Firefox7.0 and chrome

Firefox7.0 and chrome Evaluation

Let's talk about the environment first.

1 Operating System: Ubuntu 11.04 64-bit

 

2. firefox7

 

3 Google Chrome

 

Nonsense + preface:

Browser evaluation is actually nothing more than performance, standard support, and user experience. In this article, we will

The use of the detailed comparison, I try to evaluate from the perspective of pure users. In addition, I only compare it with Ubuntu 11.10. Ubuntu's built-in browser is Firefox. It should be said that this has led to some inherent advantages of Firefox. In a sense, it is unfair for chrome to evaluate and compare the operating system. Anyway, the real warrior is not afraid of all kinds of weaknesses, right?

 

 

Performance

Chrome is indeed fast. When I used Chrome for the first time, I felt that it was so fast that I only needed a moment to open the browser. However, firefox7 speed is also good. They can't tell their speed simply by the way.

Various performance evaluations, including JavaScript Execution speed, CSS rendering speed, and HTML parsing speed, have been covered in many articles. The following is an authoritative and detailed evaluation article. You can go back to this article first (remember to come back... haha)

Http://blog.csdn.net/chromeblog/article/details/6887556

 

Of course, I will conduct a limit evaluation on these two browsers here. Some interesting things will be found during the evaluation process. However, we will analyze tags first.

 

The execution speed of JavaScript is too subtle for users. We pay more attention to the use efficiency of tags. For example, we often say that when a browser tag is opened, it will become stuck. Next we will focus on the Evaluation and Analysis of tags.

 

One tab

Let's take a look at the memory usage of the two browsers:

Chrome

 

 

Firefox

 

Chrome uses approximately MB of memory in total.

Firefox uses a total of 48.3m memory.

 

Of course, this is not very reliable. Because we usually open many labels. We now open 10 tags each, 9 of which are web.qq.com (Why is webqq used? Because the current website uses JavaScript in large quantities for user experience. Is a heavy script, while web.qq.com is a model in this regard)

 

Now let's compare the memory usage.

 

Chrome

 

Firefox

Chrome uses nearly MB of memory in total.

Firefox uses a total of 177.7m memory.

Of course, we should treat memory usage rationally. When the memory is sufficient, occupying a large amount of memory can usually make the program faster.

In addition, because each tab is a separate process in Chrome's view, the total occupied space will become larger (this is not very rigorous, because the tab and process are not one-to-one. And Chrome is a mix of multi-process and multi-thread)

 

Therefore, in general, the user opens 1-15 tags, and Firefox is advantageous in memory usage. I would like to compare disk read/write, but it is difficult to count because Chrome is a multi-process. Here I only test cold start,

That is, the disk read/write status when I restarted the computer for the first time.

Disk read/write status when Firefox is started:

 

 

Disk read/write status when Chrome is started:

 

 

It can be seen that there are many read operations when Chrome is enabled. It is estimated that the cache is read in advance. Firefox has a lot of write operations.

 

In general, Chrome does not have much advantage when the number of tags is small, and firefox7 is a better choice for users with relatively low memory resources.

 

Now let's take a look at the following limit test. What is the situation when a user opens a large number of labels?

Open 1001 tags in Firefox and chrome respectively. Look at the system. The pages are all iteye.com (poor iteye has become my testing object again ). Let's look at the system situation.

Firefox:

 

Memory usage

See the picture

 

 

 

 

The number of projects opened for visual testing is more than three hundred, and Firefox is a little slow. If you are interested, you can test it yourself. The script is as follows:

 

Chrome

When chrome hits around 500 tab pages

 

 

Memory status after it reaches 1000.

 

 

It can be seen that the chrome memory optimization capability is quite powerful. And always pay attention to the impact on the overall system to avoid the entire operating system crash. When firefox7 reaches tab, the memory usage reaches 3.2g. the operating system responds slowly.

 

We need to talk about Several Problems in the testing process:

1 Chrome is getting slower and slower in the process of creating tags.

2. Chrome operations during the process of creating a tab will cause chrome to be suspended. However, the operating system is still very sensitive when the number of chrome labels reaches 900, not affected by chrome.

3. The entire Firefox process is user-friendly. However, as the number of tabs increases, the pressure on the system increases. In the end, the system may not respond, that is, it will become a machine.

 

Chrome test script:

 

 

In general, Chrome has a strong memory optimization capability. In the case of many tabs, it can occupy a small amount of memory. In the ultimate test, it should be Chrome's victory. For users who frequently open more than 20 tags, Chrome is still a good choice.

 

 

 

 

Standard Support

Why is it important to support standards? For example, CSS. Let's give an example. Suppose the designer wants to show you a light blue background, but because the browser does not support the standard, the result is actually gray. This violates the intent of the designer. What users see is not what the website really wants to present. Next let's take a look at the comparison. See

 

Acid3 Web Standard Test

After testing, I found that both chrome and Firefox have full marks. This shows that modern browsers support standards well. Will not deceive your eyes. Of course, this type of evaluation also has a very detailed evaluation comparison diagram in the blog link I mentioned above.

 

 

 

 

User Experience

 

Interface:

Chrome has created a concise era in browsers. However, it remains to be seen whether the advantage can be maintained.

 

 

 

As shown in the preceding figure, only three parts of chrome occupy extra space. Title Bar, Tab tab column. There is also a URL + SEARCH compound box.

 

Let's take a look at how firefox7 works on the Unity (a new user interface system in Ubuntu 11.10) interface.

 

 

 

 

It's also Layer 3, right. In the Linux unity interface, Chrome's original conciseness has been caught by Firefox

The Unity interface combines the system menu bar with the software menu bar. Therefore, a menu bar is missing.

 

In fact, if you compare them carefully, you will find that there are very few differences between the two in the interface style. However, Firefox still uses the address bar

It is separate from the search bar.

 

This depends on the user, which has little impact.

The two browsers can use Ctrl + k to quickly locate the search bar. CTRL + l go to the address bar. Of course, for chrome, both shortcuts are located in the same place.

 

So the simplicity of Chrome's pride in its debut is no longer advantageous here. In this case, the two sides should be equal.

 

 

 

Plugin support:

 

1. the upgrade of Chrome is worrying. At the same time, each upgrade is highly compatible with the plug-in.

2 chrome, like App Store, launched Chrome's app marketplace, which defines the plug-in as an application. This is also a pioneering undertaking.

This greatly simplifies searching and obtaining applications.

 

Let's take a look at Firefox.

 

Firefox is well known and plug-ins are also very helpful. However, each Firefox upgrade may cause compatibility issues with a large number of plug-ins, and even some well-known plug-ins. I don't know why they don't understand why they communicate with plug-in authors, and some mainstream plug-ins are ready to release new versions. Therefore, chrome wins.

 

Disk usage:

Chrome in my installation directory is 93 m.

Firefox7 is 37 m

 

Chrome has a. cache file in the main directory, which stores the cache. Linux Chrome is rarely used, and the cache file is about 30 mb.

 

The Firefox cache is not found as the main directory. Ila, which is about 2.7 m. It can be seen that Chrome's cache files are much larger than Firefox's.

In my impression, chrome caches a lot in windows, ranging from several hundred MB to 1 GB.

 

For the sake of performance, chrome uses a lot of caching, but it also sacrifices hard disk space, which is a trade-off. Using Firefox on the disk alone won a slight victory, occupying a better disk space.