Print 76 comment(s) - last by fox12789.. on Dec 30 at 9:39 AM

Opera 10.5 Alpha features a gorgeous new Aero interface in Windows 7 and is the second fastest browser in 2 of our 3 synthetic benchmarks. We tested the latest test builds of all the major browsers.
We see how fast the latest crop of browsers really are

With search ad-revenue sharing agreements, browsers are becoming a viable business and not just another vaporous business plan.  Our four part series on next generation browsers aired earlier this year and can be found here ([1],[2],[3],[4]).  It looked at a variety of aspects of the next gen browsers -- including security, functionality, standards support, synthetic benchmarks, memory/CPU usage, and real world page load times.  And of course, by now it's quite dated, thanks to the tireless work of engineers at the major browser makers.

This time around we're offering a much briefer update on the state of the browser wars.  We've collected the latest browsers and release candidates -- the just released Opera 10.5 Alpha, Google Chrome 4.0.266 beta, Safari 4.0.4 (531.21.10), Internet Explorer 8, and Firefox 3.6 beta 5.

We ran each browser through three synthetic benchmarks -- FutureMark's PeaceKeeper benchmark, Celtic Kane's new JS Benchmark, and the tried and true Sunspider Javascript Benchmark.  All tests except for the Celtic Kane benchmark were a single run.  The Celtic Kane test was run 10 times and the average score was automatically calculated by the website.  The results are as follows (1st is best, 5th is worst):

Celtic Kane's JS Benchmark (more is better)
1.  Chrome 4 - 432 ± 24
2.  Safari 4 - 297 ± 3
3.  Opera 10.5 alpha - 252 ± 5
4.  Firefox 3.6b5 - 157 ± 4
5.  IE8 - 67 ± 3

PeaceKeeper (more is better)
1.  Chrome 4 - 3984 points
2.  Opera 10.5 alpha - 3597 points
3.  Safari 4 - 3570 points
4.  Firefox 3.6b5 - 2905 points
5.  IE 8 - 1006 points

Sunspider (less is better)
1.  Opera 10.5 alpha - 470.2ms +/- 5.1%
2.  Chrome 4 - 503.8ms +/- 3.9%
3.  Safari 4 - 622.8ms +/- 12.6%
4.  Firefox 3.6b5 - 883.2ms +/- 1.2%
5.  IE8 - 4539.0ms +/- 0.6%

As our longer series mentioned, these results should be considered just part of a larger picture of how the browsers stack up.  Really each of the browsers has some compelling features.  Many websites are designed to work best with IE 8, despite its poor Javascript engine and poor standards support.  Top webpages are tuned to the browser and it is also quite secure.  Firefox, meanwhile, also enjoys similar design advantages.  It also boasts an industry leading extensions system and is relatively quick.

Chrome features tab sandboxing (like IE 8), making it ultra-secure and it's the fastest browser according to our latest synthetic tests and our past real-world testing (its Javascript engine is particularly strong).  It also has good standards support and a nice interface.  Apple's Safari is one of the faster browsers and offers some of the pleasant perks shared with competitors like a top-pages start screen.

Opera 10.5 alpha, the first major release since Opera 10 (Opera 10.1 was a minor release) was just released in time for the holidays is another very attractive option.  We love the new layout of the browser, and the ability to open private mode tabs alongside public tabs is convenient.  The new version of Opera is also ultra-fast thanks to its new Vega graphics library and new Carakan Javascript engine (replacing the older Futhark engine).  Standards supports is also industry leading.

The alpha build also is one of the most attractive looking browsers on the market, with a pleasant Aero window and rich graphical look in Windows 7.  The only real downsides of the browser are that some web apps (such as Wordpress type journal programs) don't always behave as expected, due to the fact that they were written with IE 8/Firefox 3+ in mind.  Also, the alpha build is admittedly a memory hog and a bit unstable, though it hasn't crashed on us (once) yet.  On the other hand, one significant upside is that the new graphics library and JS engine will likely be pumped up to even quicker performance by release time.

We recommend you download Firefox 3.6 beta 5, Opera 10.5 Alpha, and Chrome 4 from these links and try them for yourself.  Picking a browser is largely subjective, so it'd be misleading if we said any one browser is better than the others, though there are some differences in features, which we've attempted to summarize.

Note:  All tests were run in Windows 7 on a 15" MacBook Pro with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Processor and 4 GB of DDR3 RAM, running at 1066 MHz (Boot Camp was used to boot into Windows 7).  The notebook has a GeForce 9600M GT, which has its own 512 MB GDDR3 memory, and a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M which shares 256 MB of the main DDR3 system RAM.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By dani31 on 12/23/2009 5:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome stays out of the way (I think this is how they advertise it), and does it's work behind the web page not in front of it. My subjective oppinion is that it has the most professional and elegant design - visually, and, as far as I understand, also technically.

Every other browser I've used, I've tryed to clean it up so it doesn't take cover half of the screen estate.

For Opera I dislike having an integrated e-mail client installed at the same time.

RE: Chrome
By Sazar on 12/23/2009 6:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
I concur. The main thing besides the speed that got me was the clean look of the browser.

By the way, the integrated all-in-one extension for Gmail, Voice, Wave and so forth which allows you to preview any new notifications :D

Very clean and unobtrusive.

RE: Chrome
By adiposity on 12/23/2009 6:17:17 PM , Rating: 4
Firefox has more on the toolbars than I need, but the stuff is easily hidden and/or rearranged. I have my search box, url box, and all back,forward,etc. buttons on one bar. It's pretty clean if you configure it that way.

But granted, the default layout for Chrome is cleaner (some might say too clean).


RE: Chrome
By adiposity on 12/23/2009 6:19:53 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Chrome
By adiposity on 12/23/2009 6:29:00 PM , Rating: 3
After comparing, my Firefox setup actually has more free rendering space than Chrome.

Of course I had to set it up that way. But at least I could.

You can also use the Chromifox theme, which looks a lot like Chrome...but I don't.

The default theme, while not the simplest, is probably the "best" for new users because on Chrome they will wonder where their favorite buttons have gone. In Firefox they can be hidden, but "dumb" users will still get them by default.


RE: Chrome
By deeznuts on 12/29/2009 2:24:49 PM , Rating: 1
I like chrome, so fast! IE is so shitty waiting for it to work after using Chrome. But websites still break Chrome for me (yahoo mail sucks, don't worry I have several gmail accounts too but a couple spam yahoo accounts I've had for years).

Chrome and yahoo mail do not like each ohter, as well as a few other necessary sites I use for work.

That said, where is my google toolbar for chrome? WTF. I like the bookmarks function in the toolbar. yes I know the workaround but it's not as easy as the toolbar. Unless there is a new work around.

RE: Chrome
By WTFzilla on 12/23/2009 6:19:27 PM , Rating: 4
For Opera I dislike having an integrated e-mail client installed at the same time.

What difference does it make? It's disabled by default, and stays disabled until you manually activate it. Even with an e-mail client, Opera is a smaller download than Chrome.

RE: Chrome
By ockky on 12/23/2009 6:39:26 PM , Rating: 3
For Opera I dislike having an integrated e-mail client installed at the same time.

Funny, because that's actually one of the main reasons why i do like opera...why the hell would i want to install/open outlook or thunderbird when opera handles email unobtrusively for me?

RE: Chrome
By jonmcc33 on 12/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Chrome
By Einy0 on 12/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Chrome
By jonmcc33 on 12/29/2009 10:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
I love that I got rated down for that. If someone here can provide statistics to prove that Outlook is not the #1 e-mail client in the world then I would like to see it. Until then, it is the de facto standard for e-mail clients. Nothing else comes close. Not anything integrated into Opera nor Thunderbird.

RE: Chrome
By William Gaatjes on 12/25/2009 3:08:35 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. A simple mail client that just works. And no nice for the corporate environment behind a 100.000 euro firewall intranet is needed. Outlook works great, but should only be used in a confined corporate environment.
opera mail is just a simple client which does just that what it needs to do. Send and receive mails with attachments.

Although i will not ask the question i will propose a possible solution: When opera get's to many options, it might be handy to use an option menu in the installer. What you do not need , you should not have to install. Afcourse part of opera will have to be rewritten to make that possible. Other stuff could just be loaded in when the program starts. Like a dynamically loaded library : A dll.

RE: Chrome
By dagamer34 on 12/23/2009 8:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Err... since when did we start caring about the size of a program download again? It's freaking 2009, even the shittiest US broadband should download both Chrome and Opera in less than a minute!

RE: Chrome
By SilthDraeth on 12/23/2009 8:23:05 PM , Rating: 3
Just because something can be big, doesn't mean it should be.

RE: Chrome
By StevoLincolnite on 12/23/2009 9:26:04 PM , Rating: 1
Bigger is always better! Cha-ching!

RE: Chrome
By chagrinnin on 12/24/2009 2:19:44 AM , Rating: 4
Goiters being the exception to the rule. :P

RE: Chrome
By QuAkE101 on 12/24/2009 9:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
That's what she said.... :D

RE: Chrome
By WTFzilla on 12/24/2009 8:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
The point is: It's silly to worry about features you won't even notice, especially when Opera is smaller than other browsers. These extra features clearly don't affect you unless you start using them.

RE: Chrome
By kmmatney on 12/26/2009 4:18:26 PM , Rating: 4
We started caring again when SSDs came out. Size matter again.

RE: Chrome
By fox12789 on 12/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Chrome
By fox12789 on 12/30/2009 9:33:18 AM , Rating: 1
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping

RE: Chrome
By fox12789 on 12/30/2009 9:39:10 AM , Rating: 1
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping

Not that important to me
By hemmy on 12/23/2009 5:05:16 PM , Rating: 5
I have a very fast computer, speed differences are marginal. Firefox, Chrome 4, and IE8 are all on my Windows 7 machine, but I still prefer Firefox by a long shot, despite it benchmarking "significantly" slower than Chrome.

RE: Not that important to me
By Sazar on 12/23/2009 6:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Is there a specific reason you have affiliated yourself to Firefox?

I am intrigued because I moved from IE7 to Firefox and Opera, using FF most of the time. However, Chrome has become my default browser of choice due to simplicity, speed and now, extensions.

I didn't feel compelled to stay with FF for any particular reason, and I know this is just my personal experience, but I see a lot of posters say "I am sticking with FireFox" and I am quite interested in the why.

RE: Not that important to me
By adiposity on 12/23/2009 6:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do you use adblock?

RE: Not that important to me
By Sazar on 12/24/2009 11:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
I used to. I switched to AdThwart because it seems better developed at the moment. I'll move back to AdBlock as it matures on Chrome. Right not it just seems like a Beta.

RE: Not that important to me
By phatboye on 12/23/2009 6:22:07 PM , Rating: 3
I can't speak for him but I chose to stay with FF too. Speed doesn't mean that much to me, as my primary computer is over 5 years old yet I can hardly notice the difference in loading times between the browsers. The bottleneck isn't the rendering anyways it's latency and bandwidth from my ISP so moving to another browser won't do me much difference anyways.

The reasons I stuck with FF is simple, it works on all OS'es that I currently use at home/work/school (Windows & Linux) unlike Safari, Chrome (still in beta) and IE. I have wanted to switch to Opera from some time but I am so used to FF's keyboard shortcuts and I have yet to figure out how to change them in Opera. Since all of the computers I work on have FF installed I am greeted with a common interface every time I go on the web.

Also generally the Mozilla developers are quick to patch up security flaws and FF is under very active development which is a huge plus IMO.

Honestly though all the browsers these days are pretty much the same. I don't care if one browser loads a page 1ms faster than the other, as long as they are standards compliant they are all pretty much the same to me.

RE: Not that important to me
By Etsp on 12/23/2009 6:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome has been out of beta for a while now... Current version is

RE: Not that important to me
By phatboye on 12/23/2009 7:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
I should clarify, the linux version is still in beta.

RE: Not that important to me
By Kakiray on 12/23/2009 6:30:12 PM , Rating: 3
These addons are the reason why I use firefox.
Both have considerably sped up my browsing not with fast rendering or fast javascript but time browsing.
I do like that Firefox 4.0 is taking some design cues from Chrome to make the UI less distracting and transparent in relation to the web page content.

RE: Not that important to me
By jonmcc33 on 12/24/2009 9:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
....but I see a lot of posters say "I am sticking with FireFox" and I am quite interested in the why.

Why do you care? Does this impact your daily life or something? Can you not sleep at night until you figure out why the rest of the world is using Firefox rather than Chrome?

I mean, people can tell you and you'll disagree with them but what then? Are you going to reach over TCP/IP and nut slap them till they switch to Chrome?

RE: Not that important to me
By Sazar on 12/24/2009 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 1
Why do you care whether I care or not? I am curious, no more, no less.

RE: Not that important to me
By jonmcc33 on 12/29/2009 10:14:08 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe because it's not going to make a difference? If thousands of people explain to you why they prefer Firefox over Chrome then you are still going to ask the same stupid question as if you can't understand it. People have differences and preferences. Accept it and move on. Don't question it.

RE: Not that important to me
By rs1 on 12/23/2009 11:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, the real-world performance of all the browsers tested is good enough that it's not really going to be a deciding factor. Even IE, with its terrible scores, is not actually noticeably slower than other browsers during normal use.

Personally I prefer Chrome, because I like its UI, the javascript/developer console, and the fact that each tab is isolated to its own process. But in any case, I certainly would not pick one browser over another due to synthetic benchmark scores. I think the people doing all the performance testing are somewhat missing the point.

RE: Not that important to me
By Targon on 12/24/2009 6:57:40 AM , Rating: 2
With IE(yes, even IE 8), I can hit the stop button 2000 times, but it STILL takes a minute before it stops trying to render a page I didn't want to see in the first place.

RE: Not that important to me
By omnicronx on 12/24/2009 1:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
BS.. Its asynchronous, perhaps it acts like this when you first load the browser, but not when navigating from site to site once everything has been initialized.

I don't even use IE, but I call foul on this one.

Chrome may be nice...
By SiliconAddict on 12/23/2009 6:38:57 PM , Rating: 3
But until extensions are fully implemented, and an adblocker is up and running without needing to load another external app and do a crap load of tweaking....

It is dead to me.

RE: Chrome may be nice...
By FoxFour on 12/23/2009 7:10:50 PM , Rating: 3
I concur.

Until Chrome has the functional equivalent (or better) of AdBlock Plus and NoScript, I'm sticking with Firefox.

RE: Chrome may be nice...
By DM0407 on 12/23/2009 10:36:00 PM , Rating: 3
Google makes its money off of advertising. I don't think they want you to block all of them.

RE: Chrome may be nice...
By inperfectdarkness on 12/24/2009 7:58:12 AM , Rating: 3
+eleventy billion

i never noticed how much difference ABP makes until i started using it.

the speed of load without ads ALONE trumps anything else--and i have a 10Mbps+ connection.

google & it's ad-driven business model can pound sand.

RE: Chrome may be nice...
By Sazar on 12/24/2009 11:15:07 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, you mean like how the extensions are fully implemented now and there are multiple adblockers up and running and everything is within the container of the broweser instead of needing an external app and the only tweaking needed is perhaps selecting a list for blocking elements?

Is it live for you now?

RE: Chrome may be nice...
By GreatCTO on 12/26/2009 11:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the browser itself is still very young.

Not to be a smart aleck ... but NO, it's not real.

It's currently BETA version 4.0+ only. Sorry.
BETA's are not stable, or final releases.
Not intended for average users.

For what it matters..."I own all your bases!"

Slight details for quibblers. Because of missing content policy sets (that Mozilla has) in the Google Chrome API, it seems ad-blocking extensions for chrome are false performers. Most of the extensions still download the ads, they just don't display them. Where in Mozilla the policy sets check against the lists, before downloading; in Chrome, plugins check the lists before displaying.

Some other things about Chrome, is that there are conflicts between extensions that most users aren't posting or noticing. Such as "Adthwart" many faults, "Adblock" conflicts with Facebook plugin's chat feature, "Adblock+ Element Hiding Helper" honest conflicts, etc etc.

This link has the most typical experience & comments I've found:
Typical of my own other general experiences so far anyways.

Personally, I use all the reviewed stable browser versions and sometimes create virtual sessions using Acronis True Image to try out the BETA's (Mozilla 3.6.r5 took me own a few minutes to decide to avoid). The reason for using all of them is that they each excel in different ways and because you can log into separate email accounts from from the same provider at the same time without conflicts this way. Such as how a Youtube account conflicts with a differing Gmail account. Singing into one account, signs you out of the other. Even in a browser like Chrome with its supposed, separate "session instance" tabs, this problem is also true. So instead I just use a different browser, so that the account in each browser is ubiquitous to that browser.

BTW, the three most important factors to me,
Stability (compliance), Convenience (speed & ease of use), and Memory footprint .

Which really highlights Opera! Though I too was like WTF, when Opera went from version 10.01 to 10.10 ~ Read the change log feature list and see why. But was still amazed to discover it has the best multi-tab memory usage, stability, and total size footprint/CPU usage of these five (Safari, Opera, Chrome, IE, Firefox). Something else, no one in my searches have commented on, is that Opera seems to be the ONLY browser to implement Windows 7 “Display” settings zoom, not even "Internet Explorer 8" is compliant to Windows 7's own features! Crazy important touch when gifting a PC to family or friends with softer eyesight, or sharing a high-resolution display with other users who you don't want tweaking the video card settings. i.e. kids, wives, family, roommates...yeah, everybody else. Opera is also the first to pass many browser security standards before Mozilla or IE.(Which amazes me, cause of that “Magic" log-in-KEY button I truly LOVE & distrust, as a security risk...)

The only reason I've stayed with Opera 10.01 is being uncomfortable with anything involving remote access, etc. Firewalls up. Spies out. To my horror Webroot ver.7 beta found “@winspy” on my PC (hopefully not a false positive, as I'm beginning to suspect false firewall reporting. That or every PC I've installed it on, mine and strangers, says Microsoft's “svhost” is secretly addicted to chatting with 200+ porn and adware ips anytime any browser is opened? What?). Now I'm changing bank accounts (needed to anyways) and freezing credit report for safety etc, plus installing 64bit Win7 Pro, instead of 32bit RC Ultimate. Better safe that sorry.

I'm considering applying for the writers position.
~ Authored in Chrome BETA 4.0 & OO Writer ~
P.S. I'm a PC and Microsoft's too popular to be safe. Try Mac Mini $599.
It'll be a while before 64bit security & software is around for Windows 7.
Microsoft itself hasn't released any, ignoring clunky IE 64bit.

RE: Chrome may be nice...
By daemonios on 12/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Chrome may be nice...
By GreatCTO on 12/29/2009 1:34:40 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the polite reply. Though your point of "Inherently unstable" as absolute to BETA may be true. Stability is a rough topic which includes "inter-operable compliance" not just core program stability. The Chrome browser core may be "stable" but various plugins, display behaviors, and web page layout standards for it are not “stable”. Either causing some type of association crash, or on many government sites the content of a menu frame within a page not to display, and therefore you are unable to explore said site. This is still true of many government portals and used to be true of many public websites such as those hosting state building codes, until rewrote their website. And may have been true of multi-pane menus up until around the time Chrome version 3 was released. Having always "report bugs or broken website..." when found also check letting google track my browsing habits during install things have improved.

Video crashing still happens often in Chrome. example: commercial Ad links within videos on multiple sites such as,, nbc, abc, cbs, etc etc. Or instances of cross site linking, cause something to fail or causes a plugin to crash.

Usually Chrome says Shockwave flash has crashed. (never happens to me in the other browsers) Example: I'm on a TV streaming website. It uses adobe flash, move player, FLV etc, etc. If I click on an ad link within that video or above it, it load a new page/tab, then that new instance of shockwave as it reports itself causes both pages to crash. A better example of this as a single instance, is Since the beginning Chrome, up until now, this sight crashes on it's own as it shuffles through playlists (Though stability has slowly improved as my reports have continued to be sent in). No other browser has this problem. You could argue it is the fault of Adobe's coding, but I have enough experience to know that is not the whole story.

Why did I say that last line? It goes back to my previous post mentioning policy sets. I would never do this... But one could send the install file for Chrome to an email account. corperate, government, education etc. Due to the missing policy sets and other missing open or network security standards the browser will bypass Windows Server or Active Directory site lists. i.e. Blacklists and restricted browsing privileges are bypassed in windows environments. Separate firewall rules still work. Doesn't matter what the security administration, government or private, did with IE's "Internet Options/Content/Parental Controls or Content Advisory". Most security experts aren't aware of this. I just happened to to notice as I too am a hobbyist Beta tester for my own benefit and was using Chrome everywhere during that time, before it's public release. Basically I'm saying google chrome isn't yet written to accommodate outsider scripts running in it's code. Such as how plugins are New and only availible to 4.0+ BETA users. Why not in earlier versions too? Because Chrome hasn't evolved enough yet to stably run some common plugins or the appropriately accommodate current BETA extensions.

After I discovered the security hole Chrome poses to windows policy networks I reported it to someone in my administration and left it alone not testing again. As all administrated PC networks (you should assume) have legitimate spyware installed so they can silently peek and record all user screen activity or be alerted if you pop the towers shell (read a lot of manuals).

Just so you know it's better not to tell people about their jobs, or a workarounds they missed or ignored. I've stepped on a lot of big toes by pointing out things people did not expected or want to know. Keep your head low and your mouth shut. Even if your company is committing email digital espionage for city government contracts don't tell the FBI. Cause then the FBI will spy on you wondering how you know or knew testing your credibility as a witness. It gets worse if your company finds out or suspects you. Just move on. There isn't really such a thing as anonymous reporting (ever heard of Caller Id or network Packet Headers?). The police and government just pretends so long as it is convenient until they need something from you... Ugh.

I'm also anti-copytheft. This goes back to Sega DreamCast system where I saw how its future was corporately condemned, by their realization of growing popularity & the ease of copy theft. So I'm not just a Beta and Release Candidate user. I am also a customer of Microsoft. I won't tell you here about Win7 problems here. Just that you should wait until the 64bit version has more native 64bit apps and a Service Pack or Two are released. That and that Home Premium is good enough, the other versions don't benefit gaming anymore than Home Premium. Less features means less openings and less background processes or services eating memory and processing cycles. Though I hope to become a Sales Affiliate expect a teething process if you buy 64bit. 32bit XP is still good enough for most business workstations and will be supported until 2014. I use 64bit because I don't use a pagefile, virtual ram, or readyboost. So memory space is an issue. (Anyone in the Point of Sale systems or Data Security Industry should understand why.)

Speaking of memory space... I have 7 tabs open in Chrome right now, and 13 instances in Task Manager/Processes? Why is that? If I can't tell which process(es) is which tab why separate them? It'd be nice to be able to judge total memory usage without a calculator. Plus if each tab is seperate why does one tab in Youtube sign me out of a different tab in Gmail or vis versa?

Though you're closing statement is true. I'm more security conscious. Safari by default doesn't report invalid SSL or HTTPS website security certificates. Opera, IE, and FF Chrome do. I don't have a favorite. I'd just say Opera performs the best, just wish you could hide the menu bar. But since websites do not support Opera even though plugin does. So I use FF a lot with edited DoD SSL TLS standards and FIPS settings adblock, noscript, hide menu bar, etc, as my default browser. Then monkey with the others.

After seeing some vulnerabilities in FF on someone else's pc involving Facebook and Myspace where registry values kept reverting no matter what I did with the browser un/reinstalled FF or reg value strings, I'm considering setting Opera as the system default for security reasons, not sure yet.

You are correct that this review in itself doesn't provide a lot of discussion. It only tests synthetic benchmarks which don't quite reflect performance differences on other hardware. Though I believe Opera still shines and would avoid FF 3.6r5 for bugginess as well as 1-clickweather for memory leaks or unstable memory usage. I find that as FF has evolved the plugins are more dramatically affecting memory stability.

Things I don't like about Chrome are how all the menus are laid out. Like why aren't all the Tab, Window, Incognito under the page symbol instead of the wrench??? I don't like how little internal settings access I have found. Don't really like how the bookmark menu usage is handled, except for Ctrl-B. Like that unlike FireFox, Chrome opens maximized (Though Opera also opens maximized). Don't like how poorly plugins work or the lack of security sets or policies to make it programmer or administratively network friendly. Basically I would reshuffle stuff between the page and wrench buttons as well as add some missing menus and security features. Chrome has to decide how tight and safe to keep things. As well as how to become safer and more compliant.

By eddieroolz on 12/23/2009 10:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still sticking with IE8. It's proven fast for me on a modest laptop. I especially love the fast start-up (<0.5s) so it's useful for checking something very quickly.

By Belard on 12/24/2009 12:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
Er... right.... So what other browsers have you tried recently?

Since IE8 is included with Win7, I know how it looks and feels... its still an ugly mess of a browser. When we talk about SPEED, its not about Startup! DUH! Besides IE8 is loaded into memory when you boot up.

Try this with your IE8. Have about 4~8 tabs... shut down your browser... your computer, reboot - and see all 4~8 tabs are there. And that the back buttons still work.

Looking at the screenshot of Opera 10.5... it looks cleaner and better than 10.1 (they took out the menu bar and stuck it into the logo).

Give Opera a try for a week... I dare ya.

By jonmcc33 on 12/24/2009 8:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you so offended that he uses a Microsoft browser? This is disturbing and I see it all the time on the internet. If it meets his needs then what is the problem?

I don't use Opera myself because I do not need all of the integrated things like the torrent and IRC. I prefer to use my own 3rd party applications for that. Other than that I am not going to say, "This is what Firefox can do and try that on Opera!" Sheesh! Grow the crap up.

By Belard on 12/24/2009 5:35:23 PM , Rating: 1
Why are you so offended that you think I'm offended?

I didn't say he couldn't use IE... I corrected him on why it "starts so fast", so I just recommended he give something a try. Until a few years ago, I was IE only... I really wanted to like FF 2.0, but it wasn't (still isn't) usable for my needs. So I tried out Opera 8.x and it did what I needed and then some.

Almost every IE8/7 user I see has a bloated ugly mess of a browser with 1~4 add on tool bars. A tab bar with only room for 3~5 tabs that are readable. (I have 11 tabs on Opera)

If not for FF (Fx) and Opera, IE7~8 wouldn't have tabbed browsing and other features it copied from others.

By jonmcc33 on 12/29/2009 10:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you so offended that you think I'm offended?

Who said I was? You were the person that dared someone to try Opera for a week. Sheesh! Nothing like peer pressure over the internet. What next, going to dare him to smoke a cigarette too?

Until a few years ago, I was IE only... I really wanted to like FF 2.0, but it wasn't (still isn't) usable for my needs. So I tried out Opera 8.x and it did what I needed and then some.

Good for you! Key words being that it does what you need! If IE does what he needs then why chastise him for it?

Almost every IE8/7 user I see has a bloated ugly mess of a browser with 1~4 add on tool bars.

That's not because of IE. That's because they are installing software that installs those toolbars. What is your point?

If not for FF (Fx) and Opera, IE7~8 wouldn't have tabbed browsing and other features it copied from others.

Unless something is patented then nothing is copied. Opera sure wasn't the first web browser. Did they copy Netscape?

By eddieroolz on 12/29/2009 2:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
You know, I had all broswers on my machine just a month back - and when I upgraded to Windows 7 Pro, I decided to only reinstall Firefox. Safari, Opera and Chrome doesn't cut it for me. So thanks for the offer, but I'm not one of those people EU is trying to "help out".

By probedb on 12/24/09, Rating: 0
About Chrome
By bug77 on 12/24/2009 6:39:39 AM , Rating: 1
I have a slightly different system, C2D 3.0GHz, 4GB DDR2-800, Win7 64bit and in Peacekeeper the latest Chrome build scores >4800. That's almost 1000 points or 25% difference.

RE: About Chrome
By fatedtodie on 12/24/2009 6:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
I am not sure if your comment is sarcasm or if you do knot know how benchmarks work.

The trick isn't to say how it would SCORE on your system. The idea is to show 1 system how x, y, and z compare then you can run just 1 of the programs and if the chart says another program scores better, you can go to that, if it scores lower you can bet you will have a less of an experience.

I take your 1000 points and dock you 4800 for not knowing what you are talking about.

RE: About Chrome
By hyvonen on 12/24/2009 11:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
And I dock you 8000 points for being an overall douche. You don't know what he was talking about; you just made a guess, and attacked him for it.

He didn't say anything about comparing different browsers. I thought he wanted to point out that the benchmark scores are sensitive to the system (3G vs 2.8G), or possibly other items running on the system. Why would a benchmark score be so much higher on his computer than on the one in the article?

This puts into question all the scores in the article. Maybe there was something running in the background when some of those scores were obtained, but not when Opera was tested..?

RE: About Chrome
By bug77 on 12/24/2009 5:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
The scores should be much closer. Between 200MHz, some memory speed difference and different OSes, nothing should cause that much of a variation. Then again, maybe OS X is that unfriendly to other browsers, or the OS X and Linux versions of Chrome are that bad, being just recently released. Worth some more looking into, imho, but I don't have an OS X license. Nor would I touch anything with an apple sign on it :D

RE: About Chrome
By bug77 on 12/26/2009 6:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
Looked some more into it: Chrome still scores just shy of 4500 points in Peacekeeper on Linux, so it must be OS X that's the culprit here.

Looking at FF3.6b5 on Windows, my score is also far off: almost 3500 points.

RE: About Chrome
By hyvonen on 12/27/2009 5:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. So, the conclusion is that OSX w/ Bootcamp sucks, and the results in the article have little value to "native" Windows users.

By TheMan876 on 12/23/2009 6:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
I love using Opera, and it's the mouse gestures that keep me here. But what bugs me is that if it has some of the strictest standards support, why is it that so many website break with it? Lots of little parts of Facebook are broken, and with a lot of sites I get redirected to WAP versions of a page.

RE: Opera
By WTFzilla on 12/23/2009 6:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
But what bugs me is that if it has some of the strictest standards support, why is it that so many website break with it? Lots of little parts of Facebook are broken, and with a lot of sites I get redirected to WAP versions of a page.

You are mistaken.

Opera is NOT strict at all, as a matter of fact. It's one of the least strict browsers out there because it was designed from the bottom up to be compatible.

Compatibility problems are usually caused by browser sniffing. For example, when Opera is redirected to a WAP page it's not because Opera can't handle the full page, but because the designer decided to send Opera there. Not Opera's fault.

RE: Opera
By GreatCTO on 12/30/2009 3:14:14 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely correct.
You're reply deserves 3~4 for truth and politeness.

The cause of the problem is the web designer or webmaster who uses non-standard or IE exclusive rendering behavior. And write poor rules that automatically assume the popularity of Opera Mini in cellphones, means all Opera instances should redirect to their WAP layouts.

Opera is rendering engine is fully compliant to more open web scripting standards than any other browser on the market. Webmasters aren't as equally qualified. Many using code or scripts targeted to IE's custom rendering behavior or are too lazy to make it their responsibility as a web admin to verifying layouts work within Opera Desktop. So they block it, redirect it, or the use web design software that discriminates, and don't know how to script or correct the behavior themselves.

RE: Opera
By justjc on 12/30/2009 6:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
Good to see that Caracan actually delivers the competitive JS performance they promised.
I've allways felt that Opera seemed faster, so I wasn't quite sure if it was just me wanting my Opera 10.50 pre-alpha browser to be faster or reality, seems it was real. I look forward to the more bug free release version :-)

Hopefully Google will also realise that Opera now has a JS engine fast enough to run Wave so we can use the service without the "Everythings shiney..." message. That could however also not have anything to do with JS but rather bad programming on Googles part...

Where is Minefield?
By hyvonen on 12/23/2009 7:37:41 PM , Rating: 3
If you're going to have Opera alpha in the comparison, it doesn't seem fair to not include Firefox 3.7a, also known as "Minefield".

In my Win7 CULV netbook, Minefield feels snappier than Chrome 3, regular Firefox and (obviously) IE8. I haven't tried Chrome4, though, but I think Minefield should be included here.

RE: Where is Minefield?
By hectormacias on 12/23/2009 10:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
You got it, here are my results in sunspider.

Opera 10.5 pre alpha: 598.0ms +/- 7.8%
Build 3172

Minefield 3.7 Alpha 1 pre: 1119.2ms +/- 4.5%
Build 20091223050727 (Today)

RE: Where is Minefield?
By hyvonen on 12/24/2009 3:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, Minefield sucks in your benchmark.. Are you running 64b Win7?

Tried to install Chrome4 from that link in the article; nothing happened. Installed Opera 10.5, went to; none of the links worked.

Is my computer toast?

Iron works beautifully, though... maybe I shouldn't play around with alpha browsers..

WTF is with Chrome? Version 4 in about 12 months?!
By Belard on 12/24/2009 12:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
Version 4?

Chrome is barely 15 months old... and they are at version 4? Google, get your head out of Nvidia's butt!

Chrome should be 1.5... maybe 2 at best. Major version numbers are for major changes to the product.

Opera 10.5 has more changes in it from version 10.1 than chrome 1.x~3.0 Yeah, we know you're young, but playing the Version game to FAKE the age of your browser is STUPID!

Opera is over 13 years old. IE is about 12 years old (1.0~2.0 almost don't count heheh). Firefox has properly changed their version numbers - you can easily spot FF 1 / 2 and 3 as different. Same for IE (7~8 look the same).

Google... don't be an Nvidia, there are reasons why they suck!

RE: WTF is with Chrome? Version 4 in about 12 months?!
By Targon on 12/24/2009 7:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
Google probably hired people from AOL, which is why a minor point release gets a new major version number.

By Belard on 12/24/2009 4:34:53 PM , Rating: 2

How far up did AOL go to? Version 15 or something?

Think about it guys... people PAID for telecommunications by the minute! Thats why AOL got so rich, it was about $5~8 per hour in the 90s. Needless to say, long log-in welcome times were good for AOL.

And its also why people really wanted 1200 and 2400baud modems... man, I remember with 28K modems were Faaaast!
Downloading a 1 megabyte file with a 1200baud modem would take about and two hours. Needless to say 2400 was a big improvement! I remember my first 300 baud... you could out type the transmission.

I used such a service myself for a few days, long enough to locate a good BBS client program (Terminal).

Computer communications speed:
10,000,000 = today (typical broadband)
1,000,000 = 3G cell phone or T1 (download)
320,000 = old DSL (2000) = was FAST for its day.
128,000 = ISDN ($100+ a month)
56,000 = Last of the analog modems (1999)
28,000 = typical 1994 modem (The internet explodes)
14,000 = Ferrai performance in 1990 (BBSes ran these)
1,200 = Typical upper end 1985~1989
300 = Standard modem for 1981~1985

Wow... things have changed. Before the internet, we had the BBSes, in which only 1 person could log into each phone line. Bigger BBSes had 2~4 lines. AOL was a huge graphical BBS network in the 80s~90s. Glad they're dead.
So in those days, we had a time limit to allow others to log-in, send email and discuss things.

By hechacker1 on 12/23/2009 6:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprisingly, Safari (well the webkit nightly) benchmarks faster on Sunspider on my 2.26GHz macbook pro using OS X, compared to Chrome or the latest trunk of firefox.

On my machine (rough numbers, I was benchmarking yesterday).
1. Safari (webkit) 350ms
2. Opera 10.5 450 ms
3. Firefox (trunk) 900 ms
4. Chrome dev 1000+ ms

I can actually fire up Parallels with Windows 7 x64, and Chrome runs 600ms. Just to get an idea of how poorly optimized Chrome is for the platform.

Opera has come a long way, but Safari on OS X uses the least CPU during idle which helps with my battery life. It also supports adblock and flashblock. But so do all the other browsers.

By Souka on 12/23/2009 7:37:04 PM , Rating: 3
They didn't bench my browser... Netscape Navigator 3.0g

Also, who needs google voice? I use Netscape's own ever.

Oh wait...wrong millenium, NM.


Not impressed till..
By sciwizam on 12/23/2009 5:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
They fix the closing-multiple-tabs-with-no-warning "feature" in Chrome.

RE: Not impressed till..
By roostitup on 12/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not impressed till..
By ksherman on 12/23/2009 5:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
You can also open them all up again from the 'Recently Closed' bar in the 'Home' screen... Just sayin'

Whoopdie doo
By roostitup on 12/23/2009 5:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
They all perform on par with each other, personally I can't tell a difference in performance from one to the other in real life tests. Performance in the end is really just dependent on your internet connection. Do we really need a web browser that MIGHT load a web page 1-2ms faster? In reality these performance tests are pointless and they all load web pages fast enough. Security is what we should be looking at, the average person wont notice a difference in load times even if some are faster in synthetic benchmarks.

By GreatCTO on 12/29/2009 10:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully Anandtech or Dailytech will revisit Opera 10.5 when it goes live, by doing another four part review. Especially part 2 of that previous review series.

Part 2 was the part that mattered to me the most.
Memory, Cpu, Security. Including how it handles forged SSL security certificates and page redirection.

Testers should disable Windows "virtual ram". So that the browser doesn't cache to the harddrive. Then see how much memory space it takes up. And hopefully also compare using 64bit to 32bit as they have different memory managers.

Some commented on, why does average CPU usage matter if it is used well? It matter for those who run security scans and want to browse at the same time. Or watch a movie or listen to a pod cast or other video while doing other things. Or have lower end or just simply older systems like an Athlon XP Barton core cpu. It's a shame I don't still have my 233mhz Pentium with off chip L2 cache with a super Socket 7 motherboard, to see how things would run. Windows XP actually ran on it fine. In fact it ran better on my system than on my uncles new Retail Pentium 4 system.

I look forward to when Opera 10.5 gets a real world release.
At which time I hope satisfied users will start petitioning websites to please stop blocking Opera. I love watching TV online. And am annoyed that client base is not allowing a browser that MoveNetworks video plugin supports.

Opera is the only browser to respond to Windows 7 display settings. And it does so much more while behaving meekly when compared to the other browsers. Just need and other major websites to stop cock blocking it. Also need Microsoft to alter Outlook Live & change its layout for Opera to better show each emails subject instead of abbreviating it without cause. Allow use to slide column dividers and adjust how information is dispayed. Other than that Opera has a fast, simply, and clean interface even in Outlook Live.

Just look at the Standards Support chart in Part 4.
Opera handily outclasses all the other browsers. The only reason it doesn't dominate the web is active discrimination by many major corporate websites or site administrators. Who out of laziness don't want to be responsible for possible technical display issues. Which is idiotic. So long as the layout is scripted to the standards of each scripting language used, then Opera will display and interact with the webpage just fine.

By GreatCTO on 12/30/2009 5:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
Firefox 4.0 is going to copy the Opera 10.5 tab and menu button layout.

Check out this blog for images and discussion of the new UI.

As well as Visit Mozilla itself for direct images and details.

Mozilla is also talking about separate process tabs like Chrome. (Hopefully you won't have more processes than tabs, like in Chrome.) Still think Opera is best browser, just needs more webmaster and webpage acceptance.

Mick, Mick, Mick...
By R6Raven on 12/24/2009 8:38:09 AM , Rating: 1
We see how the fast the latest crop of browsers really are

That's just a slap in your English professor's face...

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki