Go Down

Topic: So just what is Google saying here ? (Read 5399 times) previous topic - next topic

mowcius

#15
Dec 13, 2010, 05:49 pm Last Edit: Dec 13, 2010, 06:16 pm by mowcius Reason: 1
Quote
It's all down to content rich web pages

Often it's rubbish web page design more than content rich.

mowcius

Quote
I can open Chrome and go to five different websites in the time it take IE or FF to even load.

Well I have to say I am kinda going this way but Pale Moon has decreased my 'Firefox' loading time a lot and I need some of the addons for Firefox.
Iron (Chrome) for general web browsing and then Pale Moon (Firefox) for all my other stuff  ;)

pluggy

Quote
I can open Chrome and go to five different websites in the time it take IE or FF to even load.


5 different websites in 4.6 seconds ?. I'm impressed ;)
http://pluggy.is-a-geek.com/index.html

mowcius

Quote
4.6 seconds

Can't say Pale Moon takes anywhere near that long. Firefox is a close one.

mowcius

Quote
You can get FF to open in 4.6 seconds?  I'm impressed.  I've never been able to do better than 10-15 seconds and sometimes 20. (Multiple data points on several different systems)

Well yeah FF can be something like that on my slow computers.
I think it completely depends how you have it set up too. Turning off the automatic updates for most things helps.

pluggy

4.6 seconds is the difference in loading times between Chrome and Firefox on my Ubuntu Atom based desktop.  Firefox starts in 9.7 seconds, Chrome starts in 5.1 seconds.  Hence you needing to visit 5 sites in the difference between the loading times as claimed.   It improves my machines party piece of the PC starting from cold, logging on with my 11 character password and being on the internet in under a minute.  Its around 52 seconds using Chrome.

 Swish laptops I repair with Windoze 7 and Intel I3 processors usually get beaten if I give them a minutes start........
http://pluggy.is-a-geek.com/index.html

pluggy

Safely back in the Firefox fold, Chrome was giving problems with some of the sites I visit regularly (numeric keypad not working when entering figures primarily) . I can live with the extra 4.6 seconds FF takes to load......
http://pluggy.is-a-geek.com/index.html

Darth_Maker

I'm a loyal Firefox user, and I probably will continue to be.  However I have given Chrome a fair chance, and I actually use both on a regular basis.
On my computer, Chrome starting up on Grooveshark (as homepage,) takes a little less time than it take for FF to open up four separate tabs and an app tab.
I did a test a while back (a little after FF 3.6 came out I think, and the then current version of Chrome,) and FF handles more open tabs better.  I tested this by rapidly opening 8+ tabs.  Chrome dragged down sooner than FF did.
I don't like the Chrome interface.  The loss of the menu bar is not something I can work with for normal web browsing.  However, I do use Chrome to listen to Grooveshark, since it's a slow website anyway, and I don't have to do anything other than start Chrome.

Just my 3.14cents.

Valalvax

Quote
It's all down to content rich web pages and, as you mentioned earlier, tracking.  I'm quite happy with content rich stuff but it would be good if low bandwidth versions were more readily available.
It's a shame the internet has forgotten about LowBW versions of websites, I remember when every site nearly had a LowBW version and some would swap over if they were being hit too hard...

Go Up