New Firefox Beta 3x Faster Than Current Firefox

[tuanmai]

Firefox 4 Beta 7 Boasts huge performance enhancements, including a brand new JägerMonkey JavaScript engine.

New Firefox Beta 3x Faster Than Current Firefox : Read more

 

[ikefu]

But can it play.... Farmville at 1,000,000 Fps?

 

[Fokissed]

The current Firefox version I have (3.6.10) is slow as a dog. I'll install this and see if it comes close to Chrome or IE9.

 

[Mottamort]

Would "current" be the beta 6 or be 3.6.12...

 

[milktea]

Firefox v3.6.10 is quite fast if you disable Flash as well as other plugins like Adobe PDF 😛

 

[cryogenic]

Why would you code in C++ nowadays? Just use Javascript 😛. At this rate Crysis 5 will run in browser using SVG graphics and a Javascript engine ...

I mean, really, since when is speed more important than usefulness or ease of use? and specially concerning browsers which are all fast enough for anything except stupid benchmarks.

For the millionth time, I use FF because I find it to be the most useful and robust browser around, while none of them are slow for any task.

 

[proxy711]

[citation][nom]Cryogenic[/nom]Why would you code in C++ nowadays? Just use Javascript . At this rate Crysis 5 will run in browser using SVG graphics and a Javascript engine ... I mean, really, since when is speed more important than usefulness or ease of use? and specially concerning browsers which are all fast enough for anything except stupid benchmarks.For the millionth time, I use FF because I find it to be the most useful and robust browser around, while none of them are slow for any task.[/citation]
Because java is a POS? I'd say that's a pretty good reason to code in C++.

 

[phate]

Because java is a POS? I'd say that's a pretty good reason to code in C++.

Well first of all, the discussion concerns JavaSCRIPT, not JAVA.
Second, the fact that missed that makes me believe you probably don't really have a clue either way. JAVA is far better for some use cases than C++ and C++ is better in others.

 

[bhaberle]

I have been using Beta 7. Personally it takes a while to load for me by comparison to Chrome Dev 9. However, it browses faster than Chrome Dev 9 by a noticeable amount. Yeah I know I am comparing a dev to a beta, but I figured I would share the information... even if I didn't include any measurements. =)

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]fokissed[/nom]The current Firefox version I have (3.6.10) is slow as a dog. I'll install this and see if it comes close to Chrome or IE9.[/citation]

I can say this much after testing the older FF 4 beta 6: IE9 is faster than that one. I have to test this new beta build to see if its faster than IE9 beta though. IE9 browses faster than FF4 and has more stable hardware support than FF 4 beta 6.

I think by the time its all said and done though, we will have two much better browsers than their predecessors and hopefully they will open a new web to us. I have messed with the YouTube HTML5 part and it loads much much faster than the flash version. Of course it can't go full screen yet and has a few bugs but thats to be expected with newer standards.

 

[kikireeki]

Already using this build and yes, it is staggeringly faster than the previous build.

 

[JasonAkkerman]

I'm using beta 7... runs a lot better and faster then buggy beta 6. Yes, I know it's beta. I'm just saying 7 is pretty solid. I like how they moved the status bar URL (whatever your hovering over) to the right side of the address bar. If effect this gives you a whole extra inch of screen!!! w00t lol

For some reason though, my context menus (right-click) get screwed up from time to time.

 

[Guest]

The address bar search in FF4.0 beta 7 is still woefully slow in comparison to Chrome. Chrome and Opera 10 do address bar searches lightning fast.

 

[andrewfy]

I'm glad the article had raw performance graphs since "3x" is slightly ambiguous (though I think there is a strong trend toward the definition used by Mozilla here). I found this analysis to be helpful.

 

[IzzyCraft]

Wow more javascript speed just what i need for all the javascript to be done in .05sec but for everything else to take .5 secs to render =p

 

[theshonen8899]

It's funny. Even after this massive improvement it's still not faster than Opera 10 or Chrome.

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]Cryogenic[/nom]Why would you code in C++ nowadays? Just use Javascript . .[/citation]
You can't exactly write a fully featured browser based on JavaScript. Java on the other hand is a different matter. Also, since the Oracle got Java, the future of Java (esp. the JVM) is questionable.

 

[jblack]

I've been using the beta since beta 4. Beta 6 was extremely stable (I don't know if it ever crashed on me). Beta 7 crashes 3-4 times a week. So it definitely faster, but also not as stable.

 

[guzz46]

I have been using chromium 6 for a while now, tried FF Beta 7 and found the speed about the same but still went back to chromium, then i decided to try opera 10.63 and its much better than opera 9, in benchmarks opera 10 is usually faster than the other two but in real world browsing it seems about the same, but the extra features you get with opera like the built in mail client is what swung it in favor of opera.

 

[wave84]

Since when "speed" = "javascript speed"? Who the hell cares about javascript speed, what about program startup time, general responsivness, rendering time, etc? I don't care if the javascript gets executed slightly faster, I want the program to not feel like a resource hog, I want zero latency on hovering stuff, I want it to "feel" fast, not to run some stupid benchmark in less miliseconds! Sorry, but Chrome "feels" so much faster in every single aspect.