Can you add Safari since Google is using part of its engine as well?

Joseph

"its slick looks, helpful features, and performance"

I don't get that. It does not have slick looks or helpful features. Some of the underlying code is pretty nice and reports are that the performance is good (though I haven't noticed in real world use) but the browser is downright ugly and clunky IMO and lacks too many features to be all that useful. Features will pick up as the code matures but from where I stand this doesn't look like it will ever come close to luring me from my regular browser habits.

Columcille

Who gives a crap about tenths of seconds. You don't even read all 8 tabs at the same time so even that is mute.

Addons, features, lack of messed up terms, I won't touch Chrome.

Onouris

@Scott Johnson

Your answer can be found at:

[lifehacker.com]

RIF?

wraith808

Opera rocks. And of course it is standered. but truly how many peoples use firefox without editing the about:config for pipelining?

fleebailey33

Well one of the things i found in Chrome that is awesome is how it launches one process per tab. I work with a lot of web apps and some of them tend to crash a lot, taking with them the browser. This way only that tab crashes.

I've found also that it's engine is based both on Mozilla's Gecko and Apple's Safari as you can check in the about info:

Official Build 1583
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

I've been trying Chrome since yesterday. It is a lot faster than Firefox with my current config. But i still prefer FFox.
Here at work, i use Chorme to open my companie's web apps (DB Frontends) and use Firefox for everything else like Gmail, Calendar and personal web surfing.

Overall, and in my personal case, i think that chrome has a future.

ficcionista

This test is worthless until you include the current speed champ (Opera).

Vasto

@Eschguy: And I'm still waiting for my Linux version (although I ran it in a virtual Windows installation, and it was noticeably faster - no testing necessary - than IE7 or Firefox 3 with addons).

zoomZAP

I wonder if Chrome'll start getting bogged down in plugins...

I'm assuming it has its own form of Google Gears. Am I right to assume so?

Reilaos~

@Etherbob - I agree, it would have been nice to see Opera in the mix.

GregH

I am a Google fan as well as a firefox fan. I am just so glad that FF extensions don't work on chrome else I would have a tough time deciding between the two. Right now, it's FF3!!

Bolero

Safari/WebKit nightlies are available for Windows. Safari uses a different js engine and a newer version of WebKit (supports more CSS3 than Chrome). It should be in the tests. As should Opera if you're really testing all major browsers.

etherbob

Thanks for the article. Good stuff.

Personally, I just can't see a reason to even try Chrome. It seems like it could develop into a great product but right now it doesn't even hold a candle to Firefox and its extension-ability. It is the same way that I felt about Safari.

gpzbc

now who gets the prize for creating the first virus that exploits it?

or how much would i have to pay someone to write one that puts my website as the top result in a search?

impliedsurprise

chrome was way slower on my pc than firefox3.
Q6600 with 2 GB.

uninstalled it and went back to my foxy lady

cotr

@puntai: Both this and Safari are based on WebKit.

My question is: Where's Safari in this test?

scott johnson

Where's Safari?

scott johnson

I reckon it's based on the safari engine.

puntai

I think Firefox beats these hands down - we have to include human 'error' here with the timer. 0.1 second is far from noticable. Exluding that test, the only other test significant is the speed test.

Which im sure 2 seconds is -hardly- problematic.
Firefox, live on! Fight!

Sanjo

the only thing I don't like about it is that it throws one more browser into the mix for website testing. Bah to that

What The Geek

@onewordplastics: I've heard of a lot of people having a lot of problems in windows xp x64. Unfortunately it's the price of running beta software :/

What The Geek

Google.
Google Toolbar.
Google Mail.
Google Maps.
Google Docs.
Google Video (YouTube).
Google Earth.
Google Chrome.
Google News.
iGoogle.
Google Desktop.
Google Picasa.
Google SketchUp.
Google Lively.
Google Talk.

daftrok

I think it is great that lifehacker does these speed tests. Although I would never switch from Firefox to Safari for a second less in boot time, it is very interesting to see where my favorite fits in in the scheme of things.

Gibles

Chrome has come out on top in most of my personal test - as well as in my heart. Viva la Chrome!!

What The Geek

I'm still waiting for my Mac version :-/

Eschguy

If I could install it, I could form an opinion about it. As it is, it won't install, some error about gears.

fredramsey

Anyone having problems with Chrome on Windows XP 64? It installed OK. Browses OK. But I get an immediate crash every time I pull down a menu item. It restarts really quickly after the crash. That may be a new speed test...

onewordplastics

Installed Chrome last night and was amazed to see the speedy on loading pages and cold starts. Definetley something to worry for FF and IE.

Benitocarmona

What I'm more interested in is memory usage after a long session. I'm a web developer and use Firefox 3 on a Mac. I currently have four windows open with more than a dozen tabs, and FF is using almost 300 megs of RAM. When I close tabs or even windows (as I often do), none of that is cleared out. I have to restart my browser daily to keep it from hitting half a gig or more. Fortunately, restarting is easier with FF 3 - just save the session and load it again next time with less memory.

Give me a browser that'll clean itself up, and I'll switch.

chuckiemac

@Columcille: In what world are automatic search keywords and crash isolation not helpful features?

Darklighter

"Do note, however, that Chrome handles tabs differently than others-each tab loads as its own process, so that if it crashes or stalls, the rest of your reading doesn't go down with it."

Kevin, IE8 does the exact same thing. See the IE8 blog here: [blogs.msdn.com]

Giolon

Chrome cold starts 0.7 seconds slower than the nearest competitor (a noticeable amount) and a greater percentage (~17%) than the warm start difference (~10%). Warm starts 0.1 (imperceptible amount) seconds quicker, but the scale exagerated.

Somehow Chrome is declared the winner? Given Chrome is supposed to be designed to be better for long runtime performance, I suspect people are going to cold start it more than they warm start it.

The CSS / javascript test, adding up the times they are the same, but I can't help but notice the scale when chrome loses the first test is padded to make it appear less bad.

Also the RAM test didn't address the long haul memory creep that Chrome is supposed to fix. Try loading various content heavy pages hundreds of time to try and simulate that usage. I usually go days without restarting a browser, I want to see that usage.

johnsmith1234

@Vasto: Read my above post about Opera no longer being a beta.

Also, I really don't quite understand the hype about Chrome. Yes, it's a web browser that brings a few interesting ideas (but realistically only one that I want badly) to the table, but...I dunno. There are plenty of innovative web browsers.

I hate to say this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's only getting this much hype and praise 'cause it's made by Google..

Sensai

The Safari 4 beta should definitely be included in these numbers, especially since Safari 4 smokes those three browsers in the Acid3 test.

djkibblesnbits

I tested G-Chrome last night for a few hours. Very sleek, fast, somewhat bare in regard to options though. I realize it is a beta, and I can only hope that the google gurus come up with some innovative extensions.

Security is a concern. I will only play with Chrome here and there, but leave the risky stuff like online shopping and banking to FF 3.

kerpalguy

@GregH, @etherbob: Guys, they're doing it on the Beta browsers. Keep in mind that 9.50, followed by 9.51 just came out recently. It's just not a 'beta' anymore...

Yes, there's that 9.60 snapshot, but that's not really a 'beta' either. More like an 'alpha.'

Sensai

What?? No AT&T Pogo browser comparisons?

hahahaha

Man that browser sucks....haha

metalhaze

@dwhitman:
google did state that there will be an add-on architecture for chrome at a later stage, so it might be fair to assume someone will build an adblock.

unruled

@Ajh: IE8 has those issues because the engine was written from scrach to please web standards fanboys. And I have to remember you that it's still a beta product.

amigokin

I'm intrigued by Chrome's use of separate processes for each tab; I've had plenty of times when FF becomes unresponsive because one of the tabs is busywaiting for something.

But until Chrome has something functionally equivalent to AdBlockPlus, it's a non-starter for me. And with Google's main business being web ads, I'm not exactly holding my breath.

dwhitman

As for my tests though, Chrome is faster than any browser I've ever used for my daily uses. =)

kaiz3n

@onewordplastics: You might want to consider opening it in Windows XP mode (a Compatibly Mode in the icon's properties).

@What The Geek: Really? I've never had any issues and I think I have thoroughly used x64 for a few years now... Nobody else I know really has any issues with it either. weird. I'd rather have XP than Vista (still) so I will stick with my x64 w/ 4GB RAM.

kaiz3n

@amigokin: Internet Explorer had some issues handling certain websites. ....

Ajh

Chrome has some issues with rendering certain websites. This means I'll probably go back to firefox, but I promised to give it a full week.

Ajh

Do note, however, that Internet Explorer 8 beta2 handles tabs differently than others-each tab loads as its own process, so that if it crashes or stalls, the rest of your reading doesn't go down with it. So if you've got solid-state chips to spare, it's not that much more of a hit to run Internet Explorer 8 beta2 in a busy session.

:P

amigokin

Im sorry, but... How the hell did Opera not get included in this test?

Im sorry, that's just not a complete review.

unruled

Where's Opera in all this? My own tests have shown that Opera handily beats all comers at Kane's javascript test, but Chrome wins by an enormous amount on most other javascript tests.

noisewar

It's so hard to choose! I love Firefox. I have since I first heard of it and started using it before even FireFox 1.0 came out. It was called so many things back then. I kinda like Chrome, too. But the things keeping me from switching are big to me. First, no extensions or add-ons. The moment I opened websites I'd long forgotten had ads and boom, there they were. Adblock! Need! Second, I use hotmail. Boo-hiss, blah blah. I've had this account since '98. And Fox3 can do the live mail full version. Google can't yet. And third is how do you choose between great open-source products like this? Firefox never did me any wrong at all. But each tab as its own process is kinda nice. Gah!

thegreyjedi

I tried Chrome on my work PC since I have Ubuntu at home. The browser rendered sites I need for work just fine, better than Firefox 3 even. Opera, honestly did this as well.

For what it is worth, when I first opened up and used the browser it was like Mozilla and Opera had an affair and this was the bastard child. There are some redeeming qualities but as it is still in its infancy there is plenty of room for improvement.

sw4383

But the fastest to be exposed as a tool of evil...?

Chrome.

strider_mt2k

I like Chrome - it's speedy and clean. I esp. like their separate tab idea as separate processes. I hated when I had like 5 tabs open on firefox, and then would open one as like cnn.ocm. that would cause so much lag on my browser while it's trying to figure out that it's a bad url - so I would often open a new browser session while hating myself for the typo.

chrome solves this problem.

qrius

I was all googley-eyed (pun intended) when I first used Chrome yesterday. It was by far the fastest browser I had ever used. I was simply playing around with it, did some of my own tests and crowned it the new jewel of my heart.

I came in to work today and decided I'd see how it did as the main browser (which is usually Firefox 3) for the day. Sorry to say it crapped out less than 3 hours in. I only had 4 tabs open, but memory usage was so high that my system (WinXP SP3, 2GB RAM) was becoming unresponsive. I noticed in [Windows] task manager that even though only 4 tabs were open, there were 6 chrome.exe processes running.

I think there's a lot of potential here, but Firefox it shall be, at least for now.

mexman

This test isn't completely accurate considering Firefox 3.1b is technically still a pre-release version and the polishing is still taking place. Overall, Ff 3.1b is lightning fast on Google sites (which are heavy in javascript and will take advantage of TraceMonkey) but somewhat slower for Facebook and most other sites.

I would say redo this test in three weeks when the Ff 3.1b1 is officially released. Either, one thing is clear though: IE8 still sucks when it comes to performance.

rer89

My only problem with Chrome is its scrolling goofiness. Other than that, it seems much faster both in starting and loading than FF3, so I'm sticking with it. And probably downgrading to FF2, anyway.

EndlessMike

^^ Yeah, what chuckiemac said.
But, I'm hoping what Google has done to sandbox the tabs will be available to all so builds of FF from Mozilla or independent compilers will be available with this feature.
Safari 4 is faster than all competitors, I'm quite sure.

fluxam

@Jarett: Set to not ask, that is.

Jarett

Who cares which is a millisecond faster. According to Gizmodo, the Chrome EULA states that Google owns anything and everything you create using Chrome (i.e., your blogs, posts, messages, etc.).

berribrand

Whoops, just read about another exploit: [www.milw0rm.com]

That only applies if you have it set to not where to save files, but that IS the default setting.

Jarett

May have been said already. But I dig the "paste and search" option when you right-click on the address bar.

Baby Farmer

@impliedsurprise: There's already been an exploit found. Try going to a url like this: lolhacked:%. It'll crash before you even hit 'Enter'.

Jarett

@dwhitman: i too would like to see if an ABP equivalent would come up since ads are Googles bread and butter.

JadeEmperor

@What The Geek: not really. it's the price of running in 64bit.

JadeEmperor

Nothing to do with speed, but Google sure does have a /*cough, cough*/ interesting license to go with that browser:

"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services."

quixote

@chuckiemac: Here's how to reduce Firefox memory without restarting the browser: [lifehacker.com]

bobbo33

pardon if this has been addressed in another thread...

But is Lifehacker planning on making their "Better" extensions compatible with Chrome?

CorkG

@Sensai Yes Opera should technically be considered alpha, they don't really put betas out for to long because the alphas are so easily accessible. Opera's alphas should be compared to Firefox's betas. (With of course a note). It just seems like a convenient way to skew the truth.

Also the whole practice of comparing beta to beta seems ridiculous. Beta means there are bugs. One browser can have 100 bugs and be in beta, while another has 1 bug and has the beta title. Let's not forget google's love interest with the word beta. (Gmail?)

Vasto

The performance differences are so minuscule that it really doesn't matter.

Hardware is cheaper than ever. Memory does not cost much. If you're running out of memory to the point where a 200M browser process is interfering with your day to day activities, you need to streamline the extensions and gadgets you have in the browser and your OS.

So I'll say it. Performance doesn't matter to the browser market. What matters is whether the browser is secure, stable and has features users want.

jtimberman

"As you can see, Chrome's noticeably fast on reload" -- only because you blew up the scale so that we're looking at the differences within a quarter of a second. I wouldn't call that a noticeable difference.

sumocat

I also found out that hotmail is weird with it. there is no option for the operating system last I checked.

Baby Farmer

"Do note, however, that Chrome handles tabs differently than others"

Actually Firefox is the odd one out in that it uses a single process. Both IE8 and Chrome both use the one-process-per-tab model.

PreachingLlama

I question the testing methods with having to press the '/' key to stop the timer. There's probably going to be a factor of human error.

Regardless though, when loading time comes down to seconds faster then the competition it sort of loses it's weight as a deciding factor as which is better.

@berribrand - That's freaky.

Wavewash

@daftrok: and?

finalellipsis

@rer89: Are you honestly complaining about testing a brand new browser against the beta version of a well established browser? Using a Firefox beta is arguably more fair.

Darklighter

@chuckiemac: From what it sounds like, Chrome clears out all the memory used by a tab when that tab is closed.

DoubleFelix

I liked Chrome's snappy UI and javascript and the fact that it didn't blow up to 300+ MB after being open for a couple hours like FF, but I'll have to wait for extensions and a Linux port before seriously contemplating a full switch on all my machines.

glynsync

I think at this stage it's too early to draw any conclusions. After all FF has been out there for quite some time. While chrome only seems to offer some basic stuff. I would like to wait and watch for a little while before I make up my mind.

mskadu

I agree with dnheller: These graphs are terrible. It's a big no-no to start axes of a series of graphs at different values. Since these are all describing times, you should make them all the same scale; then we could do further comparisons, directly seeing, for example, how cold-start times compare to warm-start times.

Furthermore, the snazzy-looking 3-D bars make it difficult to know which "edge" of the bar to read.

Posco Grubb

I am confused. I think im uninstalling firefox, opera, safari and chrome and sticking to ie6. ha!

anebg

Where did the author of this piece learn to do graphing and data visualization? USA Today's Fact-oid department?

Bad enough that idiot MBAs can't use graphs and stats properly, but it's shameful that techies are so ignorant of proper use of graphs and stats.

Some of your time scales start at zero seconds, some don't. These are horrible graphs and great examples of how to prevaricate with graphs and statistics.

You shouldn't have to write narrative text to say "there is not much difference in timings" if the graphs conveyed that info. When the numerical data indicates little difference, the bars on the graphs should reflect that!!! Why bother to put in graphical info (bar chart) when tables of numbers would take less time to read and interpret??? As the graphs are now, you have to look at the bars first, compare, then interpret relative to the scales.

Graphical displays that look "tech-y" but convey misleading info are USELESS at best. Why don't you know that? ...more evidence that the U.S. is falling behind in producing properly trained native engineers and scientists.

dnheller

Such tests leave out a number of factors such as the ISP download/upload speed, the TCP/IP settings of the computer, the CPU and memory tweaks, the router being used, the network card being used, etc. Personally, I choose the browser I feel best using. As of now, although I love Safari, it's Firefox. It's a lot like word processors; I know how "out-of-date" some folks think WordPerfect is, but I still find it the best for legal work and numerous other tasks--say working with PDF or XML files.

rainbowsky

Probably already mentioned, but I'd love to see results from IE7, Opera and Safari too in these tests.

skafoelix

ah sorry, already posted...

ilga

"11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."

ilga

I think that choosing the fastest or least memory intensive browser is a pretty facile argument. Firefox is leading and always has led the race not only with its start-up time and memory use, but its features.

Chrome has certainly adopted some of the highlights of what makes Firefox so great, namely tabs, keywords and the easy bookmarking system. The difference is that tabs can be manipulated in a more visual manner, keywords have been intuitively replaced with searches you've made before, and bookmarks have been simplified even more.

Oh, but they've yet to implement extensions. Is that a serious flaw? Personally, I don't think so. Chrome brings to the table something very, very powerful in its minimalist approach -- the inability to waste even more time on "power user" material -- tweaking, installing extensions you don't need, and manipulating your workflow so many times you don't actually get anything done.

If you are a Firefox fan such as myself, you will realise how powerful the browser actually is, and how much potential there is in terms of functionality. You'll also realise that between the good extensions such as Wired-Marker, Foxmarks and Tiddlysnip, how much potential Firefox has to eat up the time you could be spending on something productive.

The Chrome philosophy is quite simply to shift focus from the browser to the actual content (without compromising functionality), and that's why I've imported my bookmarks and haven't looked back.

Meier

Actually Firefox 3.1 Shiretoko just reached the Alpha 2 stage this week...I am really looking forward to when this reaches the beta and rc stages. ^__^

Firefox will always be my main browser followed by Opera and then Internet Explorer 8. ^__^

As for Google Chrome, I will occasionally muck about with it and test any websites that I happen to build in it, but those will just about be the only things I do...I just was not impressed with it...

Asian Angel

And readers should be reminded that this article only tests beta software. These are not "tomorrow's browsers"; they are test versions of tomorrow's browsers.

Posco Grubb

I found the memory usage negligible between Chrome and IE 8. I DO like the "inspect element" option when right clicking on an area of a website. Much cleaner and easier than any of the webdev add-ons for FF. It does still have that annoying flvs stop playing if you've got too many tabs open problem that FF has. I'll probably keep playing with it, but so far it just seems to be 'another browser'. I'd be nonplussed if it weren't from Google.

OgdenHaole

to me it looks like firefox and chrome are fairly close in most of the tests. As far as i've read chrome uses firefox, to a point. So if mozilla were to make a barebones version of firefox, then i think we'd really know who's faster ;)

Dan Cardin

speed good.

each tab having its own process is an interesting concept.

only time will tell if it wins over firefox/ie users.

firefox extensions will be a stumbling block for Chrome..

gmurtagh

Firefox has a lower memory footprint? Chrome works much better for me, has far far less memory usage. Also, why didn't you put Opera in this test? It's supposed to be the "fastest" web browser.

az060693

@ Onouris
"Who gives a crap about tenths of seconds. You don't even read all 8 tabs at the same time so even that is mute."

I think you mean it's moo, not mute. Please don't confuse your euphemisms.

+ Watch video

I'll take any opportunity to link to this.

shefarted

My symbaloo.com startpage won't load in Chrome. Anyone else who has the same problem? No symbaloo = No chrome for me. Otherwise i found it lightning fast.

Recky

Now see, this is what happens. I'm perfectly fine with my FF3, and then you at Lifehacker gradually, insidiously, over time, get me thinking that the grass is greener at the other app.

Which is why I now have and happily use Evernote, Sandy, reQall, Dial2do, RTM, Hassleme, and some awesome FF3 extensions and scripts.

Sigh...guess I should go testdrive Chrome...

WomanWithManyHats

Here's my two cents for the naysayers.

Chrome is noticeably fast. It's clean and pretty. It has a great minimalism that gives you maximum screen space.

Firefox has all the bells and whistles. All the nice add ons I use for flickr, gmail, and other things. So

I think I've decided I'll use chrome at work where mostly I'm doing quick searches for my job. And hopefully i don't need all the bells and whistles for casual surfing (Well...hypothetically). But I'll keep firefox at home. Well also because at home I have a mac.

Daveed

I'm having a real gripe at my Firefox 3 right now, and it's performance. Sure out of the box it works just fine. But give it a month of normal use the typical 80MB quickly turns into 200MB with almost a 1:30 load time even during a warm start-up. It completely locks up my computer till its done loading.

When I an load Google Chrome in 1/3000 of the time it takes to load Firefox something is wrong. Google's offering is crisp clean and far less bloated then the mass of XUL that Mozilla calls a browser. Firefox was supposed to be about making a smaller cleaner browser in comparison to Internet Explorer, but as each generation passes and they try harder and harder to be more like IE. Hell once Google rolls out the extension interface for Chrome, I'll build ad-block myself if I have to.

rayblasdel

Chrome certainly FEELS about twice as fast as Firefox in regular use -- but Chrome doesn't have the add-ons that could be slowing my FF install down.

Adding and closing tabs happens instantly, even with Chrome's smart start page.

I'll try running Firefox clean for a while and see if there's still a noticeable difference.

The trick for Chrome will be keeping the speed up while adding features to catch up to Firefox -- we'll see what an API does to its performance.

Speaking of, maybe it's time for an updated "Speed up your Firefox" post from LH.

dotyoureyes

Firefox 3.1b? I thought it was still in alpha. Does anyone have a link to the download?

APer3Caper

The startup time winner is NOT Chrome! Are you kidding me?

FF3: Coldstart - 3.8 seconds. Chrome: Coldstart - 4.6

FF3: Hotstart - 1.06 Chrome: Hotstart - 0.92

MATH: 4.86 Seconds 5.52

The winner is clearly Firefox.

Overheal

Speaking of "mass of XUL", from participating in the mozillazine forums a few years ago I picked up the impression that Firefox is really a mess under the hood - it's been worked on by so many different people, the code is undocumented - it's just been mutating for so many years.

So I'm at least excited for a browser that is a "fresh start" - rather than being the umpteenth generation of something that used to be Netscape Navigator 1.0, Google has built something new based on today's web.

Other browsers that could be compared are K-meleon and Phlox.

djnrempel

Let the LH/Google fanboi-ism begin.

Here's my problems with these 'tests'

1. No Opera or Safari (Don't use either, but they should be there for a more well rounded comparison

2. Many of the tests involve google sites/services Despite the fact that Chrome is been optimized for Google, it still did worse or only marginally better against the competition.

I've said it before, I love LH, but the constant Google lovefests are getting old.

spidermedic

Oh... and isn't FF interface called the chrome ???

doublej

HMMMM.... I think the world could do without another browers right now. 3 or 4 is a choice - but more than that is divisive.

Also, I haven't read it yet, but I suspect the google EULA will be scary. I avoid most google online tools excepts for search for privacy reasons.

If Chrome is widely adopted, just stop for a second a think what Google will know. It adds another level of clarity to googles Picture of The Entire Internet and I'm not ever so comfortable where it's going.

twitter @doublejay

doublej

Somebody doesn't know simple addition!

HellTempest

We want you big Google(Big Brother).

rtipping

@djnrempel: Actually it's based on Webkit which is used in Safari. Though it is "interesting" for sure.

johnsmith1234

before jumping on the Chrome Wagon ya might want to take a look at these

Be sure to read Chrome's fine print
[news.cnet.com]

Google pulls a Microsoft on user privacy
[news.cnet.com]

Does Google Have Rights to Everything You Send Through Chrome?
[www.readwriteweb.com]

jawnz

@dnheller: WOW! Relax!

gpzbc

So. I just tested Chrome and the scrolling is off. I can scroll down, but not back up. What's going on with this? Is there a setting to change it? The scrolling is seriously a big enough issue for me to disregard Chrome, which is a shame, because everything else seems awesome.

Webran61

@ficcionista: Webkit-based browsers all claim to be "like Gecko" in their user-agent strings, but that doesn't have anything to with their rendering engine, which is 100% Webkit, based on the KHTML engine from Konqueror. There's a long history of browsers pretending to be one another, (esp. IE with it's Netscape-spoofing "Mozilla-compatible" and Opera's old stealth IE mode). In this case, I'd say it would be fair to claim that Webkit is more like Gecko than it's like the IE engine, Trident, but that's all. On the other hand, as long as the Webkit family continue to talk to each other, at least we won't have worry quite so much about testing on Safari and Chrome.

blacksmith_tb

I don't think it's important to pick a side just yet. Chrome is brand new. If you don't like it for some reason, then stick with what you like. I've been a FF user for a long time, but I'm intrigued by Chrome. I'll give it a few days and decide if I want to keep it. No need for all the "milliseconds" and "fanboy" talks. Let's just be glad that there is so much competition between OPEN SOURCE browsers. ; )

josh_fest

My own tests between FF and Chrome were very different. Even cold start is FAR faster with Chrome, which was only about 2 seconds.

antman70

@unruled: Curiously enough, dropping the Floppymoose ad-blocking userContent.css into

C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default

Does seem to block static (that is, non-Flash) ads...

blacksmith_tb

After installing Google Chrome, Google Gear hangs on Firefox on my machine. I have to stop FireFox by stopping process everytime. Did anyone else face such issue?

harsh4us

@scott johnson: Good question. LifeHacker, what's up with snubbing Safari?

BiZarRroBALlmeR

I see Google as MS done right. there are similarities. windows spread like a virus across desktops everywhere, not because it was a better OS. it had better Apps( maybe just prettier).

Google has lots of great free software. now chrome comes along on a already used platform. an idea place to drive users to it's apps.

however instead of using undocumented api's and pseudo open development of the win 3.1 days as a kick off point they are starting out with the notion of having a open platform from teh start. something sun has failed to do.

it's taken google years to get to this level where they can branch out and I see Chrome as the first step in world domination.

they targeted the biggest beast first. conquering mac and linux is easy but no one notices outside of geeks and savvy users. consuming windows first mean more market share first.

once all platforms have a port of chrome, Google docs and other apps have a realistic shot and bumping Ms office and open office from the home users and people not tied to corporate red tape.

there delivery system model has chance to mass recognition. something lacking in other software movements.

I imagine the walmart cheapo systems with gOS have a lot better chance of getting into homes if schools start to adopt it.

world domination has begun, and I like it!

dewetha

Gooooooooooo FIREFOX!!!!!
F - I - R - E - F - O - X, what does it spell: FIREFOX!
LOL
The difference in all the times is negligable[spelling?].

reg4c

I'm loving Chrome. It runs beautifully on my crappish little laptop, and loads up pages almost as quickly as changing channels on a teevee. I also like that it's a tidy app. Every function I regularly use on a browser is available, so I have no beef with its stripped down-edness.

I've always been very pro-Firefox, but man...Chrome is pretty sweet.

koreanforrabbit

@scott johnson: I must really be old. I still say "where's Camino?"!

markadm

13 open tabs with 95mb of memory usage with my flock browser (basically firefox)
So :)

Firefox takes the cake.

shanzi

So if you run a lot of resource hungry application Firefox is the clear choice from the testing here............................................Which backs up my personal findings. I run AutoDesk Inventor and some FEA software and I like my browser to be as lightweight on resources as possible. Firefox ftw!

symo

Safari is faster than Chrome.

But Firefox is the best.

silentcon

I really don't think this is a complete or fair comparison without Opera included. Not only is it very competitive, but it aslo pioneered many of the features that Chrome is now being praised for.

mickeric

why are you using RC3 for Firefox?

Bryan

My firefox3 used to be really slow starting up and use huge amounts of ram..

but that was cos i was using the Tab Mix Plus extension and I permanently had about 30 "must read this sometime" pages open.

Previously TMP would have been on my "must have" extensions list, and i delayed installing FF3 until it was updated.

But seeing chrome made me make a big decision - uninstall TMP. I replaced it with Taboo (and Tab Kit to allow me to have tabs in the sidebar).
Awesome decision.
FF3 now starts 5x faster, used 1/4 of the memory, and i set the Taboo page to be my start page, so i still see the pages i want to be reminded of when i open FF.

If anyones like me and keeps dozens of tabs open from session to session then i'd really recommend Taboo over TMP. (much as i previously raved about it)

soul_grind

I'm surprised by the memory results. On both of my Dell laptops, Firefox 3 always hovers at or above 130MB (often with just one tab open), while I was unable to get Chrome to consume more than 40MB with multiple tabs open. I haven't been impressed with the memory management of FF3 at all. This is memory use as reported by Windows task manager in XP and Vista.

UtahJ

I've been rockin chrome for the past couple days and really like it!

Besides the ladies love chrome :)

Scottey

@Bryan: We're actually using the beta of Firefox 3.1, which has a few new features and some improvements. We wanted to test the bleeding-edge betas of popular browsers.

Kevin Purdy

@P_Smith: Or it could be that we already tested Opera 9.5 using this exact same criteria, so you can draw your own comparisons (as noted in the fourth paragraph of the post)

Kevin Purdy

@Overheal: It might be a case of bad headline syncing, but we meant to say that when weight against, cold start, warm start, and the 8-tab loading times, Chrome comes out on top, on balance.

Kevin Purdy

"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement." [notnews.today.com]

dgerard

Any "test" that talks about speed and ignores Opera is not a valid test.

It begs an explanation as to why Opera was avoided: an agenda, fanboys, or fear?

P_Smith

For work I often use a Verizon aircard as I am at client sites where they won't allow access to their network or it's a big pain. I've been testing Chrome on this slower connection and it is SIGNIFICANTLY faster.

I can warm-start Chrome, look at my tabs, pick the site I want and have that loading in the time it takes Firefox to load my start page.

I still like Firefox for most of my browsing (almost exclusively because of Foxmarks) but Chrome has impressed me so far.

tedscearcy

Fractions of a second don't matter much compared to ease of use and the GUI - in my opinion the whole Google GUI is like some child's toy; Gmail, Chrome, they just look disgusting.

FF3 rules the roost, no question.

And besides, Google are as big as Microstuft these days.

modernape

A warm start happens instantly for most apps (thanks to caching), so I'd rather be worried about a slow cold start. V8 and TraceMonkey are both JS JIT compiler and since both are open source, I guess they will (legaglly) copy from each other (if not code, at least concepts); in the end none of both will win, both will become faster all the time and the only winner is the user who finally gets rockin' fast JavaScript. Other than that Chrome is a nice browser and thanks to Webkit has a solid backend (the Webkit CSS rendering is legendary, as this test proves again) - but I dislike the look of it. Any idea if Google plans to offer skin support? As one big advantage of Firefox is that you don't have to take the UI as it is, there are so many nice skins and if you know CSS a bit, there are very little parts of the UI you can't customize to your needs.

Mecki

Although it lacks few powerful features of Firefox [Addons], I think it does look promising from the developers point of view. Developers would begin to write more complex apps for the browser because it is multi threaded, Imagine running word processor, Image Editor, High def Video Player all inside a Browser!! It sure looks promising...

spraveenitpro

i compared the ie beta to FF3 2 days ago and found FF was using almost double the memory that IE was.

also googles browser icon is dreadful so i refuse to even download it.

evilenglishman

I know nobody really likes Internet Explorer but labeling chrome the winner of the first round is frankly dishonest. IE beat chrome in the first test by a far wider margin than chrome won by in the second test (even percentage wise). Even look at how the author describes each benchmark:
1) "That's a bit more than an error from my twitchy fingers, but probably not enough to rate any one browser on." - A minor win for IE over chrome.
2) "As you can see, Chrome's noticeably fast on reload, although all the results are so close it's hard to confidently crown a winner." - hard to call, but chrome over IE.
3) "IE 8 and Chrome clock in too close to call" - a tie.
So compare a minor win and tie to a questionable win and a tie... and the latter wins?

I have no problem with comparing Firefox and Chrome as they're clearly favored by most lifehacker readers (though I'd really like to see Opera in the mix) but if you're counting IE, count IE. Give the slow old guy with the enormous market share credit when credit is due.

rxtreme

Ran Chrome last night for an hour or so. On my XP PC it certainly seemed very fast indeed, but I guess part of this may have been subjective because of the lack of the clutter on the other browsers (FF and IE). If you are a "function over form" person - and most Geeks are, then FF must win hands down. If you are a "form over function" person, then Chrome would win - except you are probably already a MAC user. Mac users would really appreciate the mimimalist design of Chrome - let's hope Google come out with the Mac version soon.

tipps

So far, off just testing it myself, Chrome runs a lot faster for me than Firefox has in a long time. (With a clean installed firefox and no extensions)

I don't know if that'll hold true in the long run, but for now I quite like it, plenty more responsive than the competition.. Haven't tried IE8 much, but eh.

Oh, and they've already said that the eula thing was a mix up, so that should be corrected fairly soon.

sciolist

I took Chrome out for a spin to see how it handles Gmail and GoogleDocs, but it really performed miserably and even stalled when I tried browsing through a rather sizeable spreadsheet. -- A word is dead When it is said, Some say. I say it just Begins to live That day. - Emily Dickinson

TuesdayEbonifly

BIASED REPORTING!!!!

1. Since when does restart time outweigh regular start time? Personally I start my browser and don't have to restart until shutdown (unless its crashing like Chrome... and note that Chrome start-up time which is being obsfucated is absolutely horrid)

2. Curious grouping in the second category with FF beating Chrome by miles in JavaScript execution (wasn't this supposed to be a BIG faster feature of Chrome??!!??) but only getting a "tie" because of CCS inclusion in the category.

3. No inclusion of the supposed fastest browser: Opera.

.

So overall this whole article seems written with a HUGE PRO-CHROME BIAS.

Wonder why?

oddahc

I am intrigued most by the idea of each tab running as its own process.

I run Vista x64, and because I hate using IE7, I've been using Minefield, which is okay except for zero Flash support. Using Chrome, the only pages on which I have lost functionality are ActiveX-control pages, and those haven't been a big deal for me(so far).

I think everyone can agree that Chrome looks very bare. I like this, and I think it is a nifty concept. The "chrome" of a program is the flashy UI, the part that looks good and that's it. By naming their browser Chrome and stripping the UI down to a bare minimum, it's as if they are saying, "What you see is what you get." URLs and searches are handled by a single, big, bold text field that contains clear instructions; the buttons are plain and simple, as are the options pages. The flashy part is the program itself, not the UI.

Chrome is an interesting take on the browser, and it offers some features that I've never seen before. It certainly has a lot of potential.

user7727

" Do note, however, that Chrome handles tabs differently than others each tab loads as its own process, so that if it crashes or stalls, the rest of your reading doesn't go down with it. "

Yeah, instead, Chrome's taken my PC down. Twice. That and the EULA prompted a speedy uninstall.

MrPlankton

Note that IE8beta also does multiple processes, similar to the way Chrome works. -Boris

AnastasiaGadimu

Err... where is Opera?

trex279

I had trouble installing on Vista x64. However I find a solution. If you use the direct download link instead of the installer works 100% fine. Installs incrdibaly fast took me literally 5 seconds! If that, I have no idea how it went that fast. It's only like a 6 / 7 meg installer but WOW.

Here's the DDL for anyone interested:

cache.pack.google.com/chrome/install/149.27/chrome_installer.exe

modallpods

i found that when i scrolled page that have 2 flash running on a page, Firefox is faster than Chrome. -- Greettzz, Meirza

Xiu MeiChiron

chromes tabs in own processes, it would be nice if it actually just crashed a tab like hyped - and not the whole thing. also, chrome overrides windows default window decoration. it's annoying and a mark of stupid design. -- Lassi

SigmundHelen

Regardless of speed, I can't see myself using Chrome in replacement of my customized Firefox. However, I am not in the majority here as I am not a Internet Explorer user. Google has a great advantage now that they are promoting Chrome on their homepage. It's a very interesting competition with Microsoft holding the majority market share of web browsers and Google possessing its stronghold on search. We'll just have to see how hard Google pushes Chrome and how easy they make for IE users to convert.

TechWonder

I am scratching my head here because with pages that have high amounts of content on them (like Facebook) Firefox 3 leaves Chrome in the dust, heck even IE 8 does!

Anyone know how to adjust cache memory in the Chrome browser?

cellhead

You should read this article and reconsider using chrome.

[www.theregister.co.uk]

ohnam

Read the license or hear is a link to google new evil ways:

[www.theregister.co.uk]

ohnam

The cold start stats could easily be skewed by Vista's SuperFetch. Was this feature disabled for this benchmark? If some of the browsers were automatically loaded into memory at startup, it would explain the difference in startup time.

cjackson27

All I know is Wordpress admin console is now lightning fast.
I did a high definition tutorial on it at [www.beginnerstutorials.com]

reachtim

actually, ie8 b2 runs separate processes for each tab/window, too. ie8 ftw...don't hurt me??

ampascua

The last comment about using new processes for tabs is not unique to Chrome. As you've mentioned in your own review of IE8, it also has the crash-mitigating feature of using new process per tab.
Updated! Tab Crash Resolution: Several commenters point out that IE8 offers a feature no other browser has-the ability to restore a crashed web site on a tab by tab basis. In my tests, no site crashed so I didn't see this in action; Here's more on the tab crash isolation feature.

Herrshaft

Firefox 3.1 beta isn't going to be out until the end of the month:
[wiki.mozilla.org]

The latest news was that the beta release has slipped to September 30th and that Tracemonkey (which gives Firefox the huge Javascript speedup) has only just been added this week and needs to be enabled.

In fact, I don't even think the second alpha is out the door yet, so the Firefox tests are pretty meaningless. What version did you guys test with?

op12

On other Performance Tests like the Sunspider JavaScript Benchmark or Mozilla Dromaeo the Chrome is much faster.

I really like the browser. Miss some problems, but it runs fast and smooth. Had always problems with the FF since 2.05 (crashes, slow tabbing, the popular scrolling problem and such things).

Kristallregen

I installed chrome today. Nice interface and all. However, it did not load yahoo address dynamically, as I was trying to compose mail in yahoo email(classic).

ck_nifft

@bobbo33: That's Windows only; I use a Mac (as I mentioned in my comment). There's no way that I've been able to find to reduce memory in FF without restarting.

Thanks, though.

chuckiemac

"Do note, however, that Chrome handles tabs differently than others-each tab loads as its own process, so that if it crashes or stalls, the rest of your reading doesn't go down with it." Please check your facts. This feature was available in IE8 since Beta 1 (which is March'08).

ZabrinaBabcha

I'd suggest the following if you're going to do performance analysis. Don't just show averages, show best case and worst case _thats_ as if not more important than the avg. Keep your axis lines as consistent as possible between the graphs, you cant correctly read a series of graphs as easily if distance represents different things. Never use the colors green or red as players. They're suggestive.

NessaBadger

Do K-Meleon!

oboreruhito

Opera released a 9.60 Beta today, so if you want to re-run this test with all the major browsers' betas, grab it and get your hands on Safari 4 beta, and let the best beta be known.

FYI, running that selfsame Opera beta currently. With 17 tabs open, I'm using 120 MB. When I minimize to the taskbar, it drops to 17 MB.

hicks

@onewordplastics: I run Chrome on XP x64 just fine. In fact I think my mileage varies from these LH speed tests because my firefox is terrible with memory, and my Chrome is awesome and uber fast in every area.

umpitygrumpity

@Meier:

wow, wow, slow down. Firefox has been plagued with memory issues, from version 1, up till the latest version 2.

Version 3 has adressed many of these issues, but by no means was it a clean track record.

unruled

I am a Firefox and Flock fan, I like Opera and it is fast but I cannot log into Gmail or Ymail with it unless I mask it as Fx or IE.

I looked forward to trying Chrome although my son said it was great but lacked plugins, we like our plupins and add-ons, still no matter Google is my main place so it is bound to be great right? Going off the excellence of Gmail, search and all the things they do...

I was very disappointed :o( for some reason I though it would be superduper but at almost 50mb installed and also adding "update" and such like without my permission during installation, infact installation gave me no clue as to what it was "installing" just a mesmerizing bar, even IE gave me more choice *cringe* anyway I uninstalled it and had a hard job finding all the traces left over on my pc despite using an excellent (usually) uninstaller app.

Fast yep, suitable nope. I am going fully linux soon so I will stick with Firefox and Flock. For windows K-Meleon blows the lot of them on start speed imho.

That's my 10 pence worth anyway, apologies to Google.

EC

HelenG

I've looked at Chrome and tried it out but FireFox still has my heart. Add-ons rule and I know Google said that add-ons are coming but for now firefox!!!

phayte28

i might be wrong in this, but Chrome doesnt allow you to collapse all the history, cookies, temporary internet sites, etc...you have to physically do it yourself by clicking the buttons, which isn't so good, makes me wonder what google is doing with all that info stored in peoples' browsers, to tailor more targeted adverts perhaps? Increase Google's revenue for sure! Plus even when you've clicked the button to delete everything theres still a remnant in the Temporary Internet Folder files, so its not even completely deleted, what is that info still doing there? With Firefox theres an option to collpase everything when you close the browser and nothing is left in the Temporary Folders. This comes as standard with Firefox, but with Chrome you would have to go "Incognito" to get into the same mode as Firefox...what is google trying to say? That whenever I don't want other people who use my computer to see where I've been it means that I have to go into "porn mode"? It doesnt seem as independent a browser as Firefox, what did we expect, an improved Firefox? I use my browser for everything and I bookmark the pages that I deem important, I dont need it presented to me like some dumbass in the opening page. Speed wise its about the same as a stripped down Firefox without extensions. Some people have said that Chrome is WAY faster than firefox and opera, this is just not true. If you do a bit of searching there are tons of ways of tweaking the Firefox browser to make it super fast. The thing is Chrome seems to be able to do this straight off the bat which is impressive. Some people have commented on how the stripped down