Firefox 184.108.40.206 vs Firefox 3.0 b 1
I sure hope nobody is paying this guy for his completely useless "evaluation." There's two minutes of my life wasted.
Interesting as this is I would really like a comparison with 3.0 b5 which I'm currently using and is fairly stable. What I noticed was a much better handling of memory at first (sorry I kept no slides...) but this seems to deteriorate with time! Any MS people involved? Anyway, after the ubiquitous failed SP installations (malware protection issue) I finally got it installed and have noticed up to almost 300.000 K memory use for FF. At this very moment FF has been running for about an hour, has 14 open pages including this one and Task Manager reports a 248.384 K use down to 228.484 after a few seconds (wondering why?)!
The site is TECH Republic and presumably read by techies. A half dozen screenshots does not make a useful article. Why no explanation of the reason for a ten minute wait? If it is a test, tell us the methodology used and the conclusions, at the very least. NOTE TO EDITOR. Would it not be better to pay contributers and get professional articles?
After hearing all the experts one wonders! What is the point of having a Beta available unless it is for making things better for the user? Are you mad about things getting better or is your gripe that things are not where they should be? Why not just take the simple facts put forward and chew on them for yourselves, but that would deny you the your chance to kick the dog as someone said earlier! I guess my comment is just as a good as a bark! To be honest I like jhoughes, at least it was in English!
Seamonkey [ 1.1.4 ], Mozilla's suite browser tool checked with the same "benchmarks" you used for Firefox 2 and 3. 527,256 bytes of ram used. [ 5 tabs, 10 minutes. ] works out to 3% total resources consumed. seems to support my regular comment that Firefox is bloatware compared to Seamonkey, specially concidering that they use the same rendering engine.
A bunch of hard-to-read screenshots? Could barely make them out, let alone tell which was which. I see no value to this "article" at all. I learned nothing about Firefox (either version) - but I did learn to avoid pieces submitted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Next time, try an expository commentary about the subject you're discussing, using the screenshots to illustrate the points you try to make. Learn how to write, dammit!
I try to repeat experiment. I check memories during opening one page and 9 pages. All pages were the same in all browsers. Every browser was downloaded with blank page and then were downloaded nine pages or one page. Data (in kB) are from SysInternals Process Explorer: 1 page Browser Virtual Physical FF 2.0.11 116172 54424 FF 3.0 b2 100124 41060 IntEx 7.0 128940 33384 9 pages Browser Virtual Physical FF 2.0.11 116692 52324 FF 3.0 b2 101000 38540 IntEx 7.0 187188 58696 1 page you read now and 9 pages were BBC Russin news.
What's a geek without coffee! I'm not sure you can read much into a memory test of a beta 1 product. I get 45,264 here on beta 2 with one page open. Who really cares about 20mb more even. Stability and speed are far more important.
Nice try but I think this comparison was worthless. Ask yourself this question. If your boss asked you to present him/her with a report or presentation comparing the two is this what you'd give them? I know most of us would probably get tossed out on our cans. Please update and try again.
You'd have to know and be able to assess the memory issues that Firefox developers said they fixed versus random page loads. Then too - what were the test conditions? Is this REALLY a clean test case? At least: Same PC? Same configurations of the browser? Absolutely CLEAN installs, not install+remove or install+over-install. Wholly subjective, unqualified, invalid everything.
Firefox 220.127.116.11 5 pages loaded 37,640k Single page, on-screen 10 minutes 47,852k 12 pages loaded 103,180k Firefox 3.0 beta 1 5 pages loaded 38,644k Single page, on-screen 10 minutes 63,764k 12 pages loaded 62,312k IE7 (whatever the hell this was included for) 12 pages loaded 89,756k
Various pages with differing content would have made this *comparison* quite more interesting and informative. I've had pages on that make the usage vary by as much as 20-30m depending on the site and content. Best of luck and thanks for trying
You contaminated the experiment when you through IE in the mix. The last picture could have been an excel graph depicting the results and providing your recommendation as to why you think one is better than the other. You would have been fired on the spot if you provide something like this at my job.
You definitely should not give up your day job. Test proved nothing, and what was the IE7 figure for?
You either summed up the numbers in a comparitive table or at the very least put the numbers in the figure captions. I found it difficult to read the numbers from the screen shots.
And I "wasted wo minutes of my life" opening Tech Republic's Alert to read this "completely useless" reply and write another "completely useless" reply...
If you think the OP did a crappy job, provide something better! I think the OP did a decent job and was not trying to come over as an expert but simply showing a comparison of the old versus new as well as a pinch of the standard. It was probably not done under perfect testing conditions but I'm satisfied that what was presented is similar to what such a test would eventually show, I did find the pictures a little hard to view but was able to make out the intended data points. Jeez people get a life and stop thread crapping!
I agree with the comments that this 'comparison' is a complete waste of time. There's no indication what the PC was, its physical memory or the exact steps followed in testing, hence it's completely worthless.
Come on everyone! He included the IE shot so we could see the difference in Firefox and IE7. That's all.
Useless data. No point unless we need to change browser. No conclusion about the data. Why read this.?????
I have to say that the test showed the possibility that the new Firefox handled multiple pages (more than 5)better than it's predecessor, and maybe better than IE given the RAM usage. A more complete test would be in order to call it true, though. However, this was just meant to be a glimpse, not a rough draft for entry into the encyclopedia or something, so give the guy some slack.
While I think in most cases the Editors/Writers are trying to give us some helpful & useful info, I think this one has really missed the target in regards to saying anything truly meaningful. I gleaned I thing from the screenshots.... Thank god we are in the days of Gigabites of RAM!!! In reality I find this constant comparison of IE to Firefox a bore. In most cases it only amounts to "picking the proverbial fly s___t out of the pepper"!!! Many of the so-called "comparisons" are on the ridiculous side and don't affect the most common user of the product at all. Personally, I use both IE and Firefox and have no bridges to burn with either of them. I don't think either is the end all answer to a browser, and at the same time don't think that one is substantially better overall than the other. Let's face it folks, they are "browsers" with fairly complex software but it seems all the so-called "testers" and "purists" out there want a browser to operate like the Space Shuttle when it was only designed to function like a NASCAR entry. My recommendation would be to quit putting out these articles with only tidbits of info until such time that TR (or any other tester/reviewer) had a complete set of totally honest comparative data from testing all aspects of the software and it's performance.
As a totally blind computer user having screenshots made this article completely useless to me. The software I use cannot read a screenshot. Perhaps an HTML table of sorts could have been done with text giving us the results. As a computer software/hardware Support Specialist I was very interested in this article but could not read it.
This was really not up to TechRepublic's quality standards. A picture "may" speak a thousand words but a graph or table is what I would expect from this publication, not show 'n' tell!
i'm kinda dumb. i did not understand the screenshots, or the explanations in the comments. something about 10 minutes...? this "comparison" was sort of unclear. i've been spoiled by simplistic comparisons like this one: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html all i can say is, for all the raves Opera gets for being the fastest browser in the land, in my experience it renders a lot of pages like crap. pages just seem to look like hell, and scripts don't seem to operate cleanly. i use firefox most of the time. i find IE to be faster for many sites, but ie7 is unstable. i've seen it crash, and i've seen it scramble pages when using the back button. their "addin" library seems like a cheap imitation of firefox addins. firefox just seems the most rock-steady. but it's a slow hog. hopefully will improve in V 3.
Fabulous results lads....m using me same firefox 3.0 beta...n its super..compared to the previos versions...
I have to agree, I found the figures hard to see. I kept flicking forward and back to compare results, a comparison chart would have been much easier to take in.
why did he load 12 pages instead of the five he loaded in FF? Apples and oranges. jhoughes, thanks for the summary.
Can't believe the editorial staff let this pass. This is about as useful as pointing me to a dozen pages in a hard-copy directory in a library, and then expecting me to access, review, compile, and analyze the data. Zero value add. As others have pointed out, where's the summary table, baseline environment (can't see that from the screen shot), and conclusions? After about six screens, I gave up -- I don't care about this that much to do this author's work for him.
Still, the original article could have been better presented. It's interesting material, but I hit the first couple of screen shots, determined I wasn't able to read them at 1024 x 768, and quit.
The screen grabs also show twelve pages loaded in FF 2 & 3 (as well as 1 and 5), which jhoughes did show in the summary as well. The IE7 screen grab is just a system baseline - the OS default browser under the heaviest browser load demonstrated.
This was not meant as "What is the best browser", but rather showing the differences between the two versions of FF. An entirely valid point to make and show. Because of that focused point, NO other browser should have been mentioned. Make that a "Part II". Your points about the controlled test are right on spot though. Best with two matching PC's, each with a clean install, but oh well.... B-)
Rather than moan bout this here is my objective comments which I only add to help the reporter and anything I will say is pretty much covered by the other comments though without the sledghammer diplomacy. If it is only Firefox then keep it firefox as mentioned already the IE7 screenshot seemed to confuse. Presentation : as mentioned by others screenies is not idle go for a structured table, piecharts, bar graph whatever but try get it all on one page. Controlled test : I would advise your OS is a fresh install and the sites you use are all predetermined just in case someone throws a spanner in the works and states "you got spyware ... firewall ... browser addons" whatever. Lastly I think this would be really helpful if you ran a comparsion between more browsers like IE, FF and Opera there is alot of talk about the pro's and con's of each various browsers but to be honest I find it hard to find anything solid. Search the web for other reports and look at the methods used if you want to contruct an in depth report but for a "brief" report this is ok. Hope this should help