Funny, I find Chromium much faster than Firefox in Lucid
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Steven_Rosenber May 26, 2010 10:17 PM EDT |
I'm not quite sure what's going on, but in my Ubuntu Lucid setup, Chromium starts faster and runs faster than Firefox. |
| tripwire45 May 27, 2010 7:56 AM EDT |
The responses on my blog were mixed. Some said slower and some faster. Don't know why there'd be the inconsistency. I'm sticking with Firefox for now. |
| herzeleid May 27, 2010 2:51 PM EDT |
Dunno what's up with the folks commenting, but as a rough test, I timed the firefox and chrome startups: firefox: browser appeared in 7 seconds, home page loaded and ready to go in 13 seconds chrome: browser appeared in 2 seconds, home page loaded and ready to go in 4 seconds. That tells me a lot more than some poster's subjective "I think firefox felt faster to me" |
| Steven_Rosenber May 27, 2010 3:11 PM EDT |
The elephant in this particular room is the fact that the writer was running Ubuntu in a VM. That certainly could have an effect. |
| herzeleid May 27, 2010 3:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:The elephant in this particular room is the fact that the writer was running Ubuntu in a VMYes, I remember thinking that - if he can't duplicate it on a real linux machine, I'd chalk it up to the constraints of a weird environment. |
| Bob_Robertson May 27, 2010 9:00 PM EDT |
I know it's not Chromium, but I tried Google Chrome yesterday. Viewing YouTube took exactly the same CPU as Firefox, so that's not a winner. But maps.google.com always, ALWAYS choked for me, be it Konqueror, Iceweasel/Firefox. But in Chrome, at last, the maps and things spring into being. So I'll keep it for that application. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 28, 2010 9:34 PM EDT |
I have a couple of Web-delivered apps that used to demand IE but work with Opera. Now they are OK with FF, no longer work with Opera and really don't work in Chrom/ium. But if I'm not doing that specific set of tasks, I'm using Chromium more and more. It behaves a bit better than Epiphany, which is also based on Webkit. |
| tracyanne May 31, 2010 3:47 AM EDT |
There's no NoScript addon for Chromium, so regardless of speed I won't use it. |
| helios May 31, 2010 6:25 PM EDT |
Chrome features a multi-process architecture and a strong policy sandbox that resists malware beautifully without needing the user to whitelist all the sites they visit. That may not address the flash argument but it shows they are on the right track...but yeah, No Script would be a good idea. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 31, 2010 11:04 PM EDT |
I'm giving my Compaq 7770dmt a workout right now. That's 233 MHz of Pentium II power, 144 MB of RAM. I've been running Debian Lenny on it for quite a long time, and the only thing that really makes it all work is the Opera browser. |
| tmx Jun 01, 2010 3:05 PM EDT |
I am becoming aware of how much faster other browsers are moving ahead of Firefox in speed, not just Chromium. Opera 10.60 seems to be faster than all. This benchmark probably don't mean much: http://clients.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/results.action?key... , but from my usage it seem to be true. I still would like NoScript and Cookie Monster, but I enable javascript and cookies per site. One thing that is true though Opera backward compatibility such as for Widows98 and Linux powerpc allow good browsing experience for older computer. |
| Koriel Jun 01, 2010 4:13 PM EDT |
In the same boat as some others unless the chrome api is modified to allow on the fly proxy redirection a'la foxyproxy its useless to me as well. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 03, 2010 1:22 AM EDT |
I don't have Opera on my Ubuntu Lucid install. ... should remedy that asap. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!