 |
 |
FF 3.5.2 -Blazingly Fast!
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sudbury, ON
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here I go again, switching browsers. Seems like I do this 3 to 5 times a year.
Today I downloaded FF 3.5, and holy crap! Much faster than Safari and uses much less memory (40% ?).
Anyone else concur?
|
.................................................. .................................................. ..................................www.DNCH.com
.................................................. .................................................. .......................www.daniel.poirier.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's faster than it used to be - I generally find FF and Safari to be very close in speed if you use the latest version. Rendering quality is also superb in both.
Interface is a little better, more mac-like, in FF3.5, but has some weirdness still. You still can't force a reload of an RSS-feed in a submenu, and the menus inside the window still don't flash when you select something from them. In all, FF's handling of feeds as menus took some getting used to, but it's more powerful than Safari's version.
Safari also doesn't let you undo closing a tab, something I've done by mistake all the time since all the browser makers decided to move the close button onto the tab itself. The risk of closing a tab inadvertently is smaller in Safari, as you can't close a background tab, but then I do close background tabs a lot so I like to be able to do that.
In all, they're so close now that it's hard to say which is better. I simply stay with the one I'm using (which is FF) because any advantage Safari might have temporarily are not large enough to trick me into switching.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's not about how fast the browser is; that's something the various javascript benchmarks fail to capture.
It's about the speed of the user experience. With all the built in features and add-ons in Firefox I fly compared to using Safari/Chrome.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
.. and I do exactly the opposite, as by the time Firefox loads its homepage (and address bar  ) I can have all my tabs open in Safari.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Firefox's cookie handling is much better than Safari's. The only thing Safari lets you do is block all or allow all or block third party cookies. Firefox allows setting of exceptions to the general rule that you set. There are also more addons for Firefox than for Safari, so one can customize its capabilities more.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status:
Offline
|
|
FF takes much longer to startup than Safari and FF's GUI doesn't "feel" right, but that's about it's only drawbacks. I'm still on the fence and use Safari for some sites and FF for others.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, FF takes longer to start, but that is easily handled by not ever closing it.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P 
Yes, FF takes longer to start, but that is easily handled by not ever closing it.
Not really a solution...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
But it works. Command-w works much faster than Command-q followed by restarting.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
...until it starts eating RAM. Also Flash performance is noticeably less abysmal in Safari.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
FF still works with the vB ctrl-s shortcut to post. Safari 4 seems to have stopped.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by adamfishercox
...until it starts eating RAM. Also Flash performance is noticeably less abysmal in Safari.
See, that's the difference: FF 3.5 doesn't use nearly as much RAM as Safari. I don't know that Flash performance is worse in FF than in Safari: It's fast enough on my old G5, and I mostly block it anyway.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by cgc
FF takes much longer to startup than Safari
Yes it does take longer but once it's open it's loaded into your RAM and opening it up again for me is about as fast as Safari. Also I don't know how long it takes on your computer but FF isn't much longer on my computer so it has never really been an issue for me.
As for the original topic, I've also noticed that FF and Safari are now very close in web browsing speeds. For me FF has always had the advantage of being more customizable and I still have problems with a few websites when using Safari. I do think both are great browsers but both aren't perfect either...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top