1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News IE trails browser benchmarks

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 30 Jan 2009.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. naokaji

    naokaji whatever

    Joined:
    8 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    10
    I think it was wrong to include opera 10 as it's a alpha version, they should have included 9.6 or so instead.
     
  3. alpaca

    alpaca llama eats dremel

    Joined:
    27 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    45
    the graph shows firefox scoring around 1.5 sec, and the text says 2.5

    which to believe?
     
  4. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    124
    It's not so strange, that the regular WebKit engine fares slightly worse than one used in Chrome, since rendering engine as such isn't tested. What is tested is the JScript performance, and Chrome uses its own V8 engine for that. AFAIK, the regular WebKit uses something else.
     
  5. Laitainion

    Laitainion New Member

    Joined:
    16 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    But then it wouldn't have been a test of next generation browsers anymore. Since they're all pre-release, any of them could improve. All this really proves is that Opera and Microsoft have more work to do than the rest.
     
  6. badders

    badders Neuken in de Keuken

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    2,635
    Likes Received:
    72
    Both - 1.5 sec is well under 2.5 sec!
     
  7. Goty

    Goty New Member

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    411
    Likes Received:
    4
    They probably didn't include Safari because the windows version couldn't complete the test without crashing...

    =P
     
  8. perplekks45

    perplekks45 LIKE AN ANIMAL!

    Joined:
    9 May 2004
    Posts:
    5,938
    Likes Received:
    443
    Well, I gave IE8 a try and I think it's far better than IE7 still I'm running FF 3.1 Beta 2 right now.
    And if they wanted to make it a next gen comparison why not include FF 3.2? Opera is alpha so I don't see why not include the 3.2a1pre of FF.

    Might actually give it a try later.
     
  9. C0nKer

    C0nKer New Member

    Joined:
    25 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    329
    Likes Received:
    2
    IMO Chrome is much faster than its competitors. Although a bit buggy.
     
  10. Gremlin

    Gremlin New Member

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    238
    Likes Received:
    2
    i personally think they should either test all betas all alphas or all release candidates otherwise its not really a fair showing imo

    they should also show benchmarks for the current stable versions of said browsers (IE7, Opera 9.xx FF 3.0.xxetc etc)
     
  11. Nicb

    Nicb Let's discuss among ourselves

    Joined:
    12 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    211
    Likes Received:
    4
    Firefox RULES!!!! and thats it,......done......no more talking about it. Joking :p
     
  12. UncertainGod

    UncertainGod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    26
    I think the reason they tested the versions they did is because these are the first versions to include the javascript acceleration technologies.
     
  13. robyholmes

    robyholmes I'm under your desk...

    Joined:
    17 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    100
    Likes Received:
    3
    Isn't FF3.1 in beta 2? And doesn't Beta 2 have the new Java engine on default and beta 1 doesn't? I think they need to improve on which versions they are using.
     
  14. Mongoose132

    Mongoose132 Duckmad

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    780
    Likes Received:
    22
    <3 Chrome, and it's fastest - Just so simple, it seems like opening an explorer window to surf the web, Firefox, Ie and Opera all seem far too cluttered when/if you go back to them :l
     
  15. eXpander

    eXpander New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    I`m also a FF fan, been using it for 1year, but I uninstalled version 3 after 4 days. Got really pissed when I was dld-ing a 1.4GB file and while browsing, FF crashed and my dld stopped (I already got 1GB down). And I couldn't resume it, so had to wait another hour for it to re-dld it.
    Is very buggy and crashes alot. I can`t do a decent 5min browse without it going down.

    I switched to Chrome, which is much more stable.
     
  16. thehippoz

    thehippoz New Member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    5,780
    Likes Received:
    174
    you guys should try the 64 bit version of IE in vista.. it's just like opening a window- just most of the plugins today are still 32-bit =\ I use firefox here with pimpzilla- but if you write websites, IE can be a pain in the ass as it displays things differently.. the only other one you really have to worry about is safari.. usually write for gecko browsers then come back and put in any extra for IE

    java performance.. I used to do some java years back- but mainly flash nowdays.. runescape is java =] it runs fullscreen too anfy rolled over twice off his fat wife when he saw those guys in the uk write that :D
     
  17. ssj12

    ssj12 Member

    Joined:
    12 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    why was FF3.1b1 used when FF3.1b2 has been out for a while?
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page