Quickest Web Browser

[MI21]

Hello peoples. I'm fixing up one of my old laptops so I can use it around the house, treat it like shit, drop it and not care like I would if I was using my good laptop.

It's quite old, 3/4 years old, a Compaq with a Pentium M 1.6g and only 256MB Ram. It's running XP and I can't be fucked putting Linux on it to quicken her up because my housemate won't know how to use Linux.

I just want to know which is the best web browser in terms of not being an absolute resource hog? Any links would be just great :)

(Also, if anybody can recommend any other must have type programs like DVD Burning software, Instant Messenger knock-offs that run faster and are free, that would be good)

Cheers :tu

[koriwhat]

browsers:
firefox(ugh)
safari(yeah)
ie(not at all!)
opera(nah)
chrome(i don't know)

messenger:
pidgen(cool)
aim/yahoo/msn(i use online through browser so no need to download)

burning:
infraRecorder

[hater]

safari sucks

chrome - fastest one out there

[Cry Havoc]

Chrome is fast, but Firefox will keep up with it.

Also, if you use a lot of tabs or visit any shady websites, Chrome has very little security compared to firefox.

I'd recommend Firefox and Digsby for your IM client. Digsby is great and it flies.

[Cry Havoc]

browsers:
firefox(ugh)
safari(yeah)
ie(not at all!)
opera(nah)
chrome(i don't know)

messenger:
pidgen(cool)
aim/yahoo/msn(i use online through browser so no need to download)

burning:
infraRecorder

What a shocker, the mac lover only recommends safari. :lmao

[koriwhat]

What a shocker, the mac lover only recommends safari. :lmao

actually i'd recommend camino but you can't use it on a pc. what a shocker the pc user only recommends firefox. what a shocker.

[Cry Havoc]

actually i'd recommend camino but you can't use it on a pc. what a shocker the pc user only recommends firefox. what a shocker.

Because... it's the best browser on the internet? Gee, I'm recommending the best of something, and you're denouncing it just because it's "popular". :lol

I have Chrome and Opera. I just prefer firefox.

[PixelPusher]

Safari is great...on a Mac. On Windows...eh, not so much.

I prefer Firefox regardless of OS, but I haven't used a computer with 256 megs of RAM in years, so I have no idea how any of the browsers out there today would perform with that kind of limitation.

Even for XP, 256 megs is barely scraping by...is there any chance you can bump it up to 512? (hunting down outdated RAM can be a pain).

[koriwhat]

and you're denouncing it just because it's "popular"

no, you're assuming i'm denouncing it just because it's popular. and popular never ever means the "best".

stop acting like i said this or that. i just don't care for firefox. i have a mac, so what? i use camino so stfu already with what you think i use/say/etc. it's always the same with you CH. always.

[Cry Havoc]

no, you're assuming i'm denouncing it just because it's popular. and popular never ever means the "best".

stop acting like i said this or that. i just don't care for firefox. i have a mac, so what? i use camino so stfu already with what you think i use/say/etc. it's always the same with you CH. always.

So explain why Firefox sucks? Because until you do, everything else you've said is moot. If you aren't going to provide information for why you think it's a subpar browser, don't expect me to attempt to read your mind. I'm going to just assume you haven't used it and are just basing it off an uninformed viewpoint.

See, people like information when they're asking questions. If someone asks me what kind of car they should buy, I'm not going to go, "Nah, nah, nah, YEAH!" because that really doesn't help them to make a decision.

So the next time, stfu and stop whining that I'm making assumptions. You left me no other choice because you were too lazy to actually type out your own reasons.

[velik_m]

... only 256MB Ram. It's running XP ...

Ugh... Lynx?

Opera i think is the most lightweight of the popular ones. you might try chrome also.

EDIT: You might try K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net) which uses the same engine as firefox, but is much lighter.


So explain why Firefox sucks?

Awesome bar :stirpot:

[PM5K]

Eh, that computer isn't so slow that you have to worry about using a specific browser. Ideally you'd up that ram to at least 512, or run Windows 2000 on it, but even worst case scenario it would still do basic tasks well.

What you should be more interested in finding out is how to make XP less of a resource hog (disabling services etc) or getting a copy of Windows 2000.

[baseline bum]

LMAO @ the Lynx suggestion!

[PixelPusher]

Eh, that computer isn't so slow that you have to worry about using a specific browser. Ideally you'd up that ram to at least 512, or run Windows 2000 on it, but even worst case scenario it would still do basic tasks well.

What you should be more interested in finding out is how to make XP less of a resource hog (disabling services etc) or getting a copy of Windows 2000.

Microsoft doesn't support Windows 2000 anymore...aren't you pretty much begging to be pwned by some hacker? Or is Win2K so old these days none of the current exploits work on it?

[Bukefal]

I guess its safari

IE sucks big time.
Never tried chrome before though

[MI21]

Thanks for all the help gentlemen. I'll try a few of the ones mentioned and see whats best.

The laptop is just to have there to use for very simple tasks so I don't want to upgrade anything at all. It's old and I havent used it for a while now, but I just figured that it's better to have it usable than just leave it sit there collecting dust.

I have a very nice new laptop that cost me a bucketload but sometimes I don't like the idea of having it in my uni bag getting treated like crap. Hence I'm looking to use this crappy one at uni for browsing when I'm supposed to be listening to lectures :)

[ElNono]

I would install Firefox 2 (yes TWO, not three). Otherwise, Chrome.

And FWIW, both Safari and Chrome use the same engine for HTML rendering (WebKit). They only differ in the Javascript engine (with Safar having a newer and faster llvm based one). So basically, saying Safari sucks and then recommending Chrome is pretty much an oxymoron.

[Cry Havoc]

I would install Firefox 2 (yes TWO, not three). Otherwise, Chrome.

And FWIW, both Safari and Chrome use the same engine for HTML rendering (WebKit). They only differ in the Javascript engine (with Safar having a newer and faster llvm based one). So basically, saying Safari sucks and then recommending Chrome is pretty much an oxymoron.

No no no no no.

Firefox 2 is MUCH slower than 3. In fact, that was the primary reason for 3.0's release, because FF was one of the slowest browsers online at that point. 3.0 made it one of the fastest, and subsequent betas to 3.0 have made it equal in speed to any browser.

Safari isn't bad, I just don't see what makes it better than FF or Chrome.

[koriwhat]

hey lil' cry "baby" havoc, let me break this down for ya...


So explain why Firefox sucks?
please do explain why you think firefox sucks because if i am not mistaken i have yet to say such things in this thread... my response to firefox might have been a bit lackluster but by no means did i say ff sucks. mr assumptions strikes again! ugh!


I'm going to just assume you haven't used it and are just basing it off an uninformed viewpoint.
and i'm gonna assume you're an idiot.


So the next time, stfu and stop whining that I'm making assumptions.
want to do me a favor? stfu and stop replying to me. you're getting real old in your approach mr assumptions.

[Cry Havoc]

hey lil' cry "baby" havoc, let me break this down for ya...


please do explain why you think firefox sucks because if i am not mistaken i have yet to say such things in this thread... my response to firefox might have been a bit lackluster but by no means did i say ff sucks. mr assumptions strikes again! ugh!


and i'm gonna assume you're an idiot.


want to do me a favor? stfu and stop replying to me. you're getting real old in your approach mr assumptions.

You still haven't contributed a single word of knowledgeable facts or information to the OP in this thread. Par for the course for you, though. All I did was ask you to share why you held a particular idea about Safari being the best for the OP, and you can't do that. Instead you attack me for asking you to share why you hold a viewpoint.

Let's review:

"This is UGH"

"Why do you feel that way?"

"FUCK OFF! STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS! RAAAAR!"

:lol I don't feel the need to get into these squabbles with you now that I see your posting style. So continue to call me names and so forth, I will ignore you from here on and resume attempting to actually help people in this forum. :toast

[Cry Havoc]

Hello peoples. I'm fixing up one of my old laptops so I can use it around the house, treat it like shit, drop it and not care like I would if I was using my good laptop.

It's quite old, 3/4 years old, a Compaq with a Pentium M 1.6g and only 256MB Ram. It's running XP and I can't be fucked putting Linux on it to quicken her up because my housemate won't know how to use Linux.

I just want to know which is the best web browser in terms of not being an absolute resource hog? Any links would be just great :)

(Also, if anybody can recommend any other must have type programs like DVD Burning software, Instant Messenger knock-offs that run faster and are free, that would be good)

Cheers :tu

http://lifehacker.com/5044668/beta-browser-speed-tests-which-is-fastest


http://lifehacker.com/assets/images/lifehacker/2008/09/memory_use_01.jpg

Firefox wins in this test for memory usage, although it doesn't include Opera and Safari.

[koriwhat]

Let's review:

"assumptions"

"more assumptions with little stfu's everywhere"

"oh and more assumptions"

:lol I don't feel the need to get into these squabbles with you now that I see your posting style. So continue to call me names and so forth, I will ignore you from here on and resume attempting to actually not give a fuck about you on this forum. :toast cry "baby" havoc.

[baseline bum]

No no no no no.

Firefox 2 is MUCH slower than 3. In fact, that was the primary reason for 3.0's release, because FF was one of the slowest browsers online at that point. 3.0 made it one of the fastest, and subsequent betas to 3.0 have made it equal in speed to any browser.

Safari isn't bad, I just don't see what makes it better than FF or Chrome.

FF2 NEVER seemed to give memory back to the operating system. I.e., you open up 20 tabs at ESPN, close them after reading each, and it still uses 500MB of RAM until you kill the process. Firefox2 on a system with 256MB of RAM is bad news.

[lefty]

I like Opera and Chrome, but some FF add-ons are very nice

[Cry Havoc]

FF2 NEVER seemed to give memory back to the operating system. I.e., you open up 20 tabs at ESPN, close them after reading each, and it still uses 500MB of RAM until you kill the process. Firefox2 on a system with 256MB of RAM is bad news.

Yes, that's a well-known problem. I think it's still an issue with FF3, but they've eliminated a lot of it. Firefox 2 ran really slowly due to the memory leak. It was awful. Using it for a few hours means you have time to read a book while loading a tab.

[ElNono]

No no no no no.

Firefox 2 is MUCH slower than 3. In fact, that was the primary reason for 3.0's release, because FF was one of the slowest browsers online at that point. 3.0 made it one of the fastest, and subsequent betas to 3.0 have made it equal in speed to any browser.

Safari isn't bad, I just don't see what makes it better than FF or Chrome.

The last few iterations of Firefox 2 have been a problem, but it's was still faster and less memory hungry than Firefox 3 (My experience, YMMV). As a matter of fact, Firefox 3 takes so fucking long to launch, I stopped using it altogether.

[Cry Havoc]

The last few iterations of Firefox 2 have been a problem, but it's was still faster and less memory hungry than Firefox 3 (My experience, YMMV). As a matter of fact, Firefox 3 takes so fucking long to launch, I stopped using it altogether.

Then you have something wrong with your system. Firefox 3 launches in less than a second for me. Firefox 2 could take 10-15 seconds.

[koriwhat]

Firefox 3 launches in less than a second for me.

i find that extremely misleading and very fictitious.

you don't gotta lie to kick it.

[Kori Ellis]

i find that extremely misleading and very fictitious.

you don't gotta lie to kick it.

Firefox launches in less than a second for me too *shrug*

[balli]

I just tested mine... <1 second

[velik_m]

The last few iterations of Firefox 2 have been a problem, but it's was still faster and less memory hungry than Firefox 3 (My experience, YMMV). As a matter of fact, Firefox 3 takes so fucking long to launch, I stopped using it altogether.

FF2 leaked memory like it's life depended on it. I don't think a single delete statement was used.

[baseline bum]

FF2 leaked memory like it's life depended on it. I don't think a single delete statement was used.

C++ :td

[koriwhat]

ok well i take that back cause my ff loads in like a second too... never tested its load time before. hmm...

[Cry Havoc]

i find that extremely misleading and very fictitious.

you don't gotta lie to kick it.



ok well i take that back cause my ff loads in like a second too... never tested its load time before. hmm...

:lol

I'm not ripping on you or anything but you gotta admit that's pretty humorous. :lol

Also, holy crap Kori reads this forum! Always a surprise to see "new" faces in here.

[Cry Havoc]

FF2 leaked memory like it's life depended on it. I don't think a single delete statement was used.

>> Delete all free RAM

>> end

:king

[baseline bum]

ff2 leaked memory like it's life depended on it. I don't think a single delete[] statement was used.

FIFY... prob tons of delete statements that should have been delete[] s.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

i find that extremely misleading and very fictitious.

you don't gotta lie to kick it.

It takes less than a second for me too

[MaNuMaNiAc]

ok well i take that back cause my ff loads in like a second too... never tested its load time before. hmm...



I'm not ripping on you or anything but you gotta admit that's pretty humorous. :lol

I guess ragging on shit he's got no clue about is par for the course with koriwhat

[koriwhat]

I guess ragging on shit he's got no clue about is par for the course with koriwhat

i guess so. haha.

i just don't use ff much at all so i never realized how fast it loaded up on my mac at home. it still crashes from time to time on this brand new dell here at work and on my mac and that's the reason i don't care much for ff. it's a great browser when it works but i just prefer camino over it is all except on a pc where i use a combo of safari/ff.

[ElNono]

My comment for Firefox 3 load time refers to the very first time you load the program after a reboot. Subsequent launches work fast because most of the dll's are cached already. There's a firefox pre-loader program you can install to mitigate this problem, but I hate to have to install and run extra stuff just for this, when other browsers simply don't have that problem.
On a Mac it's different, because dyld loads lazy symbols on demand, so you won't notice any lags at launch, even on the initial load.

[balli]

^ :lol When I fired up the ol' compooter this morning and opened up FF I thought, "whoa, whoa, whoa... that took longer than a second. Egads, I'm going to have to go into that web browser thread and report this newly discovered information."

Which I never did. But I did notice it, so the explanation is a timely one.

But really, does anyone really care so much about their computing times that an extra half a second, once a day or so, makes that much of a difference? I don't. I'll stick with FF.