Make shopping quicker
by not going shopping.
You had the temerity to make the suggestion that IE was anything other than an abomination that exists solely for the detriment of mankind.
Honestly, you ought to have known better.
I call bullshit.
I love Firefox but talk is cheap, and we have heard this "tracing" bullshit before.
Look just admit that you got it wrong the first time, there is no shame in that... just draw a line under it and move on.
Also much as I would love firefox to outperform Chrome they are no where near yet.
Does it still work with noscript?
Or more properly, does noscript still kill it? If not, I'll stick with 3.x, thanks.
At a quick guess, the number of times when a script is used unnecessarily is about 90%. Times when a script delivers something useful? About 1%, I think...
Don't care how fast it works. Do not want.
I'm running Firefox 4 beta 3, and it works fine with NoScript.
According to NoScript, there are 15 scripts on this page alone, belonging to El Reg, QuantServe and Google Ad Services. There's also a QuantCast tracking cookie.
Ironically, the NoScript homepage itself has 22 scripts and a Google Ad Tracker.
What is the other 9%?
I cant trust NoScript after the Adblock Plus debarcle. RequestPolicy is good though.
NoScript is a security app so trust is vital.
The Faster You Make The Engine
It's getting better all the time...
I've been using the Firefox betas and nightlies and I can attest that the JS performance has been gradually getting better.
Also, enabling Direct2D and DirectWrite significantly improves drawing performance.
For example (in one of the IE9 tests): http://i.imgur.com/Xlzaa.jpg
And the same test in IE9: http://i.imgur.com/IBaF6.jpg (even if you reduce the window size it still doesn't achieve 60fps)
My point was regarding "Tracing" - Overall it will be faster.
...with code from Chromium.
And I run the dailies as well and I agree it is better... but not "fast" yet.
No one cares about 'generations' anymore. That's *such* a 90s thing.
All we want to know is how many milliseconds it is ahead of the competition. We don't care how or why, just make it as fast as IE at least.
Slowest commonly used browser?
Hmm, I used Safari 5 the other day on this MacBook (on which I usually use Firefox 4.0 beta), and Safari seemed hugely slower than Firefox to me. Really sluggish. Couldn't stand it. So I looked to see how it is supposed to compare. (Incidentally, I've found IE8 to be all but unusable too due to similar sloth, on a recentish Windows notebook which runs FF well.)
Only intel compatible CPUs ?
The 'nitro' bit creates assembler (ie machine code), what CPUs can this create assembler for ? I assume x86, but what about things like ARMs ?
please get rid of this title thing
Given that both Apple and Google (see WebKit) use it in their mobile OSs, which run only on ARM, I'd say it's more than probable that it is capable of generating ARM code.
That's all well and good but I'd rather they concentrated on improving the launch time, to be honest. It's currently unacceptable.
Try BarTab - instant startup 32 tabs atm
And they are working on startup.
Damn You Google!
Firefox and I, we were _happy_. Then along came Chrome and its selection of shiny little convenient plugins for accessing Gmail, Google Docs and Google Bookmarks, taking advantage of my Google whoreness to steal me away.
Now I spend my days with Chrome, but can't dump Firefox altogether because of dev stuff like Live HTTP Headers and WML Browser, for which there is (and in the later case, will ever be) no Extension equivalent.
Oh my heart, torn between user preferences and developer needs!
Not only is talk cheap, so is getting the damn release out already to prove it. lol
Reliability, Security & Speed
...are my priorities and in that order - and security extends beyond what third parties might want to do with or to me, it extends to the reputability of the vendor. I will trust Google and MS only as a last resort and as infrequently as possible.
Is this a concern either for implementors or web app developers, or am I alone?
..your webbrowser will replace all those win32-crap-apps which corporate employees use to enter their timesheets, enter orders, enter customer complaints, make flight reservations, check inventory, initiate calls to unsupecting people, do some accounting etc
Other people will use JS to run Games, Email, exhibit themselves on FB, some sort of simple office (cue Google Docs) and even simple image manipulation programs.
That is why JS performance will be important. JSP, ASP are simply a pain in the backside when it comes to ergonomics, because of the roundtrip to the server and so on.
".your webbrowser will replace all those win32-crap-apps which corporate employees use to enter their timesheets, enter orders, enter customer complaints, make flight reservations, check inventory, initiate calls to unsupecting people, do some accounting etc"
Even in the case of new platforms - such as the various mobile phone OS's - where they would have had the chance to rethink everything from scratch - people still build applications that overwhelmingly run locally. It's 2010 and browsers are still browsers.
Not Necessarily Cloudy
In one scenario your servers would still reside in your corpo network and employees would download a JS app that would communicate with the server using https/REST (or Web Services for those who love huge specs).
My feeling is that deploying firefox or chrome is vastly easier than deploying 25 corporate apps on all PCs with each having its own DLL and Registry Hell issues...
Important JS Applications
Quake in JS:
Meh, let them slug it out.
Anyone with any sense or calls themselves is not using Chrome, IE or Firefox anyway.
Opera is where the smart people browse, it's got NoScript, AdBlock+ Greasemonkey and Bookmarksync all built in, no need for silly extensions. It also does Mail, Newsgroups, RSS, IRC and a load of other stuff.
It's also faster than all all the others too, and looks better. It's also got the best track record on security, and it's standards compliance is the best out there.
Who had 15 hours?
I did wonder how long it would take for one of the Peoples Front of Opera (or is it the Opera People's Front?) to bounce in and remind us all how stupid we all are for not using it.
I'm surprised it took this long to be honest!
Yet no one still cares about it, and will never care about it.
It's only real use to the wider world is to be a development hotpot where the big players borrow good ideas from.
Why all the Opera hate?
I don't get why some people want to have a go every time Opera gets mentioned. Is it based on some deep seated insecurity?
I use Opera quite a bit, these days I find it stable and fast. I like it, but I'm not interested in trying to persuade you to use it if you don't want to.
I think you are missing the point Tim. I don't hate Opera, I do hate its smugtard users who use any browser discussion as a platform for calling everyone else inferior as they use 'the bestestest browser ever' which you would 'have to be retarded not to use'. And there always is one.
The scary part is Operas only noticeable market share increase was when it was offered free on the Wii, for one quarter only.
Opera has always been ahead of the curve feature wise, but always been irrelevant user wise. They never won over a sizeable share of techies, which is where Firefox succeeded, and Chrome (in a less significant way). Chrome just has the Google juggernaut of promotion to help it out.
Nope, it doesn't have NoScript or ABP. I'm getting tired of posting this reply to ignorant Opera users, but, even though I'm 90% certain you're trolling (the giveaway was the "looks better"), but I feel like it needs to be driven home that the functionality you think is NoScript is not NoScript.
'and even questions how reliable these benchmarks really are.'
Thats right, if you don't like the results, blame the testing methods.
How about the real world experience of...well everyone in the entire world (except the browser deniers of the Opera Peoples Front)
As others have said, stick to fixing the bugs because you are still one of the best browsers around, but your not going to pass chromium in the speed stakes.
Firefox doesn't like my laptop
Not quick for me...
I've tried everything I can think of, including a few completely fresh installs, but the problem remains.
He's right about the developer tools
None of the other browsers come anywhere close. Firefox is a bit sluggish starting all right, but once it's going the differences between it and the others for everyday browsing are not really noticeable, so I use it for that too.
http://arewefastyet.com/ <-- look at this, it's interesting
FF is nice, but its speed will never surpass V8. No offense, that's just my opinion. :)
The only reason I like FF is because of the tons of Addons (it's truly impressive :D).
I just use Chrome. The UI is cleaner and it's faster. Not to mention built-in Flash and HTML5 support (coughH264cough).
Don't get me wrong, I love FF. It's a nice browser. :)
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...