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.'"
Article is very misleading - JS benchmark only (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Opera faster _with JavaScript_ (Score:5, Insightful)
So Opera is much faster than FF when running JavaScript tests, according to Ars Technica.
Numbers are meaningless without context
Re:Grade article: incomplete (Score:3, Insightful)
Resource-conservation, not speed (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part of the whole browsing experience (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:its all about the addons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Those numbers mean nothing... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
So how about the browser that really matters? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fed up with the anti-Opera crap here... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Grade article: incomplete (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different market (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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 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:Different market (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Faster? I could care less. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Opera rocks (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Different market (Score:4, Insightful)
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:I'm fed up with the anti-Opera crap here... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "rigorously security audited" argument is a fallacy, unless you truly believe that Opera is somehow doing something that it shouldn't be doing. And that fallacy is blown out of the water when you realise that there isn't a single demonstrable example of Opera doing something as unethical as "phoning home" with your browsing habits, etc.
Look around. The minute that something like that happens, whether it's Microsoft, Real, Sony or whoever, it's exposed almost immediately. Why, then, do people maintain this "ooh, they could be doing something naughty" line about Opera, when the company has gone out of its way to be a positive member of the software community? It's FUD, pure and simple.
Look elsewhere on this story. You have people claiming that it's not "free as in beer". That's ignorance. You have people claiming it's not as fast as Firefox. That's ignorance again. You have people claiming that it might
be useful if only it would perform well on machines that are only equipped with 256MB. That's... well, do you want to guess what that is? Go on, guess. You have people bleating "big deal, speed doesn't matter". Yet these are the same people who bleat about how Firefox is better than MSIE because it's faster and less bloated.
It's all FUD and ignorance, FUD and ignorace. What happened to fair judgement and common sense?
Opera is a great product from a great company. Pure and simple.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't that always the case? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I just don't have spiderman senses or Clint Eastwood style reflexes that most web users have, but the wait of less than half a second for a webpage to render doesn't really bother me that much.
I'm not saying this because I'm a Firefox fanboy, or because I don't like Opera, I just don't get why it matters. Even on MySpace it doesn't take so long to render a webpage that it bothers you, and if a webpage takes a long time to load it'll almost certainly be because of your network connection or the server and not rendering time.
Re:Different market (Score:2, Insightful)
That is not possible. Opera cannot know when another app needs memory.
Re:its all about the addons (Score:4, Insightful)
Maintain away, including setting site specific cookies to delete upon exit.
Re:Different market (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Different market (Score:3, Insightful)
The Rule of Economy [faqs.org] is fine when applied sensibly (for example, GNOME do the right thing writing many end user applications in python). However, Firefox is currently at the level where it's computational burden is increasing almost as fast as Moore's Law.
Re:I'm fed up with the anti-Opera crap here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't that always the case? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't that always the case? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Different market (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know of any OS that provides such a facility. The app could monitor free physical RAM, or could (as you mention about the Mac version) choose to dump cache when hidden/minimized, but I don't believe there is any way to allocate memory such that the OS will simply take it back when needed. All non-locked memory allocations on modern OSes are subject to being paged out to free up memory when other apps need it, but that is very different from saying the OS "takes the memory when needed", because it involves the (slow) process of writing the memory contents out to the disk.
It's an interesting idea, though. Perhaps operating systems should provide such a feature, a way to allocate memory "weakly", such that the OS can reallocate it as-needed. There would have to be some mechanism by which the OS could notify the app that the memory was being taken away (I suppose it could just be a SIGSEGV).
Re:Resource-conservation, not speed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm fed up with the anti-Opera crap here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm fed up with the anti-Opera crap here... (Score:4, Insightful)
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