# 13-Way Web Browser Performance Roundup



## Regeneration (Aug 5, 2012)

Despite all the rumors of Apple discontinuing Safari for Windows, the web browser market is still on fire. New versions and updates are being released almost on a weekly basis. In fact, with so many options available - it would be nice to know which one is the fastest. Unfortunately, it's been a while since someone came up with a performance roundup. So we spent the last couple of days benchmarking the most popular web browsers and even some of less popular ones (a total of 13 in number). Is Google Chrome still on top? Read on to find out.

Read more: http://www.ngohq.com/news/22169-web-browser-performance-roundup-for-q3-2012-a.html


----------



## helloWorld (Aug 5, 2012)

In short, the latest Chrome wins in everything except for WebVizBench.

Good performance comparison though Regeneration.


----------



## qubit (Aug 5, 2012)

You can't beat Firefox with its plugins. It's not just about rendering speed, but also about useability and a killer feature makes a product a must-have regardless of anything else.

Also, rendering accuracy is critically important too. Rendering a page fast and poorly is useless. I don't see rendering accuracy compared here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2012)

Looks like Microsoft has some improvements they need to make to IE 64-bit.  Something is causing it to be ridiculously slow.  IE should be the most mature 64-bit browser too because it debuted almost 10 years ago now.


----------



## qubit (Aug 5, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Looks like Microsoft has some improvements they need to make to IE 64-bit.  Something is causing it to be ridiculously slow.  *IE should be the most mature 64-bit browser too because it debuted almost 10 years ago now.*



Indeed, it makes you wonder what Microsoft are playing at, doesn't it? I have a feeling that perhaps they're not putting their best people into developing it, perhaps?


----------



## mtosev (Aug 5, 2012)

IE slow as hell. I'm not surprised by this
microsoft obviously doesn't know how to make a good browser


----------



## Kreij (Aug 5, 2012)

I see no difference in the speed of 32 vs 64 bit in IE9 displaying web pages.
How do the benchmark scores, between these two, compare to real-world surfing experience?


----------



## digibucc (Aug 5, 2012)

qubit said:


> You can't beat Firefox with its plugins.



out of curiosity, what plugins do you use that you can't find an equivalent in chrome for? I'll readily admit that google is not a mozilla's level as far as extensions and customization go- but i also think they have a great selection of add-ons, and i've found one for every need i had in firefox.

again, curiosity


----------



## Kreij (Aug 5, 2012)

Why do people need dozens and dozens of add-ons for their browser?
Honest question ... not trying to start a fight or anything.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2012)

qubit said:


> Indeed, it makes you wonder what Microsoft are playing at, doesn't it? I have a feeling that perhaps they're not putting their best people into developing it, perhaps?


It's almost like the optimizations they put in 32-bit weren't included in 64-bit as well.




Kreij said:


> I see no difference in the speed of 32 vs 64 bit in IE9 displaying web pages.
> How do the benchmark scores, between these two, compare to real-world surfing experience?


Same.  It might be a bug in the test, not the browser.


----------



## Kreij (Aug 5, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Same. It might be a bug in the test, not the browser



I guess I don't care about the benches as long as the browser responds within my expectations.
If IE9 takes one second to display a page, and Chrome takes .5 seconds, it just doesn't matter to me.

I have noticed something at work recently. Most of the machines are still XP SP3 and something is causing IE8 to be really slow, even simple things like opening a new tab. This never used to be the case. 
A new update perhaps? The machines running Win7 with IE9 are fine.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2012)

Kreij said:


> I have noticed something at work recently. Most of the machines are still XP SP3 and something is causing IE8 to be really slow, even simple things like opening a new tab. This never used to be the case.
> A new update perhaps? The machines running Win7 with IE9 are fine.


Same again!  My XP Pro SP3 computer with IE8 is painfully slow.  So slow, it's tempting to upgrade it to Windows 7/8.  It's slow to open the "My Network Places" too though so there would be more benefit to upgrading than just IE.


----------



## Kreij (Aug 5, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So slow, it's tempting to upgrade it to Windows 7/8



A covert coding and update operation by microsoft to initiate upgrades? 

Continuing without my timfoil hat on ... Nothing seems to help. 
Disabling add-on does not imporve things. 
It seems like IE8 is now doing something that is bogging things down more than before.
I don't run XPx64 so I don't know if it is the same in that OS.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 5, 2012)

ppl still use IE8? wtf? that browser is over 3 years old. IE8 has serious compatibility issues with some newer websites or the websites doesn't even work


----------



## Kreij (Aug 5, 2012)

mtosev said:


> ppl still use IE8? wtf? that browser is over 3 years old. IE8 has serious compatibility issues with some newer website or the website doesn't even work



Except that's not the problem. Everything displays fine ... it's just gotten really slow.

I'm talking about a corporate network.
I am upgrading to Win7, but available cash dictates the speed at which that happens.
I cannot upgrade the XP workstations to IE9 or I would.


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 5, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Why do people need dozens and dozens of add-ons for their browser?
> Honest question ... not trying to start a fight or anything.



Because it helped me contribute to Rick Astley being nominated for best artist ever


----------



## mtosev (Aug 5, 2012)

try loading a site which uses HTML5 and tell me if it even loads or not
u can always install a modern browser like FF, Chrome, SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon, Opera, LunaScape,...


----------



## Kreij (Aug 5, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> Because it helped me contribute to Rick Astley being nominated for best artist ever



I had no idea ! 
I'm switching to FF right now !!  



mtosev said:


> try loading a site which uses HTML5 and tell me if it even loads or not
> u can always install a modern browser like FF, Chrome, SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon, Opera, LunaScape,...



HTML 5 compatibilty makes no difference to me on my work network at this point.
99% of what goes on by the users works fine in IE8, I am just trying to figure out what it has started doing to make it so slow.

On topic : It would be interesting to see all the test results based on something meaningful (like time) as opposed to just a generic scoring system.
I've never been nuts about benchmarks that produce an overall score.
I'm not saying that the results are wrong, as the tests should be applied equally to each browser or whatever, I just would like to see all the details.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2012)

It is interesting that they included Avant, since it is just a UI skin over IE/Firefox/Chrome.  What I find even more interesting is that they didn't list what rendering engine they set Avant to use during the testing.  I actually use Avant as my main browser, but with the Chrome rendering engine as the default, so it is just as fast as chrome from my experience.  Though it is extremely convenient to be able to just create a new tab using any one of the other two rendering engines without having to open a new window.



qubit said:


> You can't beat Firefox with its plugins. It's not just about rendering speed, but also about useability and a killer feature makes a product a must-have regardless of anything else.



Sure I can, Chrome with its plugins. Most of the firefox plug-in developers have made their plug-ins available for chrome, so the plug-in advantage is pretty much gone with firefox.  I can't stand firefox since and they still haven't separated each tab to its own thread so when one tab crashes, they all don't crash...even IE managed to do this.


----------



## Drone (Aug 5, 2012)

Hm they included Safari? Safari for windows is no more lol.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Aug 5, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Why do people need dozens and dozens of add-ons for their browser?
> Honest question ... not trying to start a fight or anything.



I was actually thinking the same thing? 

Just wondering what uses these plugins have? I use chrome straight up with no plugins.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2012)

Drone said:


> Hm they included Safari? Safari for windows is no more lol.



That hasn't been made official, when they released Safari 6.0 they didn't release a version for Windows and people are assuming that means Safari for Windows has been discontinued.  However, it is also just as likely that the ported version of Safari 6.0 for Windows just isn't ready.  Safari 5.1.7 is still available, and since they both use the same rendering engine, and Safari 6.0 is largely focused around OSX integration, getting a 6.0 release out for Windows might not be a priority.



ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> I was actually thinking the same thing?
> 
> Just wondering what uses these plugins have? I use chrome straight up with no plugins.



They add functionality, some being more useful than others.  The most popular are probably plug-ins that block ads, as a lot of people don't like ads.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 6, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Sure I can, Chrome with its plugins. Most of the firefox plug-in developers have made their plug-ins available for chrome, so the plug-in advantage is pretty much gone with firefox.  I can't stand firefox since and they still haven't separated each tab to its own thread so when one tab crashes, they all don't crash...even IE managed to do this.


IE9, every tab is its own process.  The entire process can crash and the main IE9 process can recover/restore it.  Can even transfer tabs between IE9 windows.  They got some Aero wizardy going on there which is why XP doesn't support it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> IE9, every tab is its own process.  The entire process can crash and the main IE9 process can recover/restore it.  Can even transfer tabs between IE9 windows.  They got some Aero wizardy going on there which is why XP doesn't support it.



That is what I mean, Chrome is the same way and so is Opera, AFAIK Firefox is the only modern tabbed browser that doesn't run each tab as its own process.  It makes it really annoying when on tab crashes everything.


----------



## Peter1986C (Aug 6, 2012)

And Iceweasel (the Firefox derivative Debian and Aptosid provide) works like FF too with everything in one process. Might this be to keep the application running smoothly on single core CPUs?


----------



## Drone (Aug 6, 2012)

Currently running Dolphin browser (under PC-BSD). It's lush. 
For Windows 8 IE10 is pretty sufficient.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2012)

Chevalr1c said:


> And Iceweasel (the Firefox derivative Debian and Aptosid provide) works like FF too with everything in one process. Might this be to keep the application running smoothly on single core CPUs?



Not likely, single core CPUs don't have a problem with running multiple processes.  I chalk it up to lazy programming.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2012)

Nothing is safer then IE9. Speed I could care less about if I'm getting hit with a JS exploit every 10 minutes. "Oh but with No Script that isn't a worry!" BS.


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Nothing is safer then IE9.



You reckon IE9 is the most secure browser out there? I don't know which one is, but any version if IE sounds unlikely, even though it's much better than it used to be.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2012)

qubit said:


> You reckon IE9 is the most secure browser out there? I don't know which one is, but any version if IE sounds unlikely, even though it's much better than it used to be.



Look it up. IE9 has been proven time and time again to be the most secure.


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Look it up. IE9 has been proven time and time again to be the most secure.



Ok, I might just do that. You got any links?

Firefox, the browser I use all the time, used to be hailed as very secure, but after some of the exploits I've seen reported, I don't think that's true. So, while it's my favourite browser, I'm under no illusions that it's especially secure.


----------



## erocker (Aug 6, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Look it up. IE9 has been proven time and time again to be the most secure.



So what? With the amount of A/V software out there it shouldn't be a problem. Now if IE could only get more stable. I used IE almost exclusively up until about a year ago. Chrome is superior.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2012)

qubit said:


> Ok, I might just do that. You got any links?
> 
> Firefox, the browser I use all the time, used to be hailed as very secure, but after some of the exploits I've seen reported, I don't think that's true. So, while it's my favourite browser, I'm under no illusions that it's especially secure.



IE9 and Chrome are leading the way right now. Firefox and Safari are at the bottom. Honestly Safari is about the same as vannilla Firefox. With SOME plug-ins its a little better but not much. 

Of course nothing is better then smart browsing.



erocker said:


> So what? With the amount of A/V software out there it shouldn't be a problem. Now if IE could only get more stable. I used IE almost exclusively up until about a year ago. Chrome is superior.



Stable? Been running it for 4 months and not a single crash yet you don't run a AV and yours crashes? Hmmmmm.


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2012)

erocker said:


> So what? With the amount of A/V software out there it shouldn't be a problem. Now if IE could only get more stable. I used IE almost exclusively up until about a year ago. Chrome is superior.



No, Firefox is better! Take that!

(Oh, if only we had a punch and judy animated smiley here...  )


----------



## erocker (Aug 6, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Stable? Been running it for 4 months and not a single crash yet you don't run a AV and yours crashes? Hmmmmm.



Argument has zero basis. I didn't mention crashes, I was eluding to known issues in performance.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2012)

erocker said:


> Argument has zero basis. I didn't mention crashes, I was eluding to known issues in performance.



Ah my mistake. What stability issues were you having. My fault for assuming.


----------



## erocker (Aug 6, 2012)

Performance issues with certain tasks. They are all well documented in various reviews and online browser tests. I haven't used IE for a year, I can't remember specifics. Don't need to either, Chrome works great. Give it a try.. or don't, doesn't matter to me. It's a browser.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2012)

erocker said:


> Performance issues with certain tasks. They are all well documented in various reviews and online browser tests. I haven't used IE for a year, I can't remember specifics. Don't need to either, Chrome works great.



I agree. I like chrome ALOT. Seems very quick. It just wasn't as secure for me. That and I honestly never noticed it being all the more "quick" then IE9.


----------



## Depth (Aug 7, 2012)

Try SRWare Iron. It's identical to Chrome but with all the hardcoded snooping Google stuff scooped out

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

Newest stable build came out a month ago
http://www.srware.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3962&sid=0dcf0f6c5c00e4112701066073ff24b3


For the record, I use Firefox.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 7, 2012)

I really like ie9. I only switched to chrome because certain websites I go to  sometimes don't work with ie9, and I really like adblock now. I see no speed difference between them either. I tried firefox but it was really slow, without any modifications.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 7, 2012)

@themailman

nope.avi

http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bi...=Microsoft&version= 9&title=Internet Explorer




Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1876 Col Element Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53848

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1524 Attribute Remove Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-07-18
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54294

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1522 Cached Object Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-07-18
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54293

Microsoft Internet Explorer And Microsoft Lync HTML Sanitizing Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-07-11
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53842

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1874 Developer Toolbar Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-06-17
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53845

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1872 EUC-JP Character Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53843

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1873 Null Byte Handling Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53844

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1877 Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53866

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1878 'OnBeforeDeactivate' Event Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53867

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1879 'insertAdjacentText()' Method Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53868

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1880 'insertRow()' Method Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53869

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-1881 'OnRowsInserted' Event Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53870

Microsoft Internet Explorer Scrolling Events Cross Domain Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-06-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53871

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-0171 SelectAll Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-04-18
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52905

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-0169 JScript9 Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-04-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52902

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-0168 Print Feature Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-04-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52889

RETIRED: Microsoft April 2012 Advance Notification Multiple Vulnerabilities
2012-04-10
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52910

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-0155 VML Handling Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-02-22
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/51935

Microsoft Internet Explorer Use-After-Free Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-02-22
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/51933

Microsoft Internet Explorer Null Byte Handling Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-02-15
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/51932

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2012-0010 Cross Domain Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-02-15
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/51931

RETIRED: Microsoft February 2012 Advance Notification Multiple Vulnerabilities
2012-02-14
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/51944

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2011-3404 Cross Domain Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2011-12-16
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/50976

Microsoft Internet Explorer CVE-2011-2019 DLL Loading Arbitrary Code Execution Vulnerability
2011-12-16
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/50975

Microsoft Internet Explorer IFRAME Loading Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2011-12-14
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/51065

RETIRED: Microsoft December 2011 Advance Notification Multiple Vulnerabilities
2011-12-13
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/50980

Microsoft Internet Explorer 'SwapNode()' CVE-2011-2000 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2011-10-17
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/49965

Microsoft Internet Explorer Virtual Function Table CVE-2011-2001 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2011-10-17
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/49966

Microsoft Internet Explorer 'Jscript9.dll' CVE-2011-1998 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2011-10-12
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/49963

Microsoft Internet Explorer 'OLEAuto32.dll' CVE-2011-1995 Memory Corruption Vulnerability





Firefox
 Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey CVE-2012-1961 Clickjacking Vulnerability
2012-08-04
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54584

Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1960 Out of Bounds Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54572

Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird Multiple Remote Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54578

Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird CVE-2012-1955 Location Bar Spoofing Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54586

Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1958 Use-After-Free Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54574

Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird CVE-2012-1957 Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54583

Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1967 Privilege Escalation Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54573

Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1962 Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54575

Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey CVE-2012-1959 Security Bypass Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54576

Mozilla Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-08-01
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54582

Mozilla Firefox CVE-2012-1950 Address Bar URI Spoofing Vulnerability
2012-07-31
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54585

Mozilla Firefox CVE-2012-1966 Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability
2012-07-31
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54577

Mozilla Firefox CVE-2012-1965 Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability
2012-07-31
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54579



http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?c=12&vendor=Mozilla&version= 14.0&title=Firefox



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Security_and_vulnerabilities

mailman don't spread false information.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 7, 2012)

Here is the latest chrome from that website. Chrome also pays up the nose for someone to show them vulnerabilities.



Google Chrome Prior to 21 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-31
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54749

Google Chrome Prior to 20.0.1132.43 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-30
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54203

Google Chrome Prior to 17.0.963.83 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-25
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52674

Google Chrome Prior to 19 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-25
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53540

Google Chrome Prior to 18.0.1025.151 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-25
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52913

Google Chrome Prior to 18.0.1025.168 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-25
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53309

Google Chrome Prior to 18.0.1025.142 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-25
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52762

Google Chrome Prior to 20.0.1132.57 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-07-11
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54386

Multiple Browsers WebGL Implementation Linux NVIDIA Driver 'glBufferData()' Security Vulnerability
2012-06-27
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53808

libxml2 CVE-2012-2807 Multiple Integer Overflow Vulnerabilities
2012-06-26
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/54718

OpenType Sanitizer Off By One Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
2012-06-04
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53222

Google Chrome Prior to 19.0.1084.52 Multiple Security Vulnerabilities
2012-05-24
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53679

WebKit CVE-2011-3056 Cross Origin Information Disclosure Vulnerability
2012-05-09
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53407

Adobe Flash Player CVE-2012-0725 Remote Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2012-04-18
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52914

Adobe Flash Player CVE-2012-0724 Remote Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2012-04-18
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/52916


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 7, 2012)

Chromey's mah homey!


----------



## AsRock (Aug 7, 2012)

Kreij said:


> I had no idea !
> I'm switching to FF right now !!
> 
> 
> ...



Well as the MS support has gone for XP it would not surprise me that browser updates might not be in the best interest of the older OS ?.  To me it's no reason to spend $100+ on a OS.

You could always try Seamonkey uses the same engine as FF but is not in the numbers race.


----------



## qubit (Aug 7, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Sure I can, Chrome with its plugins. Most of the firefox plug-in developers have made their plug-ins available for chrome, so the plug-in advantage is pretty much gone with firefox.  I can't stand firefox since and they still haven't separated each tab to its own thread so when one tab crashes, they all don't crash...even IE managed to do this.



Ok, that's good that FF has competition on the plugin front; I might just check out Chrome now. It's Ad Block+ and Flashblock which are crucial for me.

And with those crashes... yeah, why haven't they done that? It's f* annoying when a tab takes out the whole browser.


----------



## Drone (Aug 7, 2012)

qubit said:
			
		

> ...when a tab takes out the whole browser.



It happens to all browsers. Even to chrome (when all tabs are separate processes). Happened to me the other day. Fortunately there's a restore session button for that. There's no perfect browsers, any browser can have a flaw (I even had problems with Dolphin browser)  but in many cases it's because many sites are not optimized, it's not a browers' flaw.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtosev said:


> @themailman
> Blah blah blah.



Winner Chrome. Second IE9.
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/browser-security/which-browser-is-best-for-security.html
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...re_of_the_top_three_browsers_study_finds.html

Thats the most recent study.



> The researchers found that Chrome and Internet Explorer both implemented the kinds of security restrictions that would be considered a sandbox. In fact, they found that Chrome's sandbox was the most restrictive. Explorer allowed read access to most objects in the operating system, and only prevented a handful of system modifications. Firefox permitted read, write, and the kinds of system change capabilities associated with non-administrative users.



The last study had IE9 on top as it blocked tracking better then Chrome. Chrome doesn't have anything to block tracking lists by default due to it being made by Google......Google makes money on tracking what you look at.  Anyway thats the latest study. Not just a list of vulnerabilities thats have been patched out. So again IE9 or Chrome is the most secure. Never mind Firefox and the issues it has with Flash. Maybe you should stop spreading false info?


----------



## mtosev (Aug 7, 2012)

random web based magazines aren't the authority on browser security.
believe who you want. I posted relevant info
also I have no issues with FF and Flash sorry.


something for you mailman

A recent Accuvant study revealed that Chrome (the second most popular browser) ranks as the most secure web browser when compared to Internet Explorer (the most popular) and Firefox. Interestingly, this month the German government named Chrome the most secure browser, perhaps lending weight to the study. *However, critics have pointed out that the study was commissioned by Google (creator of Chrome), and the findings may therefore be skewed.*


----------



## GSquadron (Aug 7, 2012)

Google chrome is more on webGL now


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtosev said:


> random web based magazines aren't the authority on browser security.
> believe who you want. I posted relevant info
> also I have no issues with FF and Flash sorry.
> 
> ...



That makes more sense because all the studies before that show IE9 well above Chrome and Firefox.

Also LOTS of people had issues with Flash and FF.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 7, 2012)

lolz. something like this?
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/201...s-ie9-as-the-best-browser-for-the-enterprise/

u gonna have to find a comparison or study that wasn't paid by google, microsoft or any other big IT company


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtosev said:


> lolz. something like this?
> http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/201...s-ie9-as-the-best-browser-for-the-enterprise/
> 
> u gonna have to find some comparison or study that wasn't paid by google, microsoft or any other company



The German government also said Chrome was more secure. Google owns them too?


----------



## mtosev (Aug 7, 2012)

haven't seen the test so I dunno how they tested. google banned their employees using windows at their workplace so does mean that Windows also sucks?
oh and btw lots of german government agencies have switched or are switching to linux.

_The city of Munich, Germany has "chosen to migrate its 14,000 desktops to a free Linux distribution, rather than a commercial version of the open source operating system" according to a 2005 ZD Net report. The distribution Munich chose was Debian, and is said to have "considered several alternatives before choosing Debian", settling on it ultimately because of price and the degree to which it could be customized to meet Munich's municipal computing needs. The German Foreign Office, as well as the city of Vienna, also opted to make the switch to Debian in 2005._


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtosev said:


> haven't seen the test so I dunno how they tested. google banned their employees using windows at their workplace so does mean that Windows also sucks?
> oh and btw lots of german government agencies have switched or are switching to linux.
> 
> _The city of Munich, Germany has "chosen to migrate its 14,000 desktops to a free Linux distribution, rather than a commercial version of the open source operating system" according to a 2005 ZD Net report. The distribution Munich chose was Debian, and is said to have "considered several alternatives before choosing Debian", settling on it ultimately because of price and the degree to which it could be customized to meet Munich's municipal computing needs. The German Foreign Office, as well as the city of Vienna, also opted to make the switch to Debian in 2005._



Yup but that doesn't change the fact they found Chrome to be more secure then Firefox. nor does it have anything to do with this conversation. Chrome and IE9 are in fact more secure then Firefox. Let it go.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 7, 2012)

a study that was paid by a major IT that compared their products against other products isn't relevant. lots of these studies are paid either by google or microsoft. u won't find any studies or comparisons paid by Mozilla for an example. they aren't a big company and they are in fact they're a non profit organization. if they had money like M$ or google they would also pay for studies that would favour their product.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtosev said:


> a study that was paid by a major IT that compared their products against other products isn't relevant. lots of these studies are paid either by google or microsoft. u won't find any studies or comparisons paid by Mozilla for an example. they aren't a big company and they are in fact a non profit company. if they had money like M$ or google they would also pay for studies that would favour their product.



So Google paid the German government to declare Chrome more secure . So what you are saying is that any study done is wrong unless it agrees with you. I agree Firefox is the 1337.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 7, 2012)

i said that i didn't see that german governments test/study. I was only talking about your test being paid by google. i dunno anything about the german test and or who paid for it (the german government or maybe it was paid by someone else)

btw
_Two years ago, for example, BSI urged Germans to stop using Internet Explorer (IE) until Microsoft patched a vulnerability that had allegedly been used by Chinese hackers to break into networks owned by Google and dozens of other Western companies._


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtosev said:


> @themailman
> 
> nope.avi
> 
> mailman don't spread false information.



Not a valid comparison when talking about security.  Firefox v13 has only been out since June 2012, and v14 has only been out since July, IE9 has been out since March 2011. Of course there will be more vulnerabilities found in IE9, the market has had more than a year to analyze it, while they've only had 2 months to analyze Firefox v13.

If you want to see something interesting go look at Firefox v5, which was released in June 2011 right after IE9, you'll see 4 pages of vulnerabilities. So the market found twice the vulnerabilities in Firefox in the same amount of time.  Firefox looks better on paper because they are on a rapid fire version release schedule.  This means that every time they do updates to the browser the version number is increased, the only real reason to do this is to fool sites that track security stats, because every new version has to have all the old vulnerabilities resubmitted before they will appear on the security site.  It basically wipes their slate clean of security vulnerabilities without actually having to fix anything.

And the fact of the matter is, if  you are relying on your browser for security, you are an idiot.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 7, 2012)

google also does this with rapidly releasing new version. the first Chrome version was released in sept 2008 and they are already to up ver 20 or 21. looks like google also does the same thing then.
as for security the only virus i have gotten in a long time was a java exploit. I haven't had a virus in a very long time expect for that nice java virus I cought.(sadly java wasn't up to date)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 7, 2012)

mtosev said:


> google also does this with rapidly releasing new version. the first Chrome version was released in sept 2008 and they are already to up ver 20 or 21. looks like google also does the same thing then.
> as for security the only virus i have gotten in a long time was a java exploit. I haven't had a virus in a very long time expect for that nice java virus I cought.(sadly java wasn't up to date)



Java is the devil. That we can agree on.


----------



## GSquadron (Aug 7, 2012)

Actually the results are fake. Imagine yourselfs to create a program as a benchmark.
Why would you do that? For money! Who pays more? Google Chrome!
Give me money! I put you first!
IE is the same. The only place i see big differences is when i play YOville on facebook.


----------



## Drone (Aug 9, 2012)

Good news for Chrome lovers:



> *Google is bringing good news to all Chrome users on Windows today. After two long years of working with Adobe to sandbox the Flash Player plug-in, the Google Chrome team is finally announcing its new plug-in architecture that improves the sandboxing of Flash on Windows.*



Finally ...



> Google's announcement today comes right after last week's Chrome Stable release that included a new API known as getUserMedia. Google said that they were finally able to ship PPAPI Flash to all Windows Chrome users, thereby improving its security and stability, as well as performance down the line.
> 
> Windows XP users will also find the update nifty as Flash is also sandboxed on the old platform. “Chrome OS has had this deeper Flash sandboxing from the beginning, Linux has had it since Chrome's last stable release, and Mac support is on the way. Ultimately, this means a safer experience for you as you browse the web,” said Viet-Trung Luu, Software Engineer for Google Chrome. “We take the security of Chrome extremely seriously, so we're excited to be delivering these enhanced protections, and we've enjoyed collaborating with Adobe on this effort.”


----------



## natr0n (Aug 13, 2012)

I've been using palemoon 64 for years benchmarks don't mean much to me for browsing.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 13, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Why do people need dozens and dozens of add-ons for their browser?
> Honest question ... not trying to start a fight or anything.



Bieber filter, adblock plus, tinyeye, and a few others.


----------



## Peter1986C (Aug 13, 2012)

I decided to search for a "bieber filter" add-on in FF and I found the CNN IQ Raiser. Unfortunately it only seems to be for CNN.com so it is useless for any non-American. I applaud the initiative though.


----------



## Kreij (Aug 13, 2012)

@Steevo ... I don't think I even want to know what a Beiber Filter is. 

@mtosev : I see that you have a broken IMG link in your sig. You need to use the [sigpic][/sigpic] tags for signature pictures. 
Instructions here


----------



## mtosev (Aug 13, 2012)

i mainly use ProxTube. most of you americans don't need it as you don't get GEO blocked videos on youtube

oh and here is a pic of my broken IE9:





GPU acceleration and IE9 don't mix well with my current computers configuration

dunno who to blame Microsoft or amd for the issue


----------

