September 2, 2008

Google Chrome: Quick Browser Benchmark

Update: IE 7 was not included because it took too damn long to finish and I got bored.

Using Dromaeo.

Firefox 3_____2042 ms
Safari 3.1.2__2561 ms
Chrome 0.2:____540 ms

Actual product thoughts forthcoming after a few days of usage... but my "first 10 minutes" review is: nice, but nothing that would make me switch (from Firefox).


Unknown said...

You left of IE :)

Sree Kotay said...

good point. I'll address...

Twinsen said...

At least on my Vista box, Chrome meets or exceeds VM usage of Firefox. As reported by 'about:memory' in Chrome. So much for the multiple processes. Cop out if you ask me anyways.

Sree Kotay said...

Strict memory usage is going to be a wash or even a loss, IMHO, but I think the "not crashing"/"not rebooting"/"not stalling other tabs" is turning out to be nice - not sure its a killer feature?

Also, the memory usage question is really an "over time" thing - I have to admit I do have to reboot Firefox once a day or so to get down from the 300-500MB it seems to get "stuck at"...

Not saying I'm sold - but I am seeing some of the value in that. Chrome's model suggests I would do the same for a tab, and that I could even tell which tab - but all that seems like a lot of thought and effort.

Anonymous said...

it's funny to see you pimp out Firefox and Google Chrome browsers after re-reading your old IE vs Firefox AOL Explorer posts.

It's nice to see that Google took the time to innovate on a browser rather than just slapping a bloated AOL skin on top of IE while not interrupting the web design/development crowds by using open standards and innovative backwards compatible technologies (v8). I'd like to hear your thoughts, in hindsight, on if AOL Explorer was a worthwhile venture or not?

Sree Kotay said...

Absolutely fair question. Perhaps worth a post... :)

Short version - Yes, I think AOL Explorer was worthwhile:

- It was a good, if shortsightedly short-lived, product; the UI concepts were clean and meaningful, and I used it for quite some time as my default browser ('til about FF 3 late betas). Don't remember the exact numbers - but roughly 20-25M uniques (mostly because of AIM), with about 10-12M using it as their browser regularly (independent of AIM)

- At the time, it was more than the right choice (Firefox only got interestingly better with Firefox 3, and Chrome is still dripping wet - process isolation is so nice mostly because it crashes so much :P)

- Innovation is in the eye of the beholder (*ahem* Chrome often consumes more RAM than IE7?)

- it was a browser, not a browswer engine, and I'd like to think we'd happily have switched to another engine if it was relevant

- Eye of the beholder - as a developer, I loathe IE; as a user, I don't give a rat's ass about web standards - I want my page to work. We did try to do a lot to push standards with Microsoft, and did work to have ALL of products run, first on Netscape 7, then Firefox, but that was "internal work", and not something we thought appropriate to push to our consumers by using Mozilla as the browsing engine

Anonymous said...

World of Warcraft a fascinating role, a professional wow gold reassuring trading platform. have cheap wow gold and the players need Wow power leveling , the heart it! As soon as possible not to buy?