Mozilla: Spidermonkey ATE Apple's JavaScriptCore, THRASHED Google V8 Mozilla Distinguished Engineer Robert O’Callahan reports that the Spidermonkey JavaScript engine, used by the Firefox web browser, has surpassed the performance of Google’s V8 engine (used by Chrome) and Apple’s JavaScript Core (used by Safari) on three popular benchmarks: Mozilla’s own Kraken, Webkit’s SunSpider and Google’s …
Agreed! All the speed in the world doesn't change the fact that Australis is a hideous affront to everything Mozilla stands for (and its plummeting market share shows that I'm far from being the only one who feels this way). I just need to wait for the newer Spidermonkey version to be added onto Pale Moon...
I dunno, those tests are checking for memory usage after a limited number of actions rather than memory leaks, and even then they show Firefox and IE (though not Chrome) aren't able to return to the memory usage they started off with. While it would require targeted testing, that does at least suggest there's some kind of memory leak in IE and FF, and if it continued could end up with their baseline memory use increasing with usage (which is what was always complained about)
I run Windows, Mac, and iOS but what we use is irrelevant. Nobody in the world would claim Windows wasn't the dominant OS of internet-connected computers, by a long way. It _might_ not be the market leader overall when you factor mobile, but then mobile don't run OSX or Linux... so either they should be benchmarking on Android or Windows.
"...so either they should be benchmarking on Android or Windows."
Or Windows should have some variant to run under Linux and Mac, Android is Unix after all (or maybe "JavNix"?). Of course, this would require Windows to actually port something (God Fear!).
Caring or wanting javascript to run right under Windows is sort of like having butterfly nets on your car...could come in handy right?
Nobody in the world would claim Windows wasn't the dominant OS of internet-connected computers, by a long way
I'll claim that.
Reliable figures are hard to come by, but a couple of estimates I've found online are around 1.4-1.5 billion PCs online; versus around 1.7 billion smartphones, of which nearly none are running Windows. And that's not even taking tablets into account.
Even if those figures are sufficiently off that Windows is ahead, it's not "by a long way".
"Speak for yourself. At home I have Dells running Linux, plus a few Macs running OS X. At work, we have about a 60/40 split Windows/OS X."
He did say "most people", but I guess comprehension is letting you down today.
Just up-voted you but also want to add a comment to note that yours is probably the most relevant comment.
It's such a shame the fanbois and penguins can't see it and feel the need to down vote such an obvious comment. Since the benchmarks could be run on Windows it would give a perspective on performance in more likely execution scenarios. It would also provide an opportunity to compare performance across platform.
This post has been deleted by its author
Firefox 2 to Firefox 3.5 or so were such bloated buggy POS software that Chrome came in and stole the non IE crowd mind share in that window. Firefox has really gotten its shit together since then and is arguably better than chrome/chromium today but hardly anyone but the dedicated fan base has noticed. Arrogance and complacency is not just the domain of proprietary software.
Hardly I remember not being able to download Netscape Navigator 2 at launch for several days due to the load taking their ftp servers down. Think I eventually had to download it using my modem at home like a week later. Historically Netscape 4.7.x was the ultimate example of garbage web browser code (and is perhaps the one piece of user land software most responsible for crashing even proprietary Unixs back in the day). Still Firefox 3 came pretty close to matching it for fail. Fire that bad boy up in a VM to see for yourself but be sure to allocate most of your system memory if you plan on opening more than a few tabs and be sure to save any work on even your host system if you try to run flash.
I disagree with Firefox. They think that marking as invalid root certificates from CAs that are known to provide bogus certificates for MIM attacks is not ok.. and have tried to erase that discussion.
Therefore, I just don't trust them, and I prefer my data to be stolen by google...
on a similar vein i'm sick of recent releases of firefox trying to nanny my connections.
I stopped using firefox on linux as it simply refused to allow me to connect to a webmail portal on a server that I own that had a certificate with an invalid CN name. Yes I expect a warning but I also expect to be able to click through the warning to get to the page I want. I simply couldn't find the setting to allow to me to get through even after disabling all security checks I could find in the menu.
Then last night I was using firefox mobile and was getting OCSP errors that I had to disable in about:config to get it to run.
It simply takes too much tinkering just to browse the web.
If you've set up a certificate to prevent a MITM attack and are being MITM'd, do you expect to be able to click through with a warning as well?
If clients don't get stricter, CAs won't change. If it's your own webmail portal then perhaps Firefox is trying to tell you something.
Hi all,
When I visit my weather site,"accuweather.com" for my mobile location on Chrome beta 39 android, I usually get a full page redirect to a 1/3 rd page ad,no background,and the skip button does not work! This is when I switched to radar from forcast page.
Now on FIREFOX, the advertising stays in place,a banner at top,and a 1/4 page ad at the bottom. No redirects,and no popup ads either. I can navigate all over with no problems, but Chrome,with pop-ups blocked,it don't matter,ads do what they want. Not sure if the two extensions I have on FIREFOX matter,I have https everywhere,and a url checker. So, I like both,but for different reasons.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
