Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Opera 9.5 Beats Firefox and IE7 As Fastest Browser 510

Abhinav Peddada writes "Ars Technica takes Opera 9.5, the latest from Opera's stable, for a test run and finds some interesting results, including it being a 'solid improvement to an already very strong browser.' On the performance front, Ars Technica reports 'Opera 9.5 scored slightly higher (281ms) than the previous released version, 9.23 (546ms). And Opera 9.x, let it be known, smacks silly the likes of Firefox and Internet Explorer, which tend to have results in the 900-1500ms range on this test machine (a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM). Opera was 50 percent faster on average than Firefox, and 100 percent faster than IE7 on Windows Vista, for instance.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opera 9.5 Beats Firefox and IE7 As Fastest Browser

Comments Filter:
  • by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:47AM (#20504625)
    From what I've seen the speed rankings in all tests always have Opera and Safari leading with IE and FF being behind.
    • From what I've seen the speed rankings in all tests always have Opera and Safari leading with IE and FF being behind.

      Opera aims at different market -- small gadgets. This is where the speed is really critical. For IE and FF good enough is enough, since performance on modern desktops is not that critical.

      • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) * on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:42AM (#20505155) Homepage

        From what I've seen the speed rankings in all tests always have Opera and Safari leading with IE and FF being behind.


        Opera aims at different market -- small gadgets. This is where the speed is really critical. For IE and FF good enough is enough, since performance on modern desktops is not that critical.

        From what I've seen the speed rankings in all tests always have Opera and Safari leading with IE and FF being behind.


        Opera aims at different market -- small gadgets. This is where the speed is really critical. For IE and FF good enough is enough, since performance on modern desktops is not that critical.

        As a Quad G5 (4x 2500) Mac owner with lots of RAM, I really don't want a browser choking up an entire CPU and flooding my memory. I didn't pay money to cover amateur programming mistakes by other people. As same guy, I flamed Opera guys about not fixing a bug happens on Slashdot beta, first thing I checked was that after getting that awesome 9.5 alpha and yes it is fixed.

        I have used a Xeon Video workstation lately and poor AVID was acting like it is on 80386 because a stupid "free" antivirus was taking whole CPU cycles trying to "scan" gigabyte level raw videos while it was asked to ignore them.

        It is common getting replies as "get more RAM" or "upgrade your CPU" from various browser fans but when I see a browser using 100% CPU , I get alerted about what kind of security issues it may have and why I should be wasting my CPU to it.

        Opera's power comes from managing to code and sell full feature browsers which would even run on Nokia 7650 with 2 MB of RAM. Don't let the Desktop versions memory usage fool you, it is mostly RAM Cache, not memory "flood". Instead of flooding memory, they use it for a good reason and release immediately when another app needs it.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        From what I've seen the speed rankings in all tests always have Opera and Safari leading with IE and FF being behind.

        Opera aims at different market -- small gadgets. This is where the speed is really critical. For IE and FF good enough is enough, since performance on modern desktops is not that critical.

        I really wouldn't say that. Once you've used a browser that renders pages considerably faster than your old browser, there's no going back. It makes a *big* difference.

        With Opera 9.5, I can browse my API docs on the web just as fast as if the data were local. It's incredibly comfortable, and for me definitely worth the switch. (I had been using Firefox for a while before going back to Opera)

        • by SolitaryMan ( 538416 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @06:33AM (#20505393) Homepage Journal

          I really wouldn't say that. Once you've used a browser that renders pages considerably faster than your old browser, there's no going back. It makes a *big* difference.

          Yes, it does makes difference, but on desktop feature set is much more important and there is no way I'm trading NoScript + CookieSafe + Firebug + Foxmarks + Slashdotter for a slight increase in speed.

          • Re:Different market (Score:4, Interesting)

            by kripkenstein ( 913150 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @08:19AM (#20506065) Homepage

            there is no way I'm trading NoScript + CookieSafe + Firebug + Foxmarks + Slashdotter for a slight increase in speed.

            + Adblock + a few other things, and that 'slight increase in speed' might start to look like a supersonic jet outrunning a kid with a wheelbarrow. A wheelbarrow with a lot of nifty stuff on it, sure, but still ;)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Just tried the alpha and it almost instantly became my primary browser. IE and FF are hideously slow on my system and no amount of tweaking can fix them, they seem to 'hang' when downloading pages, like they disconnect and have to re-establish. Safari is faster but takes a bit longer to load, but Opera loads in under a second (excusing the prompt that just popped up to tell me it wasn't my primary browser at the moment) and draws complete pages noticably faster (easily 3-4 seconds faster for the Slashdot ma
    • Opera was one the last major browser that didn't support client-side XSL transformation.
      With the upgrade, Opera added the support, which in my view is more important than some milliseconds.

      Now you can push raw XML to browsers along with the stylesheet(s) and let them handle the load of processing.

      This introduces a lot of new opportunities, for instance, since XSL is way more powerful than CSS, you may for instance rearrange the whole content of the page ways beyond what CSS positioning tricks allow for, you
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:48AM (#20504627)
    I wonder if they would have said this if Pavarotti hadnt just died?
  • by lpangelrob ( 714473 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:48AM (#20504631)
    Well... okay. That was a short article.

    I'm not expecting them to try Lynx or anything, but at least test Safari on Windows? The one that also claims to be fast?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mikelieman ( 35628 )
      Does it choke rendering Digg's Sucky Comment system, like FF?
      • by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:34AM (#20505119)
        Opera used to have problems with Digg back in the 8.x days, but since 9.x it works just fine.
      • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *

        Does it choke rendering Digg's Sucky Comment system, like FF?
        I did the evil Digg.com test and slashdot beta test, never goes up over 5% CPU which is AMAZING!!!! (hi digg guys)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
        Does it choke rendering Digg's Sucky Comment system, like FF?

        FF is the only one to choke so easily rendering larger pages, you know. Unfortunately.

        Even before 9.5, Opera still beat the crap out of Firefox in CPU/RAM usage, but then, so did IE.

        I still like Firefox :( but because of the dev tools.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oatworm ( 969674 )
      They did a review of Safari 3 back in June [arstechnica.com]. As for comparing against Opera, they probably elected not to due to their opinion of Safari, as noted in the first paragraph:

      At the World Wide Developer Conference this week, Apple announced the availability of Safari 3 for the Windows operating system. Today, we put the Safari 3 beta to the test to see how it compares to Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox 2 on Windows. What we found didn't impress us very much. Although Safari offers slightly faster page loading, the beta is extremely unstable and suffers from interface deficiencies that make its value on the Windows platform questionable at best.

      In other words, they may not think it's worth reviewing, at least on a Windows platform, especially since it's not a Windows-native browser. Think of it as being similar to comparing browsers on Ubuntu and including IE 6 under WINE.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Chrisq ( 894406 )
      Konqueror (sp?) feels very fast too (though I have no objective measurements), especially compared to firefox. It would be nice to see a comparison.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:48AM (#20504635)
    Those milliseconds really add up...
  • by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:52AM (#20504655)
    The article links to a Javascript benchmark only. There are many many more variables involved in determining how fast a given browser is, although certainly Javascript plays it's part. Variables like how soon does the browser start processing incoming, but yet incomplete data, etc. influence the browser's snappiness a lot aswell.

    Basically, the speed of the browser depends upon the speed of the html parsing engine, available bandwidth, browser settings, speed of the cache and Javascript, just to mention the main variables.

    Still, I'm interested how comes Opera's Javascript is so fast compared to the other browsers.
    • by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:12AM (#20504759)
      "Still, I'm interested how comes Opera's Javascript is so fast compared to the other browsers."

      Well, they didn't test it against WebKit/Safari/Konq, which blazes through Javascript tests. Firefox's Javascript engine (SpiderMonkey) leaves a lot to be desired, and well, Internet Exploder is just plain terrible at everything. Things will get better for Firefox once Mozilla figures out a way to integrate Tamarin, but this is still a while off.
      • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:47AM (#20504925) Homepage
        Well, they didn't test it against WebKit/Safari/Konq, which blazes through Javascript tests

        It may blaze through tests, but in real life Konq is considerably slower than Firefox. I have to deal with a number of javascript ladden juggernauts like the ex-PeopleSoft eBusieness suite on a daily basis and konq is visibly much slower than Firefox.

      • Well it depends at what, i had an MD5 routine and benchmark in javascript that was laughably slow on konqueror/safari...
        The benchmark is at:
        http://pentestmonkey.net/jsbm/index.html [pentestmonkey.net]

        And i get the following results on a macbook pro 2.16ghz core2 duo running osx 10.4.10:

        Safari (2.0.4):
        MD5 Benchmark took 15.136 seconds for 3000 hashes (198 hashes/second)
        MD4 Benchmark took 10.876 seconds for 2700 hashes (248 hashes/second)
        SHA1 Benchmark took 19.052 seconds for 1900 hashes (100 hashes/second)

        Camino (1.5.1):
        MD5 Benchmark took 1.78 seconds for 3000 hashes (1685 hashes/second)
        MD4 Benchmark took 1.271 seconds for 2700 hashes (2124 hashes/second)
        SHA1 Benchmark took 1.931 seconds for 1900 hashes (984 hashes/second)

        Firefox (latest nightly build):
        MD5 Benchmark took 1.867 seconds for 3000 hashes (1607 hashes/second)
        MD4 Benchmark took 1.299 seconds for 2700 hashes (2079 hashes/second)
        SHA1 Benchmark took 2.077 seconds for 1900 hashes (915 hashes/second)

        Firefox (2.0.5):
        MD5 Benchmark took 2.628 seconds for 3000 hashes (1142 hashes/second)
        MD4 Benchmark took 1.919 seconds for 2700 hashes (1407 hashes/second)
        SHA1 Benchmark took 2.872 seconds for 1900 hashes (662 hashes/second)

        Opera 9.23 (current stable):
        MD5 Benchmark took 4.561 seconds for 3000 hashes (658 hashes/second)
        MD4 Benchmark took 3.163 seconds for 2700 hashes (854 hashes/second)
        SHA1 Benchmark took 4.812 seconds for 1900 hashes (395 hashes/second)

        Opera 9.50 alpha (build 4404):
        MD5 Benchmark took 1.446 seconds for 3000 hashes (2075 hashes/second)
        MD4 Benchmark took 1.021 seconds for 2700 hashes (2644 hashes/second)
        SHA1 Benchmark took 1.607 seconds for 1900 hashes (1182 hashes/second)

        Quite impressive the improvements that have been made in the latest opera... Also, camino wasn't faster than the firefox nightlies last time i tried it (camino 1.0.4)...
        I don't have access to msie or konqueror, i would assume konqueror performance would be similar to safari tho.
        • by jamarsa ( 796859 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @08:03AM (#20505939)
          can we assume the lack of IE7 benchmarks are due to being unfinished yet?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rs79 ( 71822 )
          Pretty numbers and everything but...

          I downloaded it when I first read this article. Then I went away for an hour and used it oing my normal
          daily sstuff.

          Holy shit it's fast. Some site, just plain html and lots of graphics are a bit faster then before.

          Sites with lots of ms generated js are unbelievably faster. Opera's always impressed me with its speed but I've never seen a speed increase likt this. Kudos.

      • by othermaciej ( 1153185 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:08AM (#20505005)
        Here's some results on Mac OSX (MacBook Pro Core Duo 2GHz):

        Prerelease builds:

        Safari 3 Nightly 177ms
        Opera 9.5 Alpha 278ms
        Firefox 3 Nightly 823ms

        Production builds:

        Safari 2 423ms
        Opera 9.2 684ms
        Firefox 2 880ms

        Looks like Safari wins this one.
        • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *
          Safari 3 on OS X is really optimised for your CPU and it uses system frameworks whenever possible. E.g. when it renders a jpeg, it calls jpeg framework which is said to be the industries fastest rendering thing out there. Quartz is heavily used too.

          Opera 9.5 is QT 4 and I don't think they are at "optimise" stage yet, they want something out and it is really alpha quality. Alpha/beta became really confusing these days, I am writing this on Omniweb "sneaky peek" (Alpha) which I made my main browser a long tim
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by noidentity ( 188756 )
        "and well, Internet Exploder is just plain terrible at everything."

        Hey, it's great at being terrible at everything (else)! That's something the other guys probably won't ever catch up on.
    • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:17AM (#20504791) Journal
      I think the reason they're focusing on Javascript here is because that's a major optimization that took place in Opera 9.5. Actually, the changelog tells that they rewrote the ECMAScript engine. But Opera also had optimizations done to its table renderer, and due to the still all too frequent table layouts on the web, even used by modern web designers, it would be interesting to see more general tests of loading times etc. Opera would probably still come out very close on top though, as it has before in the pre-9.5 versions too.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by localman ( 111171 )
        I just want to mention an unpopular fact: there is a point in every project I've worked on where table-based layout is either the only way to get a particular detail to work properly in all common browsers, or the CSS solution is so convoluted and absurd as to make multiple nested tables seem proper.

        I do like CSS, but it seemingly hasn't covered all bases yet.

        Cheers.
    • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:29AM (#20504843) Homepage Journal
      Not to mention font rendering. If using sub-pixel anti-aliasing, or anti-aliasing against the real background and not the document's bgcolor (or css equivalent), yes, it takes a lot longer, for a much better rendered result. Opera can be downright ugly when using small serif fonts on a non-uniform background, and Safari tends to dither against the wrong colour, especially if a table cell has a different colour than the document itself.

      Regarding text rendering... What bugs me is that since the first Firefox, every so often, you get a horisontal line which is skewed by one pixel. This happens on both Linux and Windows, on different machines, with different fonts, with all Gecko engines. When this happens between lines, it's not TOO bad -- it just looks odd when there's suddenly a pixel more space between two lines than all the others, but when it happens in the text itself, it's VERY noticable. And if you select the text on that line and unselect it again, the problem goes away. It's like the rendering engine pre-calculates how much vertical space to set aside for the text in order to to increase rendering speed. Then, when drawing the text, the actual result never matches the space, so it duplicates or chops lines at random intervals until it the text fits. I'd rather wait a little longer and avoid this problem.
    • by Misagon ( 1135 )
      In my experience with the previous revisions of Opera 9.x, the browser chokes completely on individual elements on a web page, if the server for that element is slow to respond.
      This gets more of a nuisance the more pages, tabs and windows you have loading at once.
      This program design flaw slows down the browsing experience considerably if you like me, use multiple windows.
      Sometimes, I have just xkill'd Opera and restarted it, because that was faster than waiting for it to respond to me clicking the "back" bu
    • That's easy to explain. When a browser only supports 90% of the standard (which is pretty much 100% of real life applications, but still...), it can cut some slack.

      On the up side, this also means that a lot of exploits simply do not work in Opera.
    • by bradbury ( 33372 )
      If this comment is accurate, it is an extremely poor reflection of the understanding of what serious people desire on the web. Indeed it could be deemed a Web 2.0 benchmark.

      I am both a programmer and an academic and consider the web to be an information resource. I do not care about Web 2.0 at all. My primary interests are in BBS/blog/Wiki posts involving people who have or have solved problems and the static display of abstracts and papers of people who have devoted serious thought to problems. Static
  • by IBBoard ( 1128019 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:53AM (#20504659) Homepage
    Okay, so Opera is probably a bit faster than Firefox in page rendering as well if they're faster at JavaScript, but the actual quote (emphasis mine) is:

    When running various JavaScript speed tests, Opera 9.5 scored slightly higher (281ms) than the previous released version, 9.23 (546ms)

    So Opera is much faster than FF when running JavaScript tests, according to Ars Technica.

    Numbers are meaningless without context ;)
    • by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:04AM (#20504995) Journal
      Opera is faster than Firefox across the board. Always has been, and probably always will be. Put that into context whatever way you want. So what's the point of your emphasis again?

      At the same time, Opera is also smaller, lighter, more stable, more innovative, better integrated, and comes from a company that behaves ethically towards the rest of the software community (eg, it does not engage in patent warfare to pummel the competition).

      Yet because it's not open source (it's been "free as in beer" for quite some time now, but even that's news to some people here) it's practically awarded pariah status by many Firefox zealots who typically use nothing more than ignorance and FUD to put it down.

      Seriously, the amount of anti-Opera, pro-Firefox propaganda (for want of a better word) here on Slashdot is ridiculous. Opera is, and always has been, a top-notch product.

      In the eyes of this humble observer, it's a far better browser than any other, but regardless of our personal preferences, isn't it time that people gave it due respect? Or is good software engineering only to be appreciated if it comes from the open source community?
      • I used Opera for several months a year or two ago and ultimately I found it to be slower then Firefox. I can't truly explain how this doesn't match up with what experiences and tests other people have had, but for me its quite true. So no, its not necessarily propaganda, but simply personal anecdotal evidence which you'll find is stronger for people then impartial evidence (after all, if Firefox is consistently slower for me, why would I want to use something else I perceive as slower?)
      • by cp.tar ( 871488 ) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Friday September 07, 2007 @06:25AM (#20505367) Journal

        I tried Opera.

        Good browser it may be, but I don't like it. It's better than IE, but then, so is Lynx.

        I like Firefox not so much for its speed (I'll admit Opera is faster), but for the extensions.

        And yes, some of the more often used extensions do come off as copies of stuff first introduced in Opera, which makes Opera a bit of the Apple of the browser world.

        And JFTR: Opera fanboys (the few that I've encountered) are worse than Linux, Mac and Amiga fanboys combined.

        • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @09:24AM (#20506707) Homepage
          I would also like to say 2 words. "Web Developer". That's all. As a web developer, the web developer plugin makes web development so much easier. If there's a rendering bug, or something else on Firefox, then I don't worry about it too much, because I know it will be easy to fix. Change a cookie value, see hidden form values, edit HTML and CSS and see the results instantly, without reloading the page. I know that there's "web developer" plugins for IE and such, but I have yet to see one with the functionality and ease of use of the firefox one. And that is the reason I'll continue to use Firefox as my main browser, until something beats them on this front.
          • by scot4875 ( 542869 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @02:17PM (#20511623) Homepage
            I used Firefox for about 4 years, and installed Opera this summer to do some testing on it.

            Since then, I've used Opera for browsing and Firefox for web development. There's just no comparison between the two. And now that one of the other responses to this post has pointed me at this [opera.com], I may not use Firefox for anything other than testing in Firefox.

            Of course, I'm one of those sufferers of the Firefox bug that causes it to use ridiculous amounts of memory. I've got a Firefox window open with Gmail (alas, Gmail breaks in Opera for me when composing mail), and it's consuming 180MB. I've got 2 opera windows open with about 15 tabs in one, including a few large Slashdot discussions, and it's consuming 120MB. So for me, there was no question when choosing between the two for everyday use.

            --Jeremy
    • by JordanL ( 886154 ) <jordan.ledoux@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:10AM (#20505011) Homepage
      You've clearly never used Opera if you're attempting to spin this article by claiming that we just plain don't know that Opera renders stuff in general near the top of the pack already, and also is perhaps the most standards compliant browser.

      Not to mention that Opera 9.x is one of the only stable browsers with tentative support for HTML 5.

      I get a kick out of FF fans on this site. FF is by no means bad, but Opera clearly has areas where it consistently outshines the open-source browser. Before, people used to say "I don't like ads in my browser" as an excuse for not using it. Then when it became free, it was "I use lots of GreaseMonkey scripts", despite the fact that you can use most GM scripts in Opera too.

      Opera leads the way for most browsing achievements, and they show no signs of stopping. I've been using it since version 6, and though I give FF a whirl every .x build, I still have yet to see anything on FF that makes me believe it's worth the switch... and to top it off I'm a web developer by trade. I code for Opera, then break it for FF and IE.
      • I have used Opera, but it was back around 6.0 or 7.0 and I preferred Firebird (as it was then - about v0.6) and stuck with it since. At the time it was the adverts, now I still use it to check website design but still don't like the interface. It's all down to personal preference, though.

        I'm not attempting to spin the article at all (hence "Opera is probably a bit faster than Firefox in page rendering as well"), I'm trying to de-spin the summary which just takes the fact of "Ars Technica does JavaScript tes
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ash-Fox ( 726320 )

        You've clearly never used Opera if you're attempting to spin this article by claiming that we just plain don't know that Opera renders stuff in general near the top of the pack already, and also is perhaps the most standards compliant browser.

        Just remember, w3c just makes recommendations, not standards. Anything that is a standard usually has "ISO/IEEE" on it, such as one of the HTML4 specifications. So far, I don't know of anything beyond HTML4 being a standard in the web world.

        I get a kick out of FF fans

  • by rm999 ( 775449 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:53AM (#20504661)
    without units. 281ms per what? Apparently a bunch of tests listed on http://celtickane.com/projects/jsspeed.php [celtickane.com]

    Now my question is, how significant is ~500 ms for these tests? All I care about is how long it takes to load a typical webpage I surf, and for me, Firefox seems almost instantaneous for most pages. "Smacks silly" my be an overstatement.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by hernyo ( 770695 )
      It's the ratio what matters. While rendering a random page, opening a huge html, processing arbitrary js code, or whatever: Opera is 2x faster than the others.

      Forget the units, use the ratio.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Indeed. Aside from ambitious Ajax applications doing client side calculation, does the speed of Javascript matter much?

      In addition to that - something I just thought of - I would much rather that the Javascript engine be VERY secure and reliable, rather than fast.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 )
        The funny thing is that Opera currently has no JS exploits (at least none that I'm aware of, couldn't test the 9.5 build yet), while both IE and FF suffer from a number of bugs that can be abused for privilege escalation (and are exploited with packages like MPack).
  • by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:00AM (#20504699) Homepage
    Right now, the biggest issues with both IE and Firefox is a huge memory footprint. If Opera wants to bring something valuable to the table, make sure it can run smoothly on XP with 256 megs of memory. That would be valuable for a lot of people with aging hardware.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by RuBLed ( 995686 )
      From what I have seen from running Opera over the years (was a total convert since 8.5) is that one of its' consistent nature is a lower memory footprint and yes it even runs on our old 128megs XP Box.
    • by ballpoint ( 192660 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:11AM (#20505015)
      Don't laugh: I'm running the latest version of Opera on an almost 10 year old Libretto 110CT with 32 MB RAM running Windows 98SE.

      It works quite well, and a lot better than most browsers on portable devices.

      Thank you, Opera !
    • Memory footprint is by large dependant on how many tabs you have open and what those tabs contain. Its mostly the pages you view that craves memory, not the browser in itself.

      The only time i have had problems with memory in Firefox is when ive been running many java and flash applications in various tabs but thats something the browser cant solve in any way since its all in the plugins.
  • by semiotec ( 948062 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:03AM (#20504711)
    I'd have sworn that the Youtube videos ran as fast on Firefox as they do on Opera, and I haven't really noticed myself reading slashdot articles faster on Opera than Firefox.

    I guess I am just getting too old for these newfangled Web 2.0 stuff.

  • by luvirini ( 753157 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:14AM (#20504771)
    Is that overall time to get and display an average page has gone up for me atleast in the last 10 years.

    This despite the fact that the computer speeds have increased and the connection speeds even more.

    The bigest fault lies ofcourse with maers of those silly pages with 100 different elements that have to be loaded and displayed separately, but also both IE and Firefox have become more and more bloated with functionality making them slower and bigger memory hogs.
    • Damn, I just upgraded my 4 year old PC to a quad core, so I missed all the speed changes :/ Maybe I should run it on my old PC just to wonder at how fast it is.
  • by atlep ( 36041 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:53AM (#20504947)
    I can't believe they left out Konqueror!
  • and? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crhylove ( 205956 )
    With apologies to Old Ben, I for one would rather give up a little speed for stability, portability, and adblock, foxmarks, and the very real benefits of using an open source product.

    But, if they were to GPL it.....

    rhY
    • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *

      With apologies to Old Ben, I for one would rather give up a little speed for stability, portability, and adblock, foxmarks, and the very real benefits of using an open source product.

      But, if they were to GPL it.....

      rhY

      They won't GPL it, their users, customers (a lot!) and fans are happy with a limited but professional developer community and your slashdot message won't change it.

      Opera ALPHA (yes, not even beta) showing blank page:40 MB RAM
      Firefox final, stable: 65,2 MB

      That Opera figure contains IMAP client, IRC client, News client, full feature RSS and even Bittorrent.

      Why change a working thing?

      Also Firefox being GPL really doesn't matter to me anymore, they should explain WHY they dropped official support from that IM

  • by XaXXon ( 202882 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `noxxax'> on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:07AM (#20504999) Homepage
    wake me up when it supports spnego/kerberos auth. Then I can tell my users they use opera at work.
  • by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:51AM (#20505213) Homepage Journal
    Its not like I actually notice the speed of my browser on a daily basis. I have 3 browsers to choose from between my laptop and iMac. Those are Firefox, IE, and Safari. I tend to use FireFox on both machines as it provides a consistent experience regardless of platform. I also find many of the plug ins to be very useful.

    Should I care? With today's machines the only performance issue I ever encounter is my connection. Frankly, if someone wants to sell me on a new browser then speed isn't the way to do it. Provide some convienence or functionality I can't live without. You are probably going to have to work hard at it and it will have to be something most of us haven't thought of. Sorry, but browsers are not rocket science and in this day they really aren't viable commercial products - you just have to have one and its expected your OS provider will have one for you.
  • by A Friendly Troll ( 1017492 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @06:25AM (#20505365)
    http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/ [nontroppo.org]

    And remember, this is an *alpha* release.
  • by guidryp ( 702488 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @08:59AM (#20506409)
    I was a long time Opera user until Firefox 1.0, but FF won me over with plugins and better default behaviors.

    Like when you are looking at a page and you see something to search for, highlight and right click search for....
    In Firefox you automatically get a new tab with the search, which is what I want. Opera overwrites the page you were reading with the search. Other features work similarly. You can hold down alt or something and get what you want.

    Similarly with bookmarks. Firefox I middle click a bookmark in my bookmark bar and I get a new tab. Opera, nothing happens, if I left click it over-writes my current page. Seeing a pattern

    Search in page. Firefox much better implementation with obvious highlighting.

    Speed isn't enough to win me back.

    So why use Opera at work. It is stable. Firefox crashes all the time on my Redhat corporate install. Perhaps something wrong with the Redhat because I have tried out IT supplied Firefox and my own DL copy with the same results.

    A lot was stolen from Opera, it is time for Opera to steal back with some of the better interface elements of firefox.
  • ... I think that the news is not how fast it is, but that it manages to be the fastest while being so far ahead of the pack in terms of everthing else. Consider this:
    • Security: According to Secunia, Opera has 0 unpatched holes, compared to IE which has the most and Safari, second worst; unfortunately, Firefox has quite a few left as well.
    • Features: Integrated email, feed reader, widgets, notes, IRC & bittorrent client; back in the day, Netscape tried to do that with email, then gave up when the code became too heavy and impossible to manage, opting instead for "modularization"; IE followed by introducing menu items for OE and FP Express. Opera is the only one left standing and still the fastest with the smalled footprint.
    • The only browser that can read pages back to you (Windows->select text, right click, V)
    • Portability - opera-usb.com, comes with flashblocker button in case you don't know how to set it yourself
    • Mobile devices, where it's at - Opera rules that market
    • Someone complained about the find function - the window doesn't actually disappear if you click behind it, it stays on top but loses focus
    Wishlist: better integration with Google modules and especially Google Reader, but part of that seems to be addressed with Synchronization I used Opera since version 5. I would not use an OS unless there's an Opera made for it.

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca

Working...