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.
Thread beginning with comment 160378
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Rendering speed is not everything
by J. M. on Fri 8th Sep 2006 04:51 UTC
J. M.
Member since:

For me, it doesn't matter if the browser renders a webpage in 4.76 seconds or 4.89. What's much, much more noticeable on my PC is the GUI speed, that's where I can see the biggest difference between web browsers' speed and that's where Firefox (or Mozilla/Seamonkey) is by far the slowest piece of software I use due to the massive overhead of the XUL based GUI (several times slower than "native" GUI, like pure GTK+ or Qt or the Windows GUI). Plus, I'd really like to know why the Firefox GUI is so much slower on Linux/BSD than it is on Windows (I know this is generally the case with many cross-platform apps, the Opera GUI is also several time slower on Linux, but again, why?).

Reply Score: 5

Sphinx Member since:

Which is .12 seconds of my life I'll never get back waiting for a stinking browser to render, adds up, that's why it matters. I don't think Firefox is based on XUL, Mozilla is based on XUL, that's one of the big differences. XUL applications have to be adapted to firefox.

Reply Parent Score: 0

eMagius Member since:

I don't think Firefox is based on XUL,

You think wrong. Firefox's ugliness and poor feel, as well as its laggard speed, can be largely attributed to XUL. Compare to K-Meleon or other native Gecko-based browsers to see the difference.

XUL needs to be taken out back and shot.

Reply Parent Score: 5

CrLf Member since:

"I don't think Firefox is based on XUL"

You think wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2