- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 18
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV USA
- Your Mac's Specs
- iMac, and Macbook Pro
This version seems much better. It is a lot faster, and is working smoother on my Mac. I may be tempted to use it.
I've been running 3.6 in either beta form or RC form for the last few weeks. It is a step up from 3.5 but really it's just an evolutionary update and not really revolutionary. So far in my experience, running 3.5 would be fine if getting 3.6 proved to be hard (for some reason). That said, I would recommend the update if you can get it (which shouldn't be too hard).
XJ, have you tried the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha? The new "Carakan" JS engine is in that build and it is ~ 10x faster than the current one in 10.1 (and the 10.2 alpha). It also has full Cocoa support so it integrates (fairly) well.
Last I checked, Safari and Chromium still had an edge on Firefox in terms of JS performance (the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha gives Safari a run for its money too) but as we all know, there is more to the web than just JS.
XJ, have you tried the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha? The new "Carakan" JS engine is in that build and it is ~ 10x faster than the current one in 10.1 (and the 10.2 alpha). It also has full Cocoa support so it integrates (fairly) well.
Last I checked, Safari and Chromium still had an edge on Firefox in terms of JS performance (the Opera 10.5 pre-alpha gives Safari a run for its money too) but as we all know, there is more to the web than just JS.
It really is night and day isn't it? Like I said, the Opera team is really putting some work into the browser part of Opera as opposed to focusing solely on extraneous browser features like Opera Turbo and Opera Unite. As for the Firefox, it is a marked improvement but one question I'm still left with is, despite noticeable improvements, how come (in my experience) WebKit based browsers (and now the Opera pre-alpha build) are considerably better with JS?I have had very good results with Opera 10.5 Pre-Alpha also. Very impressed with it overall and NIGHT AND DAY faster than older releases.
I have been using Firefox 3.6 like Van from the RC at least and I like it better than 3.5 for sure. Faster here both on the Java tests and seems nicer overall in normal use. I like it. It JS performance is a lot better than 3.5 but like Van said, it's still behind the WebKit engine in Chrome and Safari and the new Opera Alpha engine.
I'd say it has to do with WebKit's philosophy. While Firefox started with speed in mind (it was supposed to be a fast, lightweight version of the Mozilla browser, right?), it seemed to have lost that goal with time. So, even if speed is once again a priority for them, they'll have to make up for any regression that took place during their lax period(s). Having said that, I could have missed something in Firefox's goals along the way; it's just the way I see it from the bit I've followed.As for the Firefox, it is a marked improvement but one question I'm still left with is, despite noticeable improvements, how come (in my experience) WebKit based browsers (and now the Opera pre-alpha build) are considerably better with JS?
They don't mess around do they? As for Firefox, yes, it developed as a lightweight browser out of the original Mozilla codebase (I believe). That said, over time, it appears to have gotten "quite heavy" which is a bit disappointing.Common excuses people give when they regress performance are, "But the new way is cleaner!" or "The new way is more correct." We don't care. No performance regressions are allowed, regardless of the reason. There is no justification for regressing performance. None.
That was the point of this thread .For those of you not aware, Firefox 3.6 is now out.
That was the point of this thread .
That makes a lot more sense. My mistake.Van and others, I merged his thread into this one as he did not see it and posted the new one.
That was the point of this thread .
Van and others, I merged his thread into this one as he did not see it and posted the new one.