Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 8th Sep 2006 04:10 UTC
Benchmarks "Oh sure, the following tests aren't as scientific as putting all the browsers in a ring and seeing which one is left standing after the fight, but it's close." More here.
Permalink for comment 160579
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-04-26 the word "unscientific". There are so, so many variables that make a browser "slow" or "fast" that testing the way the author did is very disingenuous. In fact, all it's really accomplished is starting a flamefest, both here and all over. Articles like that always do.

For instance, I was able to get *wildly* different results from Firefox by simply enabling and disabling extensions:

Rendering with the following extensions:
Talkback, Adblock, Colorzilla, Web Developer, Html Validator, XPather, Adblock Filterset.G Updater, Tamper Data

Rendering with NO extensions:

I'm positive that IE with various BHOs will also affect its rendering speed as well. Did the author have any toolbars installed? He doesn't say...

Seriously, you have to take this kind of test with a grain of salt and not let it get you pissed off. Clearly the author knew it would cause a firestorm. My bet is that if IE had "lost" it wouldn't have even been posted. Same for Firefox articles in the same vein.

Some other thoughts:
-IE7 hasn't been released fully yet...who knows how fast it will be. It could blow the pants off everything, or be slow as mud

-Mozilla depends on Pango, which is being optimized in an ongoing effort to make Gnome and GTK+ faster

Reply Score: 3