Mozilla's Firefox 3.7 looks set to take a step closer to competing with Google's Chrome and Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 in the speed stakes, according to results of a pre-release version tested by a browser enthusiast. A blogger at My Outsourced Brain put a very rough-round-the-edges version of Firefox 3.7 through its paces …
The problem isn't multicore support
On my old Linux single processor/single core box, Chrome runs significantly faster than the current release of Firefox. It appears that Chrome is simply a better written piece of code.
Whether Mozilla efforts to improve multicore support also include improvements to the single core system would be worth knowing, but that would appear to be an area that is in real need of some optimisation.
Firefox 3.7 is available here for Windows, Mac and Linx though is in Alpha state.
makes no difference you have to sort its bugs out dramatically including the memory issue which still has not been fixed was suposed to be fixed in 3.5 or 3.6 whatever version of it was. i dont like ie internet explorer at all due to past versions but im willing to try any browser and im using ie8 on windows 7 and it works pretty well suprizangly
Not sure about the reference in the article to FF needing to catch up with IE8, on my XP Pro quad core box IE8 is 3783.8ms, FF 3.5.6 is 852.0ms and Chrome is 357.6ms. So a 3x speed up in 3.7 would put FF and chrome on a par.
FF = Losing it
I am now using IE 8... I know, I'm sorry, but Firefox (3.5.6) is a slow, crashing bloated piece of rubbish and is driving me up the wall. Never mind its memory issues where it can sometimes climb to over half a Gb.
Come on Mozilla, get it right please.
Re : FF = Losing it
Well I often try very hard but I never see more than ~200MB memory usage with several instances running with multiple tabs. That's on various Linux machines though.
Works fine for me and millions of others
Perhaps you just don't have a clue. All this crap about memory issues is odd too.
I can only guess that your and their hardware is a big old pile of shit.
yeah good luck with that buddy...
Paris - because she sucked too...
I like Firefox and I've used it for years but I'm thinking of getting something else for the kids to use. If they play games on the CBeebies website it seems to eat up all the memory until the computer virtually hangs.
Are you moaning about FF...
...or your add-ons? More often than not it's the add-ons that are at fault. I don't know how you determine which one is screwing your interwebs pleasures though.
I am running FF here with a bunch of add-ons (AdBlockPlus, NoScript, GreaseMonkey, CookieCutter, CustomizeGoogle, FireGrstures,TinyUrl, XMarks, WebDeveloper; to name a few) and FF is running with a lower memory and CPU footprint when active than Miro when inactive and minimised!
I agree that allowing an add-on to kill the browser (and not having an obvious way of monitoring add-ons) is pretty poor; but you can hardly blame Mozilla for the actions of others.
FF also wins in one other big way. IT IS NOT IE! It is also standards complaint (unlike any version of IE, including 8). For those reasons I would us FF, Opera, Safari or Konqueror before IE (I would not touch Chrome as I don't know [yet] what spyware it may contain).
It's just a shame that the corporate world demands IE support rather than standards support, forcing poor dweebs like me to code for the shit that is IE6.
vast speed improvements over the browser's predecessors
They'd have to try pretty hard to be worse. Never mind multi-core, even multi-threading would help :(
safari on 3yrs old imac
gives 580ms on the benchmark.... (2 core, 2gb, 2.1ghz, snow leopard)
Plenty of bugs left to fix in current version
The one I hate, which WAS fixed in an earlier release; is having web-page files "stuck" downloading; hours after you left the website they are related to.
Most people wouldn't notice, but I use an interface bar that shows the status of every thread being downloaded and regularly get a stuck "safebrowsing.clients.google.com" file amongst others.
(Got one right now, even though I havent used Google search since early this morning.
We're still on version 3.5.7, concentrate on getting 3.6 out before you start feeding us titbits about the release after the next one.
In version 10.2 we'll have realistic 3D holographic images. All together now ... Wooooooo!
You might be...
but 3.6 is a branch - 3.7 is a build directly from the trunk that will become 1.9.3, so "they" aren't feeding you anything, someone has just checkout the trunk and built it.
Tried IE8 last week - not for actual browsing but to try and give all these apps which insist on embedding IE something that's capable of at least basic ad blocking - and it put my HD's into endless thrash mode, bringing my Q9550 system to its knees. Not nice, not worth my time finding out why, annnnd... >clickety< ...uninstall.
Oh, plus it made itself the default browser without asking. I fucking HATE that.
> Oh, plus it made itself the default browser without asking.
Sounds like something the EU would love to pound µ$oft for. File a formal complaint...
It did ask.......
"Oh, plus it made itself the default browser without asking. I fucking HATE that."
Previously it asked "IE is not your default browser, would you like to set it as your default browser?" and you clicked "Don't ask me again" and pressed "Yes", so don't blame IE for something *you* did.
Anyhow, Chrome 4.0249.43: 386.2ms
IE8 : 4003.4ms
I don't use Firefox, and never will.
"Previously it asked "IE is not your default browser, would you like to set it as your default browser?" and you clicked "Don't ask me again" and pressed "Yes", so don't blame IE for something *you* did."
I'm not. I don't care for your tone either. Let me explain for you.
1) Clean install XP, apply SP3 which includes IE7
2) Run IE7 once, to download Firefox.
3) Install Firefox
4) On first load, Firefox asks to be made default browser, I confirm
5) Never use IE7 again, except where the rendering engine gets used by other apps, and IEtab plugin in Firefox.
6) Months later, install IE8 as above
7) IE makes itself the default browser without asking. The reason I know this is because the first time I start Firefox after installing IE8, it prompted: "Firefox is not your default browser..." etc.
Microsoft got its knuckles rapped for the "express install" option making IE8 the default browser without asking, and they have supposedly stopped this behaviour. The thing is, I didn't even use express setup.
On top of all that (and without actually confirming this, so apologies if I'm wrong): contrary to what you say, I'm pretty sure IE's default browser prompt doesn't have a checkbox for "Don't ask me again"; it has a checkbox for "Perform this check each time I start Internet Explorer" which is not the same thing.
Great and what about x86-64??
Besides the addition of more cores, will anything be done to address the 64bit Windows environment??
Who needs to address that much ram in a web application FFS ?
The same people that need multi-core support, obviously.
Cause one multi-GHz processing unit with 3.5GB of memory just isn't enough to render webpages faster than you can read 'em anymore.
Doesn't have a spell check though, suprizangly
I disable it. It never runs except in a vm on rare occasions. JS is necessary sometimes but mostly it's just a security risk. Crank up the speed and more idiot web managers/designers/commissioners will let it in. If mozilla issued guidelines on JS (non-)use the web would be a better and safer place.
I decided to try Chrome and was pleased to see that it has Adblock and Flashblock plugins - but no NoScript! Could this be because it lets us to block Google-Analytics? Bye-bye Chrome.
Unfortunately BlueGreen all you have done here is prove how little you understand the web today, and especially how little you understand Firefox.
The real irony of your comment is that disabling JS in FF only disables it loading from web pages, not JS loaded via chrome:// URIs. The entire FF UI and almost all extensions make enormous use of JS - so disabled or not - care or not - you benefit greatly from multi-threading FF and esp. in their JS engine Tracemonkey.
I'm not complaining about speed but security. Again: security, not speed.
I am vaguely aware that FF uses jscript with xul internally, I don't know what the chrome stuff is nor its security implications (if any). I'll take a look.
If you feel I don't "understand the web today" then please be more precise - what exactly don't I get? That unnecessary scripting must be used? That security comes last?
Never mind the benchmarks, feel the features.
I'll start using another, faster, browser if it does what Firefox does. Until I can have adblock plus etc in chrome/safari/other, I'll be sticking with FF.
How can you have meaningful benchmarks when you aren't comparing like for like?
Is the author confused or something?
Java benchmarks are fairly meaningless
If you have too many tabs open in Chrome the tabs become too small, and you have to identify the tab you need by its icon. This is fine if you remember the icons and if the site has a special icon, but Mozilla's button to show a list of tabs is much better. The adblocking plugin for Chrome is bollocks since it only hides the adverts. Likewise the Chrome download manager is quite crap, it doesn't tell you what speed the download is.
I tried to like Chrome but it doesn't feel complete yet.
Catching up with Opera you mean.
I think you may be mistaken, you mean catching up with Opera 10.5. As we saw before christmas, Opera's latest development release is faster than anything else out there.
Chrome / Firefox / Sunspider
Firefox 3.0.16 -- 5349.8ms
Firefox 3.5.6 -- 2013.8ms
Firefox 3.7a1 -- 1405.8ms
Google Chrome 220.127.116.11 -- 729.6ms
Ubuntu Jaunty x86 running on a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+
That's with ad block plus installed (no noscript, it breaks the web) on all 3 firefox.
Personal choice: I run firefox 3.7. Chrome is unstable with flash sites, and likes to flicker when redrawing the screen.
"Never mind multi-core, even multi-threading would help :("
@AC "IE 8 fast?" I agree, I don't know what El Reg's talking about, I've never heard anyone claim IE is fast (admittedly IE8 benchmarks are better than 6 or 7, but still). I think IE8 might by multithreaded though, so that's probably what this "catching up" refers to.
Re: IE 8 speed
IE8 starts up faster than FF and has since release. FF is just getting fat and slow. If they trim it down and fix the memory issue it will be great again.
However, until other browsers let me use add-ins like adblock, noscript etc I'll keep on with the Fox.
I wouldn't agree they're the same, even in this case. Multicore lets them do several things genuinely in parallel, multithreading would allow one tab to wait for something to complete without every other tab and window pausing until it finishes.
IE8 starts up faster than FF
Not really, IE8 draws a window on the screen faster than FF but then sits there for six months while it thinks about loading your homepage - loading up the GUI is not the same as loading up the program - I've managed to hang IE on a few occasions by trying to cancel the homepage load and go somewhere else (then it refuses to load anything).
Even when IE IS loaded up - the time it takes to open a new tab could almost be measured on a geological scale - several species of weird lizard-men could evolve and become extinct in the amount of time it takes to open a new tab in IE.
You're right though, Firefox isn't perfect, I really hate the way it handles caching for instance and in many ways Opera is better (especially once you've tweaked opera:config) but, like you, I use too many Firefox add-ons to change unless I have to.
Forget speed, what about memory?
If it wasn't for the vast amount of (incredibly useful) extensions that the Gecko engine has I'd bin it for a 100% Webkit environment this very minute. It's always been the worst in terms of performance, but worse, has an approach to memory management that makes a collander look solid: 10 tabs and a couple of hundred refreshes later and I'm in swapland.
These leaks have been with FF for years, when will someone get around to fixing them?
I'm not trying to be funny, but I've never really had an issue with memory footprint with FFffffffffox, on my 16GB of RAM workstation, 6 gig gaming rig, 4 gig laptop or one gig netbook. Sometimes various of those machines have uptime in weeks too (when I need them for something that outweighs the guilt of not switching off at the wall.
Maybe my useage patterns are freakish- it's possible... but how do I trigger these leaks? I run up to date release versions on Linux, MacOSX and Windows without problems- common plugins between them are noscript, adblock, and chromatabs plus. Tell me what to poke with a stick please, that I may be enlightened.
Memory issues and random thoughts
eeePC 901 running XP. 1Gb RAM, no swapfile. Latest & current "normal" release of Firefox.
Browsing, various sites, multiple tabs. After a while all the pictures will vanish - this includes toolbar buttons. Then in a bit FF will "die" with a "Sorry!" message and a request to send a bug report. Meanwhile the Windows '!' icon appears on the taskbar to tell me that Windows is out of memory.
Might be the browser. Might be an add-on. I blame the _browser_ because it cannot tell me otherwise. Really, would it not be hard to add a "memtrace:dump" pseudo-URL to report on what memory claims are active by the browser and by the add-ons? Is this rubbish endemic to Windows? God I miss the RISC OS taskmanager. If I add up all the memory allocations reported by ProcessExplorer, I'd have some 6Gb installed! The numbers just don't add up, and it would be really nice to open the pseudo-URL, see that add-on "X" is claiming 80% of the memory, and uninstall it. Or maybe the browser is just full of memory leaks?
I put up with this because:
1. FF runs the add-ons that provide both a sense of security, and an effective filter against web advertising Whatever it is, I don't want it, thanks.
2. FF will return with tabs loaded, so it's at best a minute of inconvenience. Reload it and use the time for tea&pee.
3. Chrome? Hell no. Perhaps if I *trusted* Google I might trust Chrome, but I don't.
4. MSIE8? Everybody is right. It loads in a flash, seriously. Set "about:blank" as the intro page it appears so damn quick it makes most of the rest of Windows look slow. Sadly, the slowness seeps in when you actually try to use MSIE8 to do anything. And what's this with "Compatibility view"? If they stuck to everybody else's standards instead of inventing their own, we wouldn't need this. And, for what it is worth, the MSIE8 UI is bloody awful. Moving the menus, the reload/stop icon, restricting how likely you are to ever undo their stupidity. Way to make a visual metaphor then cock it up. Nice work Microsoft. Oh, and for the nerdy ones among you, using the WebControl ActiveX to parse custom URLs (like "myapp:blahblah" which is picked up by your app to feed data to the web control on the fly) - how badly did MSIE8 break it?
How quickly on a browser can you open a tab and go to Google? Under a second on Firefox. ^T, type 'G', it autosuggests Google, press Enter, done - there it is.
another firefox patch then
and 1 more, and again,again,again,again,again,again,again,again etc,etc etc,
actually, I reckon that FF actually stands for fuckin+ fixme.
Multi-core support ... because some IT directors think they can run their Enterprise Class Application in a browser.
That is the kind of stupidity that never ceases to amaze me. They fail to realize the Classy application will run in the same "context" as JS-pr0n ... that should worry them.
Errmmm....Moz point out a flaw in his cunning plan.
Justin Dolske says... January 5, 2010 7:18 AM
It's fantastic that you're excited about the early 3.7 development work, but there are a few issues with your post that I think should be clarified...
1) There's no need to compile your own 3.7pre build -- we make nightly builds available (see http://nightly.mozilla.org/). It helps if people use these, because these builds keep themselves up-to-date automatically, and will report crash data to us (opt-in, natch) so we can catch problems early.
2) Doing your own compile for performance comparisons usually isn't a good idea, we've already spent a lot of time tweaking how things are built (eg https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409803). Your inclusion of "--enable-optimize=-O2" has, in fact, likely made your build slower than the official builds! If you're really keen on doing your own build, the steps at https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_build are really all that's needed. We don't recommend people put extra stuff in their mozconfig unless there's a very specific reason for it.
3) The Electrolysis work to date has largely focused on backend work, mobile (Fennec) work, and getting plugins (eg Flash) running in a separate process. The work on, err, electrolyzing Firefox itself is just ramping up. So, unfortunately you're not really testing Electrolysis yet.
4) Electrolysis itself won't really help with things like Sunspider -- speedups there are due to improvements in the JS engine itself. Electrolysis is more about stability and security, and performance when running multiple tasks on a multicore box.
5) As other comments noted, multiprocess != multithreaded. Firefox is already multithreaded (eg, top reports 18 threads in my particular case), and web sites can already make use of that with web workers (see http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/07/working-smarter-not-harder/).
In any case, your basic point is correct. There's a lot of exciting things in the Firefox pipeline, and 2010 is going to be a very awesome year. :-)
Until the other browsers offer the same addons I don't care how slow FF is!
I get a sufficient speed up through the sheer fact that FF addons filter most of the crap I don't even want to download.
Get me Adblock, Noscript, Surfclarity, Xmarks, and friends for IE, Chrome or Opera and I'll look at them. Until then, don't bother me.
Who needs addons?
Adblock in Opera just use the built in blocker.
Opera link for bookmarks,,,,, etc.. etc.