The Best Browser Promo Video I've Ever Seen

[Jason Dunn]

<p><object width="600" height="360" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/nCgQDjiotG0&amp;ap=&fmt=18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nCgQDjiotG0&amp;ap=&fmt=18" /></object></p><p>This is off topic for sites other than Digital Home Thoughts, but this video is just so darn cool, I wanted to share it with everyone. Worth noting is that it's loading the pages out of the cache, so this is a rendering test, not a "download speed test", but it's perfectly valid because download speeds will vary from location to location. Personally, I still use Firefox more than Chrome - at some point, browsers are "fast enough" at page rendering and further improvements can't be perceived. I value stability and usefulness more than sheer speed at rendering. What about you?</p>

[ptyork]

At least for now I'm 100% Chrome from Firefox just a couple months ago. There are some things I still like better in Firefox (like the ability to synchronize passwords using Xmarks and the ability to completely block ads instead of just hiding them), but the load time got to be PAINFUL. For me, with a comparable bunch of plug-ins it's maybe a 5 second cold start for Chrome and a 30 second cold start for Firefox. Ridiculous.

I eagerly await FF 4.0. I do much prefer working with an open-source browser vs. a Goliath-owned one.

[Bob Christensen]

The latest Chrome beta has won me over. I like that it has a "clean," "simplistic" feel to it (very subjective, I know).

[John London]

very geeky video. google knows enough about me. will stay with FF.

[Jason Dunn]

...but the load time got to be PAINFUL. For me, with a comparable bunch of plug-ins it's maybe a 5 second cold start for Chrome and a 30 second cold start for Firefox. Ridiculous.

30 seconds? What the heck...! Are your extensions really worth load times like that? Firefox loads in about 3 seconds for me, but I only have Xmarks, Java Console, and a Canadian dictionary installed.

[ptyork]

30 seconds? What the heck...! Are your extensions really worth load times like that? Firefox loads in about 3 seconds for me, but I only have Xmarks, Java Console, and a Canadian dictionary installed.

I just optimized my hard disk the other night and that seems to have sped things up significantly. 20 seconds, now. I'm not sure what the causes are, really. But I do have 12 distinct add ons. I'm guessing that Adblock Plus and App Tabs might be the biggest, but I think even more so that Firefox checks for updated extensions each time it starts up and doesn't allow Firefox to start until that check is complete. Doubtless it is just because of the way that the add-on engine is written (i.e., they must be loaded before any Firefox window and FF must restart when you install a new one). I think it also must have something to do with reloading my last session instead of starting anew.

Only takes about 5 seconds to restart after it is first loaded. Again I think that the add-on search must only happen the first time. Who knows?

Regardless, it is annoying to say the least. And Chrome doesn't suffer the same fate despite being configured quite similarly.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Whoa, Firefox starts up instantly for me. I have about 3-4 extensions.

Opera is the slower one, about 3-5 seconds, with about a year's worth of history and auto-complete URL data that slows it down. Purging that gives it instant startup, but I don't see why I need to do that. :P

[Menneisyys]

I've pretty thoroughly tested the then-current version of Chrome against FF some 2-3 weeks ago (under OS X, I need to add - I don't think the Windows versions are different from the OS X counterparts, tho). FF has turned out to be far better, far more powerful etc.

[Menneisyys]

At least for now I'm 100% Chrome from Firefox just a couple months ago. There are some things I still like better in Firefox (like the ability to synchronize passwords using Xmarks and the ability to completely block ads instead of just hiding them), but the load time got to be PAINFUL. For me, with a comparable bunch of plug-ins it's maybe a 5 second cold start for Chrome and a 30 second cold start for Firefox. Ridiculous.

I eagerly await FF 4.0. I do much prefer working with an open-source browser vs. a Goliath-owned one.

that's a LOT... you may want to reconsider an OS reinstall maybe?

On my Win7 Thinkpad t42p (2 GHz Centrino, 2G RAM, 2004 model - that is, pretty putdated), it only takes some seconds to start up. On my 2.8 GHz c2d MBP 17", under both XP (via Parallels) and OS X, almost instantly, with several add-ons installed (no-Flash etc.)

[Gerard]

Firefox is a bit over 20 seconds in starting for me, on an Asus 901. Not too bad for an older model netbook. Firefox with no plugins (safe mode) launches in about 3 seconds on the same machine. But as I use 8 plugins and can't really let go of any of them comfortably, I'll live with that slow startup time. Hardly every 'need' to reboot the netbook under Windows 7 anyway, as it's rock solid stable. And using a RAMdisk and having all Firefox's cached files (except cookies) load to RAM (256MB of RAMdisk reserved exclusively for the cache), Firefox is very quick to load pages, even when using my Rogers data plan with the Asus tethered to my Kaiser.

I've given Chrome a shot on a couple of notebooks. Haven't been all that impressed with real life page load times as compared to Firefox. With Firefox I can start reading most pages within a second of clicking a link, so what's the hurry beyond that? If I can literally start reading within one heartbeat, life does not need to be 'faster' for me, and I question whether it has to be so for anyone, really.

I'm a bit upset that Mozilla dumped Fennec when Windows Phone blew Windows Mobile out of the water. But that's not Mozilla's fault. They gave a couple of years to Fennec development and that's 100% wasted effort, thanks to Microsoft's decision. So no grudge to hold there against Firefox by extension... Maybe if Google decided to start development of a Chrome version for Windows Mobile - a bit foolish considering WM is soon to be dead - I'd give that a shot. But then again, there's nothing wrong with Netfront's page load times, even over 3G.