Early work on Firefox's new Javascript engine nets big speed gains

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/0...fox-new-javascript-engine-nets-big-speed-gai/

 

Yeah? When? Running 3.6 my best time on a cold start is 17 seconds. It isn't the extensions.

 

Are they trying to speed up malware installs?

 

Oh god, not again. Another imperceptible and useless "speed boost". Let the browser wars begin again.

 

again? did they ever end...?

 

Well, at least the articles that get plastered all over tech news sites go away for a little while. You know, I can't wait until some little normal guy/girl on some tiny little island nation comes up with some no-name browser that just utterly destroys all the big players. It's bound to happen at some point, and it's going to be damn cool.

All these tests ever do is pit the same ones against each other:

1. Firefox. Whatever. They can keep claiming the speed, they can keep throwing the add-ons at it. As long as it still stalls, has memory leaks, and crashes (No matter what system I use, and others I know use, eventually this happens with every Firefox release), then it's no good.

2. IE. The poor thing is perfectly fine, but still suffers from that old stigma. And, even now with Protected Mode and every other measure MS put in, they still screw up in "Zone security".

3. Opera. They rarely even get mentioned in these tests because hardly anyone uses the thing (that's not to say it's a bad browser).

4. Safari. Outside of Mac, no one cares.

6. Chrome. Fast, hell yes. Secure, uh, well...oh hell, I'm not even starting on that.


Alrighty, let me reign this post back in away from my habit of veering off topic, lol. I honestly don't give a crap about Javascript getting any faster in ANY browser. All the speed in the world doesn't matter when the website you're trying to get to is having a slowdown or is unreachable. Some things speed just doesn't fix.

 

I have had my fair share of problems with firefox.

the first Firefox I used was 1.5 and it crashed alot. I preferred it to IE6 mainly because it was faster and had tabs. i ditched it after version 2 because it crashed alot and I discovered opera which IMO is much better.

I do have firefox 3.6 installed but mostly use opera.

IE8 doesnt get touched. Seems strange that opera doesn't have much market share yet they created alot of great things that all browsers now have but most people dont relise opera created them.

im glad i discovered opera. I have used it since version 9.25 and love it. gets better every version.

 

My only complain with Firefox is smooth scrolling. I'm using YASS extension atm but it sometimes lags and sometimes just doesn't work.

It was Netcaptor. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/008433.html

 

Good post dw426. I too have dismissed IE as a solid browser, but realise it has made significant improvements. I seem to use it more often now.

Regarding Chrome, prevx staff have commented in a recent thread about its security:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=266335

 

The security comment I made about Chrome was due to Google itself, not really the security measures in the browser. I know absolutely nothing about the sandbox procedures it uses, I just don't like a data obsessed company having an easier time of collecting said data. I'm well aware of Iron and the other knockoff, I just simply choose not to run anything Google-related anymore. Back to the topic again though, I did it again, lol.

 

I still think an 'urgent' issue for firefox is the cold starts. Users claiming 20 seconds or more, I mean, this isn't adobe photoshop loading with all its plugins.

 

I'm pretty sure, If the Opera devs would include 1 simple feature, add-ons like Firefox, we would see the biggest browser users' shift in Internet history.

It would make FF crumble to dust, and Opera the most used browser, but for some reason Opera ain't interested.

 

Opera can't either, Firefox was created with addons in mind, if Opera want to do that they need to rewrite the whole thing.

20 seconds is a lot, I have 31 active extensions installed and it at most takes 10 seconds. Without extensions it almost starts instantly.

 

Opera does have 'widgets' which can be launched independently of the browser, or with the browser without slowing start-time. Few I use for example, are a dictionary and thesaurus, password generator and wikipedia add-on . There are also file video downloaders and here, to-do lists, html editors and so on.

Not the number compared to firefox, but Opera has the ability to utilise these extensions more. I personally like that I can launch the 'widget' or 'add-on' without launching the browser. eg. working on an article, and need some quick info. Wikipedia add-on launches in a second, without launching the browser.

But if firefox has essential add-ons you can't do without, then that's a given it will remain your number 1 browser.

 

Opera doesn't need add-ons to compromise its strict security when it already has the best features included - that said, I still think it should support at least RoboForm (online.roboform.com is my only hope atm).

 

Why? Why does everyone seem to want to make every browser into Firefox? All you hear is people (not saying you) saying "I wish (insert browser) would be more like Firefox!" Then those SAME people gripe and complain incessantly about Firefox! It doesn't make any sense. If I wanted to use the features (add-ons etc.) of Firefox I would use Firefox, what would Opera gain by making it more like Firefox? The Firefox problems? What reason would you have to change from Firefox to Opera if this happened, because you like the red "O"? I just don't get it....

 

Great point. Also, keep in mind that add-ons have a habit of just using more resources, and, more importantly, install another door through which malware can enter. Bad add-ons in Firefox aren't exactly unheard of.

 

Exactly. The biggest gripe I hear about FF (I don't personally use it) is "Bloat". Where does everybody think this "Bloat" comes from? So many people want to leave FF because of "Bloat" and then scream to their new browser's staff to cram all of the stuff that made up the "Bloat" in FF into their new browser.? It boggles the mind...

 

Sorry, didn't want to start a flame war, the big WHY is the rendering speed of
which Mozilla talks to become the fastest one on earth with every planned major release, yet we never seen those rendering gains, except a few %. even the latest FF 3.7 is all down in the cellar (nearly above the pitty IE regarding the javascript rendering engine/page rendering performance.

How many times are they gonna tell us these lies again ?

I don't think implementing something like add-ons in Opera will have any negative impact on their great javascript engine. I don't get the fact that people say Opera is so customizable out-of-the-box either. Sure you can put the reload and zoom and some other buttons on the top, left,right, bottom or wherever, but even if their "Block content" feature doesn't get any further than images, people are left with a nakes browser compared to FF.

 

Every time someone mentions 10 second cold starts, after someone like Sacareno or myself talk about 20 second cold starts, extensions are always brought up. I use 8 extensions and my cold start is 17 to 23 seconds. I have tried all the suggestions to no avail. Every time a new version is about to come out advertising blistering fast speeds, I wonder if I'll shave off 3 more seconds. It has to have something to do with how your system is configured, whether you get 10 or 20 seconds.
20 second cold starts really doesn't bother me, given how FF performs doing everything else. Speaking of extensions, I also run Chrome just to watch how it advances. When I installed it some time ago it cold started in 9 seconds. I up dated to the latest version that incorporates their extensions and I have added 7 or 8. Now Chrome cold starts in 12 to 14 seconds. Hmmm...

 

You didn't start any kind of war, just discussion. The inherent problem here is where do the add-ons stop? When do you overload the engine and end up right where you started? I may be different than a lot of people but I don't really care what theme the border of my security program has, nor do I care to have a toolbar with 5 billion buttons at the top of my browser etc. I like the stripped down Chromium (or in my case COMODO Dragon) based browsers and I want speed, privacy, security and SCREEN REAL-ESTATE. Opera is likewise lighter and less cluttered than FF. Fix FF, don't clutter Opera. The result of this "add-ons" frenzy always ends one way; "(insert browser) has went the way of (insert bloated software), too much BS crammed in". Why do you think Opera and Chrome exist? Why do you think everyone is copying....Chrome? The most stripped down major browser in existence?

 

Using both Chrome and FF, the big thing I noticed was how Chrome is trying to be FF. Just browse their extensions and see the ones that advertise as Firefox like. The more bells and whistles you add the more it's starting to look like FF.

 

You have a point there. I guess that's one reason I stopped using Chrome. It goes back to my original point, everyone wants to make every browser into FF....until they do.

 

Opera ain't turning into FF even if they suffer their share, however what its evolving into is to be one of the most secure and fastest browser suite out there and they are doing it well.

 

That's because, IMHO, Chrome didn't have a snowballs' chance in hell of gaining a significant market without the extensions, and Google knew it.