Tom's Hardware -- Chrome 12 is the clear winner of browser competition

Analysis And Conclusion : Web Browser Grand Prix 5: Opera 11.50, Firefox 5, And Chrome 12

 

I'll stick with Firefox for now.
The real life speed difference between Firefox and Google chrome is slim.
I will admit that Chrome beats Firefox in startup times and load times but honestly, with the great ad-blocker and safety addons that Mozilla's community has created over the years, it's unbeatable. I rather sacrifice the .5s load time difference than not have access to the vast addons Mozilla has to offer for both: safety and convenience. (HTTPS Everywhere, No Script, WoT, Ad-Block Plus)

On a brighter side, Who would have ever thought that Opera would win fastest startup time!?! Than again, I don't know much about Opera.
Congratulations Opera! Perhaps the next rising star in browsers.

 

FireFox FTW!

 

For me the choice of browser has nothing to do with the speed. I have always used Internet Explorer as the user interface is very user friendly. I like the layout of IE, and the zoom bar at the bottom right corner is a necessity for me (I have bad eyesight).

 

My browser of choice is definitely based on speed, security, and stability. These are the three things that Chrome kills Firefox at so the decision is clear.

I use adblocking on a DDWRT router anyways.

 

Firefox is definitely not as secure as Chrome out of the box but with addons and extensions, Firefox can be just as secure if not more secure than Google Chrome. And stability and Speed, Chrome is MUCH more stable than Firefox and faster. However, as I said before, the real time speed difference between Firefox and chrome is slim and hardly noticeable (Assuming you don't have a whole ton of addons or extensions with Firefox)

 

No, it really can't be.

NoScript and Adblock plus are the main "security" extensions people cite to say that Firefox is secure. The fact is that neither of these protect you from browser exploits. There's no tab separation, and in general Firefox just doesn't do a whole lot to secure you.

There's nothing firefox can do that chrome can't do through some workaround. Proper adblocking is easily achieved with a host file.

 

Even with the browser exploit and the memory leak, I will always appreciate and use Firefox. Why? Because I've been using it my whole life. For me, Firefox secures me. I have never encountered a virus or an advertisement when using Firefox. When I used Chrome as a stand alone web browser, I got the speed and stability. However, when watching youtube videos on people's channels, I encountered advertisements before watching the video. I was shocked. Just with that small, tiny, nonconformity, I switched back to Mozilla Firefox. However, Google chrome is still installed and pinned to my task bar and remains my secondary browser. However, I can assure you that Google Chrome is not as safe as you think it is.

A member who lurked these forums posted once:

"Chrome is indeed the fastest browser out now. Simply astounding by how much DHTML and Flash run quicker within it than other browsers. And the ability to get Memory utilization of each tab, and optionally being able to kill by tab, cannot be beat. Being a good Android Phone owner, I use my Google tools and browser.

Chrome is not however, any better than IE in regards to protection from "FakeAV" attacks!!!

A few months ago when the HP 8740w was new, I did a search for it. I found most of the search results lower down in the 100 item returned list were just aggregators re-publishing the content from other sites. Some pages looked very sketchy and were closed very quickly. On one site I "mis-clicked" and accidentally clicked on an ad in a margin. I immediately saw a "scanning your computer" graphic pop-up, and soon after my AV started popping-up with notification of disinfections it performed. I stopped it, collected all the binary names from the AV notifications, renamed them, scanned references in the cache and Registry and got rid or entries; hope I got'm all. Seems so but I still worry.

But point being, just a warning to all. Don't make the mistake I made to think that by using Chrome, it's any less susceptible to browser-based attacks than IE or Firefox and that you are "safer" when using it. You are not."-Posted 08-12-2010, 05:32 PM by m8o

And if you think this is the only case,

"Few days ago I had similar incident. Was browsing on Chromium (not google chrome), hit a link and all of a sudden ...that scanning thing popped up. I closed/killed the browser immediately. I think it was just a fake animation to fool you to download a virus (as fake anti-virus)."- Posted 09-14-2010, 02:10 AM by NBRreader

I know these were all posted in late 2010 and that things have improved since this time, but I'm sure that Fake AV attacks caused by ads still exist within google chrome to this day.

To read these exact posts, you can go to this thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/not...le-chrome-security-extensions-discussion.html

So does it really matter which browser you use? Is it true that Chrome is marginally safer than Firefox? Nope.

Than how do I protect from these attacks? A good A/V

Again, I will continue using my beloved Firefox.

 

That's a pretty extensive set of tests. But, I disagree with Tom's Hardware's conclusion: to me, that doesn't look like a conclusive win for Chrome 12, rather, what the data says to me is it's pretty hard to go wrong with a modern, updated browser. IE in particular has made very impressive gains, and it definitely shows. For now, I'll be staying with Opera 11.50 and IE9 as my main browsers.

 

MidnightSun, can you tell me what you prefer in opera that you don't get in other browsers? Not saying Opera is bad, its just that I'm not sure what makes it stand out(eg, Chrome's speed, Firefox's extensions, etc.).

I wish people would stop talking about browser security(at least in firefox and chrome because I have personal experience with their security). The entire 'internet security suite' is solid - the only missing link in the 'firewall' is the USER. Simply using a browser does not make you invincible; USER STUPIDITY > any defense a program can offer you.

 

I think you misunderstood. I was not inferring that a browser makes you invincible, rather I was simply trying to convey that Mozilla Firefox is not always inferior to Google Chrome when it comes to security.

 

I just disagree, and state that I still use netscape

 

i just meant that BOTH of them are so good at security(yes, even for firefox out of the box), that there is nothing a programmer can do with current techniques that will produce an appreciable reduction in successful attacks. in essence, they both equally suck.

I have this issue with people 'feeling safer' and therefore take more risks, which leads to more 'bad things' happening (this is derived from people going off-trails and reckless driving, but it applies here with less severity).

tl;dr - a browser can't stop a user from clicking a bad link and therefore is defenceless until it can do that.

 

meh. i just added an SSD to my desktop and even IE is fast...but i do prefer chrome's minimalism.

 

I don't like chrome because I must zoom every site I visit
in IE I have zoom set all time

I preffer IE layout better and I don't think that we can notice speed difference in real life

 

Yes, I know. I'm saying that it always is.

You're confused on a few parts actually.

1)A programmer can absolutely use many techniques to take advantage of browser vulnerabilities. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise.

2) In terms of "sucking" I'd have to say that Chrome "sucks less" since it employs Firefox's method of "patch it when we find it" as well as other methods meant to deal with 0day exploits.

3)A browser can stop a user from clicking a bad link. In fact, all major browsers will stop malicious pages from loading when they're found on their blacklist. Chrome and IE9 go so far as to scan downloads to see if they're malicious.

 

Pretty much. Performance-wise, most modern browsers are so neck-in-neck that it really won't make a large difference.

In my experience, for most content, Opera is just as fast, if not faster than IE9 and Chrome (which I both have installed). In addition, though, Opera provides a large set of streamlined built-in features that I find highly useful:

Speed Dial: if you're familiar with the FF extension based on this Opera feature, you'll get the gist
Opera Link: syncs passwords, history, bookmarks, notes, etc. between Opera installs on multiple machines
Feed Reader: advanced built-in RSS/Atom feed handling
Opera Turbo: Opera server-side content compression for faster web browsing on slow networks (useful for some crappy lecture hall WiFi networks)
Mouse Gestures: built in fully-customizable mouse gestures that just feel snappier than any other MG versions I've added to IE/Chrome/FF, for some reason
Built-in ad and JavaScript blocking: Basically, AdBlock and FlashBlock built-in
Combined Address/Search Toolbar: Opera had it long before Chrome existed, and I generally like its implementation better (although there are some areas where Chrome's omni-bar is better)
Great Download Manager: Far better than FF (default), IE, and Chrome, in my opinion
Extensions, Widgets, UserScripts: Just as much, if not more customizability than FF and Chrome
Security: Frankly, no one exploits Opera security vulnerabilities... because nearly no one uses Opera compared to IE9/Chrome/FF

And more, really. These are the things that make Opera so great for a power user, but at the same time cause new users to shrink away--there's just so much there. Not to say there aren't weaknesses (hardware acceleration is one area where Opera is far behind--one of the primary reasons I use IE9 for several sites).

 

I've been using Chrome for a few weeks now over Firefox, to give it a try.

I do like it, but am swayed to go back to Firefox as it just doesn't feel right for me, can't really pinpoint what it is. The 0.5s load up time difference or whatever it is lol really isn't a bother for me, and it irritates me that you have to put extensions into chrome to do things that Firefox did natively.

Anyhow, that's my little 2 cents, and I'm sure the browser wars will continue until the end of time itself

 

It's good that you were at least willing to try a different browser. Use what feels best though.

 

Just thought it needed doing, as a lot of people are raving on about it, always worth giving something new a try. I may stay with it, but still not sure at the mo.

What I do like about it though, is that flash is integrated with Chrome. Makes perfect sense, and baffles me why other browsers don't do this, as you always have to download it anyway, no matter what browser you are using.

 

This here would be enough for me to give the newest Opera a try. While many hotels I stay at on business trips are nice, their Internet services leave a lot to be desired. The only exception was the Hyatt Chicago at McCormick Place. That hotel had the fastest Internet I've ever experienced. Using their wired connection, I could download games from Steam at 5-7 MB/s (yes, mega bytes).

 

Chrome uses WebP image formats for compression. The sites have to support it, i believe it's the same for opera.

 

Yeah, Opera Turbo has its uses sometimes. Through its implementation, it's actually even possible to access blocked websites.

Opera Turbo defaults to the older pre-11.10 JPEG compression for sites that do not support WebP, I believe.

 

I use Chrome and that good enough for me. :3
Just disabled WebGL because 1: doesent work on my notebook & 2: May be used as an exploit to compromize security.

Not that i ever used it anyways.

 

Beyond a fan of this add-on. My gestures are now subconscious to me and I guarantee I can surf faster than you without them. I cannot comprehend not using this feature.

Firefox 8 is 20% faster than Firefox 5, matches Chrome 14
http://www.extremetech.com/internet/89570-firefox-8-is-20-faster-than-firefox-5-matches-chrome-14

http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/webgl-skull/?f=webgl

 

Apologies If I'm still not very clear over what I mean about users being the weakest link. I think you're talking about protecting against client machines compromises and I'm talking more about overall personal security(stuff like email passwords, etc.).


1) That's my point exactly - people WILL make the mistake of thinking they're invincible...if everyone starts bragging about how secure chrome is, then every office worker who has twitter blocked on their computer will begin to use 'proxy' services that request their logins and, BAM, successful phishing operation. Do you see how this might just happen in real-life with almost no references to the browser's defenses?

2) Yet Chrome users still have to be careful on the internet?

3) A browser will stop me from visiting a public torrent site, not reading the comments to heck for malware warnings, and then downloading the file through utorrent? Cause it sure as hell didn't stop me from doing that...albeit intentionally because I just wanted to check the frequency of malware in random torrents - regardless, I got no warnings of any sort.


My point isn't that browsers don't have defences; its that the defences don't really matter when it comes to keeping users safe. There are too many vectors for infection and the 'bad guys' prefer to use ones that don't have to fight against the browser directly.

 

My point is really mostly related to (2) which is to say that Chrome users can worry less.

Whether people will take that to an extreme and start acting differently is impossible to say. I think if people are conscious of security being an issue on the web enough to recognize Chrome as more secure they'll likely have the sense not to go nuts with that power.

I wouldn't ever tell someone that their browser should be their only line of defense... but the defenses implemented by browsers definitely help. Something like torrenting really isn't a fair argument when you consider that you need a 3rd party application to use it. uTorrent doesn't scan downloads, Chrome does.