11/10 Now that FF 1.0 is out, has anybody gone back and compared, say,
startup times to older versions (maybe even Phoenix)? Is FF still
a great deal faster than mozilla? I remember using phoenix and
thinking that it was maybe 2x faster for startup, as compared to
mozilla.
\_ I don't know about Mozilla, but startup time for FF 1.0 on OSX
is almost exactly the same as Safari.
\_ I use it on a G3 Macintosh and it seems a lot faster than Mozilla.
\_ It's faster than mozilla, about the same speed or slightly faster
than IE on Windows, depending on how many extensions you run.
\_ I disagree with "faster than IE". I see various situations
where IE works faster. Regular browsing and also some CGI
script stuff we have at work. I still prefer its features
although I never tried one of those IE wrapper/extension
things.
\_ I disagree with your disagreement. FF is slightly faster
than IE for loading up certain pages, especially if you
have stuff like ad filters in place. As for CGI stuff,
I have no idea what type of CGI you're doing, so this is
not a very good comparison. If you have a lot of ActiveX
crap running on your webpage then IE might be faster, but
then who wants a page full of ActiveX.
\_ There are ad filtering shiznits for IE based stuff too.
Actually what I was thinking of wasn't CGI. Just a large
(1.3MB) page of HTML that loads up faster in IE and feels
snappier. It seems to have improved a bit in 1.0 though.
\_ I disagree with your disagreement of his disagreement.
\_ http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/C/CE.html is one page
that IE is faster with. It's a fairly slow link, but
IE shows more of the page earlier... it's pretty
terrible HTML though, so not much of a test. Didn't
even put his hrefs in quotes.
\_ Tabbed-browsing is super-fast! IE does not have tabbed
browsing unless you install something non-standard on top.
On a mano-a-mano rendering test for an already open browser
window, I would accept that some pages render faster in IE
than FireFox. |