Browser bruiser: Opera 9.5 versus Firefox 3
Two of the four major browsers have undergone some big changes in the past two weeks. Firefox 3 is, of course, the big news of the week, pulling down eight million or so downloads in its first 24 hours in the wild. However, the Opera browser updated to its much-awaited version 9.5 last week. Since both of them have got game but for different reasons, let's take a look at how they match up.
Empirically, the two most-cited complaints about browsers are speed and memory. Now, I'm a big fan of Firefox because it's so easy to customize, so despite concerns I had about placing both browsers on "equal footing," it would be misleading to test Firefox devoid of extensions, so I left in my cadre of add-ons, and ran both with fifteen tabs open--a more or less standard browsing session for me.
Opera's browsing Notes.
(Credit: CNET Networks)Using the SunSpider JavaScript test, Firefox 3 scored around 5500 microseconds to process the tested scripts, with a margin of error at around three percent. Opera 9.5 scored about 7280 milliseconds on the same test, with a margin of error around 1.5 percent, making it nearly one and a third times as slow as Firefox 3. This isn't surprising, given how long Opera's been using the same rendering engine. Assuming they get to Opera 10 before Mozilla puts out Firefox 4, it would be interesting to go back and re-compare them.
Firefox used approximately 127 MB RAM with the 15 tabs open, while Opera used around 117 MB. This was a little bit surprising, since Opera is definitely running on the older code. It might be attributable to the various extensions I use in Firefox, but it's more likely that despite the claimed 15,000 fixes deployed in Firefox 3, there's still quite a bit of room to plug those memory leaks.
Firefox 3's "Awesome bar".
(Credit: CNET Networks)There's more to browsing than just benchmarks, of course. Users who browse by cell phone and like to keep all their personal settings synchronized are sure to look favorably at Opera, which has made a name for itself breaking into that market. Opera also bakes in a lot of excellent features, from its location bar--most likely the inspiration for Firefox's new "awesome bar"--to speed dialing, password management to resumable downloads, an icon-based sidebar to a synchronizable notepad.
Firefox, of course, has its plug-ins, and that level of user innovation and customization built on an open-source foundation clearly has been a winning combo for Mozilla. Many of the newest features in Opera 9.5, like the ability to see if a password works before saving it, are also part of Firefox 3. Pausable downloads, session management, and searchable bookmarks are also available in both.
Choosing between these two alternative has more to do with personal preference and browsing style than either one sporting a killer feature. With Mozilla claiming more than 20 percent of the browser market between Firefox 2 and 3, though, it's obvious there's only one alterna-juggernaut.
UPDATED: Corrected "microseconds" to milliseconds.
Seth peers into the deep, dark corners of software so that you don't have to. He has yet to suffer a single nightmare about OS/2. You can follow him on Twitter. 
If FF uses 127 MB of memory with those tabs open, how in the hell can you attribute that to memory leaks? Just because it is more than Opera doesn't mean it is a memory leak. Do you even know what a memory leak is?
It really isn't fair to use third party add-ons in a comparison since Mozilla has no control over those. A lot of those are written by amateurs who are flying by the seat of their pants.
"It might be attributable to the various extensions I use in Firefox"??? Run it without the add-ons and see how much memory it uses. Are you sure you know anything about computers? A bug fix might force FF to use more memory. Did you know that performance increases are often at the cost of memory. It often takes more code and more RAM speed up your application, The age of the code has nothing to do with its efficiency or memory use, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The compiler used on the 'old code' certainly does. I wouldn't expect that you know any of this since you work at CNET.
I can't believe crap like this comes from a website that is supposedly technical in nature. If you were the only one writing crap like this it wouldn't be a big deal but most of you pseudo-journalists don't seem to know the first thing about computing.
If FF uses 127 MB of memory with those tabs open, how in the hell can you attribute that to memory leaks? Just because it is more than Opera doesn't mean it is a memory leak. Do you even know what a memory leak is?
It really isn't fair to use third party add-ons in a comparison since Mozilla has no control over those. A lot of those are written by amateurs who are flying by the seat of their pants.
"It might be attributable to the various extensions I use in Firefox"??? Run it without the add-ons and see how much memory it uses. Are you sure you know anything about computers? A bug fix might force FF to use more memory. Did you know that performance increases are often at the cost of memory. It often takes more code and more RAM speed up your application, The age of the code has nothing to do with its efficiency or memory use, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The compiler used on the 'old code' certainly does. I wouldn't expect that you know any of this since you work at CNET.
I can't believe crap like this comes from a website that is supposedly technical in nature. If you were the only one writing crap like this it wouldn't be a big deal but most of you pseudo-journalists don't seem to know the first thing about computing.
I have to say that your comment was definitely not polite. Saying that someone's article is drivel is not courteous in the slightest. While I must agree with you on some points, you could have stated them in a more appropriate manner.
I'm like a caveman compared to you and "the Decider" when it comes to this stuff. But for some reason I have a fascination with the various browsers. As well as cell phones, gps devices, etc.
I did my own rudimentary speed tests and found Opera to be marginally the fastest browser, by seconds or fractions of a second. In any event, can you cite some examples of sites that were not Opera friendly but otherwise friendly to Safari and/or Firefox?
Hotmail
Yahoo Mail(Causes opera to completely crash)
As far as speed is concerned, at this point it really doesn't matter. I think it matters more for older computers with slower cpus and less memory. I've tried FF3, Opera and IE7 and I don't really notice a speed difference on my end.
I am apalled at the biased attitude with which this article was written. I use both FF3 and Opera 9.5 and have been using both browsers since at least 8 years now. I guess you have been missing one major point. FF3 is very good by itself but it DOES NOT have the same functionality as Opera 9..5 without its extensions. Now if you are a first time user of a non-IE browser, this fact will really attract you that you can customize FF3 to your liking but what happens when
1. you use FF3 across multiple computers ( you would have to copy your profile to all those machines to get the same functionality)
2. you travel a lot and like to use a pendrive based installation. You would still have to copy all your extensions and profiles on to the pendrive for FF3)
3. You lost your profile for some reason. You either must have a backup profile or start from scratch.
Opera scores here in all the above situations. You can have all the functionalities you need with a standard installation on any of your multiple computers or your pendrive without having to worry about a backup of your profile. You can if you want backup all your bookmarks into Opera link or delicious and get them anywhere.
As far as speed and site rendering is concerned, Opera is more standards compliant than FF3 as has also been pointed out in above comments. It is just a better browsing experience if you dont want to spend time about finding the extensions you need, downloading and installing and rebooting.
Now this is not to say, that FF3 is lesser than Opera 9.5 in terms of quality. Considering where it started off from, FF3 is a proud achievement for all who believe in open source software including me. I give my thanks to the mozilla foundation for that.
It just doesn't suit cnet to be comparing red apples to green apples. Both browsers are in a league of their own. It is a matter of personal choice to choose which one you want to enjoy.
I hope these kind of posts are not what cnet will be always.
I am apalled at the biased attitude with which this article was written. I use both FF3 and Opera 9.5 and have been using both browsers since at least 8 years now. I guess you have been missing one major point. FF3 is very good by itself but it DOES NOT have the same functionality as Opera 9..5 without its extensions. Now if you are a first time user of a non-IE browser, this fact will really attract you that you can customize FF3 to your liking but what happens when
1. you use FF3 across multiple computers ( you would have to copy your profile to all those machines to get the same functionality)
2. you travel a lot and like to use a pendrive based installation. You would still have to copy all your extensions and profiles on to the pendrive for FF3)
3. You lost your profile for some reason. You either must have a backup profile or start from scratch.
Opera scores here in all the above situations. You can have all the functionalities you need with a standard installation on any of your multiple computers or your pendrive without having to worry about a backup of your profile. You can if you want backup all your bookmarks into Opera link or delicious and get them anywhere.
As far as speed and site rendering is concerned, Opera is more standards compliant than FF3 as has also been pointed out in above comments. It is just a better browsing experience if you dont want to spend time about finding the extensions you need, downloading and installing and rebooting.
Now this is not to say, that FF3 is lesser than Opera 9.5 in terms of quality. Considering where it started off from, FF3 is a proud achievement for all who believe in open source software including me. I give my thanks to the mozilla foundation for that.
It just doesn't suit cnet to be comparing red apples to green apples. Both browsers are in a league of their own. It is a matter of personal choice to choose which one you want to enjoy.
I hope these kind of posts are not what cnet will be always.
Some short words for you:
Spammer
&
Sharp MX Series
It seems to me you need to take your trials more like a science expirement. You need to use Scientific Method and keep everything controlled save your variables.
I use all three of the browsers and I even try Flock, but my favourite is Opera.
Dude, you can critique and question the experience of the columnist without having to offend him. Your rant didn't seem to enlighten me on the issue either, it's a rather obnoxious read on the comment thread. If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all.
- by viditbhargava June 20, 2008 7:08 AM PDT
- ***....shame on cnet for posting such an article...i agree with xtina-lover, Astrophizz and strobedumas on what they say.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by smuppi June 21, 2008 7:57 AM PDT
- @viditbhargava
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (97 Comments)one javascript test with 15 tabs....what kind of a test is that???
FF3 doesnt have the features that Opera 9.5 has and Opera doesnt have the speed of FF....could you not get a hands-on experience of the two and then write the advantages of the two and the bugs that are there which could help the users decide better??
You are somewhat confused, it seems.
Firefox does have (most of) Opera's features through extensions.
And even though Firefox beats Opera at "artificial" speed tests like SunSpider, Opera is faster than Firefox when used on actual real-life web sites.
Remember, JavaScript only makes up a tiny bit of all the time spent by a browser to render a page.
So Opera is faster than FF, but FF has extensions to get at least something similar to Opera's features.