100 replies to this topic 5 votes

[wellofsouls]

PreKe, on 03 September 2010 - 14:11, said:

Wow, I didn't know Opera was still ahead of Chrome. I would have thought that Chrome would be well ahead of Opera by now in the performance department.

they are neck on neck, with different systems, you may see Opera or Chrome leading the race, both are getting faster and faster consistently.

[thealexweb]

I.E's security problem is and always is that Microsoft doesn't like issuing out of band security patches so Microsoft will usually only patch a security hole at the start of a month. Mozilla for instance would patch a hole as soon as they can. So I.E. is exposed to vulnerabilities for longer.

[+Elliott]

wellofsouls, on 03 September 2010 - 14:17, said:

they are neck on neck, with different systems, you may see Opera or Chrome leading the race, both are getting faster and faster consistently.

That's also a comparison of the stable Chrome version vs. a pre-release of Opera.

[Solid Knight]

kInG aLeXo, on 20 July 2010 - 20:05, said:

Well..

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Hitler was well known for raging about software.

[Subject Delta]

Kirkburn, on 03 September 2010 - 13:33, said:

Which version of the IE9 preview was that?

4, The last one released

PreKe, on 03 September 2010 - 14:11, said:

Wow, I didn't know Opera was still ahead of Chrome. I would have thought that Chrome would be well ahead of Opera by now in the performance department.

To be honest, it's close enough to be within the margin of error, the performance of the 2 is very similar, in real world usage though, I find Chrome's cache management to be a bit better

Elliott, on 03 September 2010 - 14:21, said:

That's also a comparison of the stable Chrome version vs. a pre-release of Opera.

10.6 and 10.7 are about the same in performance terms so it doesn't make an awful lot of difference to be honest

[bluefisch200]

thealexweb, on 20 July 2010 - 17:30, said:

I disagree with this, it seems IE constantly needs security patches, Chrome's sandbox seems to be more secure.

And IE doesn't run in a Sandbox...oh wait...

[LaP]

MS Pandya, on 20 July 2010 - 18:05, said:

but IE9 is the fastest and most secure browser there,

Faster than what ? Browsers already released or in beta state ?

You do realise that by the time IE 9 will be relased new browsers will be out to compete against it. it's not like IE 9 will be released next week. Firefox team has lot of time to polish 4. Google will probably has the time to release 2 new versions of Chrome at this rate ...

[TDT]

I'm actually betting on MS this time. I like Chrome, it's my only browser, I hate FF because it takes much longer to start and it's a memory hog, but I really feel MS will do very well with IE9. They're attitude has changed in so many ways, and they're doing many good things (Windows 7, Bing, Windows Phone, etc.) lately. They won't go wrong with IE9, and yes, I dare to say that this will be a serious problem for other browser developers.

[torrentthief]

IE9 final won't be out for months, i'm sure there will be 2 or more public beta's, they won't just bugfix they will certainly improve performance during that time, IE9 won't be faster than chrome7 final but as long as its of a similar speed to firefox 4 final i'll be happy. Features and standards support is more important than speed. IE9 still has got a LONG way to go in regards to html5 standards support, their benchmarks and tables of supported features are heavily biased and in reality are the lowest of the modern browsers, they have several months to fix this though so i'm not that worried.

[bjoswald]

I love Chrome so much that it'll take a ****ing miracle to convince me to switch. Especially from Microsoft. Their track record (excluding Windows 7) has to be one of the worst in the industry to me, especially with that loudmouthed hothead Ballmer.

I lost all hope for Firefox since 3.6. It's still a decent browser, but it's behind-the-times and slow. I have tried the latest betas, and it's still slower than Chrome. Plus, it takes longer to start and I hate having to depend on extensions for functionality that Chrome made standard (searching from the address bar, better form auto-fill, etc). As with IE, Mozilla is pretty much dead-in-the-water unless they can come up with something revolutionary.

[LaP]

torrentthief, on 03 September 2010 - 21:19, said:

IE9 final won't be out for months, i'm sure there will be 2 or more public beta's, they won't just bugfix they will certainly improve performance during that time, IE9 won't be faster than chrome7 final but as long as its of a similar speed to firefox 4 final i'll be happy. Features and standards support is more important than speed. IE9 still has got a LONG way to go in regards to html5 standards support, their benchmarks and tables of supported features are heavily biased and in reality are the lowest of the modern browsers, they have several months to fix this though so i'm not that worried.

Speed is not that much important for web but it is for internal web apps. Clients have some weird needs like the abilty to show all 10 000+ results from a search with some JS interactivity on each row. It's not something you let internaut doing (pagination would be used) but for internal apps when they client ask for it well ... This produce big tables and IE 7- were really slow at drawing those pages and scrolling was not smooth at all. IE 8 is better but still not in the same league as Opera and Chrome. It's not that far from FF 3 tough.

We had clients who actually needed to install Chrome for some employees lately cause the version of IE they were using was too slow for some features of the applications we built. And i'm not talking about slow badly coded JS code there but simple web pages with big tables and simple JS code to highlight lines and such.