qupzilla or midori?

[seeley]

Hi!
Searching for a fast browser: What do you recommend?

[jsalpha2]

Palemoon?
http://sourceforge.net/p/pm4linux/wiki/ ... tallation/

[xenopeek]

Midori might be faster, but I like QupZilla better Give 'em both a try?

You could use a browser speed tester to compare them. For example http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/ does a feature completeness and performance test on HTML5.

Edit: as for Palemoon, that is a fork of Firefox for people that don't like the new Firefox layout. I don't know that it is actually any faster; I doubt Palemoon developers have experience doing performance tuning on the Firefox code.

[Night Wing]

I doubt Palemoon developers have experience doing performance tuning on the Firefox code.

Windows only Pale Moon made it's debut in October of 2009. Pale Moon for linux was first tested in August of 2013 and then released to the general linux public in January of 2014.

Instead of making the "assumption" the developers of Pale Moon don't have experience doing performance tuning using the Firefox code, why don't you go over to the Pale Moon forums site, register for the site and ask one of the developers in a private message (and I suggest contacting the developer, Moonchild) and get the info "straight from the horses mouth" so to speak. The link is below.

http://forum.palemoon.org/

In retrospect, your comments about Pale Moon make others on here think you know a lot about Pale Moon when in reality, you know very little about Pale Moon when compared against Firefox and what the developers do with Pale Moon performance wise since Pale Moon is now a true fork of Firefox (and not a clone).

[xenopeek]

Well, let's see. I did the test for some browsers. All were loaded with a fresh and default profile, no user installed extensions, and ran without any other applications running. As you can see, if you want a browser with full HTML5 support you take either Chromium or Firefox. Likely Google Chrome will be similar to Chromium.

Code: Select all

Browser              Score   Remarks
------------------   -----   ------------------------------------------------
Chromium 35          4919
Opera Developer 24   4488    Doesn't support all HTML5 video format
Firefox 30           4434
Midori 0.5.8         3473    Doesn't support all HTML5 video format
Pale Moon 24.6.2     3443    Doesn't support all HTML5 video format
Epiphany 3.12.1      ?	    Doesn't support WebGL, aborts during later test
QupZilla 1.6.6       ?       Crashes during test

While Opera Developer beats Firefox performance by a hair's width, it doesn't have full HTML5 support. Midori and Pale Moon have similar incomplete HTML5 support, but show very poor performance as compared to the top three browsers. Epiphany and QupZilla performance couldn't be tested as their HTML5 support is inadequate.

There are of course other factors you could compare the browser on, aside from whether they have full HTML5 support and their HTML5 performance. However, it goes to show Pale Moon developers aren't equipped the same way as Firefox (or Chromium and Opera) developers when it comes to optimizing their browser for speed. I don't care for Pale Moon, but if you are happy using it that's all that should matter to you

BTW, performance differences were visible to the naked eye--stuttering animation, dropped frame rates, and such.

[Previous1]

As xenopeek's results demonstrate, Pale Moon is noticeably slower than Firefox - simply because at its base it is Firefox ESR, and ESR (24) is slower than Release (30+) by definition. ESR gets security fixes and so on, but not the performance improvents from later versions. Recompiling for SSE2 does not bridge that gap....