Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Nov 2010 23:10 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Permalink for comment 450764
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-07-13
Chrome still feels snappiest to me... FF B7 next followed by IE9. It's probably all just some weird perception thing since page rendering times between the three cannot be vastly different.
I am using FF B7 to write this post.
But as an aside, I thought FF was going to use process isolation for tabs like Chrome in FF4? It isn't, apparently. Comparatively speaking, FF B7 uses about 10000K more of RAM than Chrome 9...
Mate, you did a great job earlier by including uncertainties in your benchmark duration analyses and showing how in som cases the time differences are statistically insignificant. Now you'v just let yourself down worrying about an extra 10 MB memory usage on a machine you boast has 8 GB RAM. How sigificant is that? It's pretty meaningless these days unless you are on an severely constrained embedded system (even they are starting to get large amounts of memory since it is so easy to work with and so cheap to manufacture). Keep up the good stats work though.