Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

On the tablet, startup time is a drawback; but on the desktop I (and most people I know) always have a browser open. So for me (and by baseless extrapolation, everyone :)) the memory leakiness is much more an issue than startup time. And while FF2 was terrible, FF3(.0) is good enough, so I don't see it as having a major drawback there, either.

And if V8 gets substantially better than FF3.1's JS engine does, it'll get adopted; if they stay even, I hope we can look forward to two great engines for the tablets: MicroB (but up-to-date) and a Chrome-derived Webkit/V8 (also up-to-date).

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

FF 1.5 and FF 2 was killing me on the desktop, for exactly those reasons Benson lists. I always kept it up and running, and it would eat hundreds and hundreds of megs after a while, until I had to shut it down (actually I kept several running, in different accounts - to keep some of those cookies separated). Thus losing my carefully collected pages.

FF 3 is much better. The memory leak seems gone, or at least much better. It's also much faster on e.g. Google mail, where (due to a slightly higher round-trip-time at my site than what's optimal) the ajax/javascript slowed everything down something terrible. 15-20 seconds between clicking an email until it was scrollable! (in pre-FF3).

Still, it'll be interesting to see where this chrome thing will go.

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

So V8 isn't currently much better than FF3's JS engine?

I've heard great things about Webkit on the tablets, at least one poster claimed that Epiphany with Webkit is faster than MicroB on the N8x0. I can't really comment either way, I haven't spent enough time with Epiphany yet.

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

V8 is much faster than ff3 and on par with ff3.1 ( tracemonkey ).

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

from what i understand, V8 is faster then the FF3.0 JS engine. but benchmarks done with the spidermonkey engine that will be introduced in FF3.1 beats V8.

question is how much V8 have improved before mozilla gets around to releasing FF3.1...

btw, firefox uses a lot of javascript internally to power the gui, right?

so potentially, a faster javascript engine would result in a faster firefox gui, not just faster rendering of ajax content?

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

Allegedly they have removed the part of their user agreement that gave them copyrights to anything you don with Chrome. They claim it was a mistake due to that fact that they were using a standard service agreement.

Does Google not make enough money to hire competent lawyers?

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

Their motto is "do no evil"... so understaffing lawyers seems to support that motto :cool:

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

indeed, lawyers, at least copyright/license lawyers, is at best skirting the edge of the dark side...

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

Tracemonkey :)

And yes, you're right. Now in my about:config i have two options:

javascript.options.jit.content
javascript.options.jit.chrome

I've only set content to true, chrome is for the more adventurous... :)

BTW, the AwesomeBar feels much faster in 3.1 too.

Re: Google Browser: Chrome
 

<off-topic>

Thanks for that post. Yes, it was me who was raving about epiphany-webkit...it's speed anyway. The problem with it was, that it would, seemingly randomly, seg fault on 50% of pages making it unusable. Your above post and my memory of how fast it was otherwise, inspired me to take another look at the problem. It was very simple. gcjwebplugin was causing it to crash (because it's meant for gecko), so uninstalling fixed the it.

The itT main forum page loads in 4 seconds in epiphany-webkit!

</off-topic>