Quickest Web Browser

[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 ing 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 ing 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 fic ious.

you don't gotta lie to kick it.

[Kori Ellis]

i find that extremely misleading and very fic ious.

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 ing 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++

[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 fic ious.

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...

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

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

[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 fic ious.

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.

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

[koriwhat]

I guess ragging on 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]

^ 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.