difference compelling. Indeed, I find myself occasionally wondering if Chrome is actually slower than FFX in some ways. I am still using it, as the memory utilization is significantly better, but the little inconsistencies in presentation and the weird sensation that it feels slower makes me really want to switch back to Firefox. If Mozilla can get off their ass and really plug the memory leaks and utilization, I'd probably switch back today.
That's not to say that Chrome is bad. It's 100% usable, and its much more compatible with sites I use than Opera is. (I tried Opera first after I started looking around). The problem is that it still breaks some sites that aren't broken in IE or Firefox. And whether or not you blame the browser or the non-standards compliant webmasters, the reality is that I cannot switch their sites, but I can switch browsers that I am using. That means I have opened IE 7 windows more while using Chrome, than I have with Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You might wanna recheck your preconceptions - a lot has changed in the past few releases for Firefox: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
It's too bad a lot of people still think Firefox is such a memory hog when really they've refined it to be one of the most quick and efficient browsers available.
That said, your mileage may vary depending on the add-ons you choose, but as long as you don't go overboard there's no reason your memory usage should be significantly different than those in the benchmark.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You might wanna recheck your preconceptions - a lot has changed in the past few releases for Firefox: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory [dotnetperls.com]
It's too bad a lot of people still think Firefox is such a memory hog when really they've refined it to be one of the most quick and efficient browsers available.
That said, your mileage may vary depending on the add-ons you choose, but as long as you don't go overboard there's no reason your memory usage should be significantly different than those in the benchmark.
I have the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome and my switchover was not all that long ago (a month, maybe two). I tend to use both browsers in the same way, about 6-10 tabs open at the same time, with all of them getting some use, and many of them being used at almost the same time.
After having stared at the task manager and seen FFX taking up over 400MB of RAM while I see Chrome using 150-170 to do the same things, I can pretty much tell you that there's no preconceptions involved, only data. I am not
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You might wanna recheck your preconceptions - a lot has changed in the past few releases for Firefox: http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory [dotnetperls.com]
That benchmark is worthless. Especially for Chrome. Quote: "When a process with the same name such as 'chrome.exe' is encountered more than once, its total size is accumulated, yielding a total of all the 'chrome.exe' figures together." Apparently the author has never heard of shared memory! See Google Chrome Memory Usage - Good and Bad [chromium.org] on the Chromium blog for some discussion on this.
The other browsers might not be using multiple processes, but the same flaws apply to a lesser degree. Every library
Chrome uses more memory (Score:3, Insightful)
I can run 100+ tabs in FF with no problem. Chrome starts choking after 10-15. At least in my humble experience.
Firefox 3.5 freezes loading background tabs (Score:2, Interesting)
I posted a blog about this [blogspot.com] yesterday. I tried Firefox 3.5 in a Windows XP VMware Virtual machine yesterday and quickly web back to Firefox 3.0.
The problem is that FF 3.5 freezes while loading a background tab. In Firefox 3.0, I have no problem clicking on some link that looks interesting, loading the link in a new tab, and continue reading the article I'm reading or what not.
This doesn't work in 3.5. When I load a page in a background tab, the entire Firefox client freezes up when it's processing Ja
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because for me at least, it's blazing fast and one tab does not bring the other tabs down like it did sometimes in the past...
Re:Firefox 3.5 freezes loading background tabs (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect some configuration problem on your end, to be honest. I'm running FF3.5 on XP SP3 inside of VirtualBox. I do not see that behaviour. Using snaplinks, I just opened six tabs, and the current tab remained responsive while they loaded in the background.
Whether the configuration problem is in your VM, within Windows, or in Firefox, I couldn't even begin to guess. In my case, I have 1 gig of memory allocated to the VM - if you have less memory, that might be something to look at.
Of course it's possible that my FF is different than yours in some subtle way. I upgraded from FF 3.5 b4 to FF 3.5 RC1 and then to FF 3.5 final. I really wouldn't EXPECT there to be any real difference, but crap happens, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
VMware is probably swapping to free memory. You can disable the swapping of memory by VMware which will significantly improve performance (as long as you do not run out of memory).
Basically it sounds like you're waiting for the hdd to load something while at the same time writing out swap data.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ClearType is optional in IE, has been for years. No idea where you got the idea it was forcing you to do anything. Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> First item under Multimedia. It does default to true in IE8, since most people are using flat panels by now and find antialiased text less readable, but it's still optional.
To set IE8's default fonts, click Fonts at the bottom of the General tab in Internet Options.
To override page-specified fonts, open Internet Options, click Accessibility (und
SunSpider says it all... (Score:2, Informative)
I ran the SunSpider [webkit.org] JavaScript benchmark on Chrome 2.0.172.33, Firefox 3.5, and IE8. Firefox was almost 7x faster than IE, and Chrome almost 8x faster. Of particular interest are the contraflow and recursive tests. Chrome: 4.4ms. Firefox: 55.4ms. IE...? 218.4ms. Chrome is fifty times faster than IE in those benchmarks. Embarassing!
Re: (Score:2)
IE has always had a really lousy javascript engine...
http://pentestmonkey.net/jsbm/index.html [pentestmonkey.net]
Safari 4 seems very fast when its freshly started, but slows down a lot when it's been open a while...
Re: (Score:2)
Not embarassing at all - to Microsoft, at least. They just don't care. So long as they have the lion's share of the market, they are perfectly happy with any sad performance that people are willing to settle for.
Spread the word far and wide. Tell your family, tell your freind, tell your enemies, IE sucks. When they stop using it, everyone will benefit, including MS. If MS wants to keep market share, they'll invest time and money into making a better browser. If they don't want to keep market share, th
Re:SunSpider says it all... (Score:4, Insightful)
As with any benchmark, important questions to ask:
1) Does this measure things that are actually relevant? (For sunspider the answer is
"maybe".)
2) Does it do a good job of measuring them? (For sunspider the answer is "maybe".)
3) Do the scores on the subtests of the benchmark mean anything? (For sunspider, as for
any benchmark, the answer is "only if you're doing that exact thing that the subtest is
doing").
None of which makes V8 slower than what IE is using, of course, across a broad range of loads. But it's pretty easy to write script that's 4x slower in V8 than in Firefox... or 10x faster (as the benchmark above). What really matters to a web page developer is how fast the different browsers run his code, not how fast they run benchmarks. What matters to a user is how fast the different browsers run the code of the sites he visits, not how fast they run benchmarks. Benchmarks are a poor proxy for both, especially when dealing with these early-stage JITs. It's pretty easy to tweak the code just a bit and have it jit a lot worse (or a lot better). It's also pretty easy to tweak the JIT to make particular tests faster, since so much of the game is various heuristics.
All of which is to say that better sunspider performance may or may not translate into better performance on _your_ code, and in fact improving sunspider performance may regress performance on your code if the JIT is seriously being tuned for sunspider...
Does it really matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried to do something pretty seemingly simple [ark42.com] with Javascript (1 draggable line to redraw the background colors of the table), and it drags its ass on IE8. It is fast and smooth in FF/Opera/etc, but with so many people using IE still, it hardly matters.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't got hand-in-hand with script performance, by any means. Firefox has much faster scripting performance than Opera, and somewhat slower css/layout performance in many cases, for example.
One pice of advice for users (Score:2)
If you want to install the new Firefox 3.5, you are well advised to remove all traces of previous versions. Otherwise your new install will have bizarre behavior like failing to open up links from websites like digg [slashdot.org] and being slow.
What I did was to uninstall it through the Windows XP control panel and delete all instances of Mozilla and Firefox in the registry. This is one bit of info developers should have informed us about.
Does anyone know how to use its geo-location feature?
By the way, it does not scor
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your experience was not mine. I installed 3.5 over the older version, and have had no problems at all so far. I've visited Digg, Facebook, plus many other sites, no worries (so far?). /shrug
I don't care... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care how fast it loads webpages. What I want to see is a browser that isn't riddled with bugs and easy ways for badware to end up infecting my machine. I'll gladly surf on the slowest browser in the world if it really is proven to be the most secure. So what if I save a few seconds surfing web pages. That is nothing compared to the hours spent trying to get rid of a virus/trojan/keylogger/etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Gecko FTW (Score:2)
From just poking around the web with gecko and webkit browsers I found a bunch of pages that looked fine rendered by gecko, but had elements in the wrong place or other visual problems rendered with webkit. The majority of sites render fine in both, but not all and other then acid tests I haven't visited any that rendered better in webkit.
I'd rather have the page look good than be super fast, so I'll stick with firefox until sites render as well in webkit or firefox becomes unusable slow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
From just poking around the web with gecko and webkit browsers I found a bunch of pages that looked fine rendered by gecko, but had elements in the wrong place or other visual problems rendered with webkit. The majority of sites render fine in both, but not all and other then acid tests I haven't visited any that rendered better in webkit.
I'd rather have the page look good than be super fast, so I'll stick with firefox until sites render as well in webkit or firefox becomes unusable slow.
Yes, but the Acid3 scores and JS benchmarks show that webkit is better. Now just stop using the internet and switch to using Acid3 and JS benchmarks for all your computer needs and you'll be fixed.
The downside is... (Score:2)
The downside is... that almost nothing works with it; hardly any code has been ported for themes, plug-ins or add-ons, so you're basically starting back at square one again.
I tried it here on 64-bit Linux, using the Adobe flash plugin and got dozens of crashes/hangs (even the bug-reporting feature hung, and had to be xkill'd off). It's faster, but it crashes a LOT more than 3.0.11 for me, given my current use of the browser as a productivity tool.
Those crashes were with no plugins installed at all. My 3
Re: (Score:2)
Did you
or
If not, that could be your problem right there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, nor do I have to. I was starting with a clean profile, as I do with every Firefox version I test.
The problem isn't the profile itself, it's that the plug-ins and add-ons literally do not install, because they query the browser version and refuse to do so, unless I mangle them and force it... and that's not going to be met with success, if the code in the plug-in itself needs to be updated for the new Firefox codebase.
It'll take a few months before everything coalesces back to a place where 3.0.x plu
Bias towards graphical browsers (Score:2, Funny)
Seattle (Score:4, Funny)
Presumably in Seattle it could tell you where your nearest 100 Starbucks are...
Talking javascript (Score:2)
Compared to the current Chrome 2, Firefox 3.5 with JIT enabled gets 1/2 the speed here [jupiter909.com], 7/8th the speed here [jupiter909.com], but about 2x the speed here [jupiter909.com]. That's a much better result than ff3.1!
Well done, guys.
No speed improvement for those on x86_64 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No speed improvement for those on x86_64 (Score:4, Informative)
Chrome fastest? (Score:2)
Re:Sickeningly biased. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Firefox is the fastest fully open-source browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is the fastest fully open-source browser.
Out of how many?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox is the fastest fully open-source browser.
Chrome has a very small amount of closed-source code in it, but Chromium is certainly fully open-source, and it's identical to Chrome for performance purposes. So no, Chromium is the fastest fully open-source browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention ad-block...No need to wait for the overloaded ad servers to be queried and spit some vile dreck into your browser that your computer needs to render only to annoy you.
Fortunately there is also safari adblock and chrome adblock so the field is pretty level in that regard. But the parents point is still valid, that speed comes from filtering out the non-desired cruft.
Sheldon
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The only website I've come across that Opera doesn't render properly is Slashdot. By which, the correct statement is actually Slashdot "can't be rendered in anything correctly".
(Opera doesn't crash for me, either, discounting the Flash plugin that crashes, and Adobe have yet to fix. Works fine now that I've uninstalled it.)