Funny, I find Chromium much faster than Firefox in Lucid

Story: Chromium on Ubuntu 10.04 Slower than Firefox?Total Replies: 12
Author Content
Steven_Rosenber

May 26, 2010
10:17 PM EDT
I'm not quite sure what's going on, but in my Ubuntu Lucid setup, Chromium starts faster and runs faster than Firefox.
tripwire45

May 27, 2010
7:56 AM EDT
The responses on my blog were mixed. Some said slower and some faster. Don't know why there'd be the inconsistency. I'm sticking with Firefox for now.
herzeleid

May 27, 2010
2:51 PM EDT
Dunno what's up with the folks commenting, but as a rough test, I timed the firefox and chrome startups:

firefox: browser appeared in 7 seconds, home page loaded and ready to go in 13 seconds chrome: browser appeared in 2 seconds, home page loaded and ready to go in 4 seconds.

That tells me a lot more than some poster's subjective "I think firefox felt faster to me"
Steven_Rosenber

May 27, 2010
3:11 PM EDT
The elephant in this particular room is the fact that the writer was running Ubuntu in a VM. That certainly could have an effect.
herzeleid

May 27, 2010
3:31 PM EDT
Quoting:The elephant in this particular room is the fact that the writer was running Ubuntu in a VM
Yes, I remember thinking that - if he can't duplicate it on a real linux machine, I'd chalk it up to the constraints of a weird environment.
Bob_Robertson

May 27, 2010
9:00 PM EDT
I know it's not Chromium, but I tried Google Chrome yesterday.

Viewing YouTube took exactly the same CPU as Firefox, so that's not a winner.

But maps.google.com always, ALWAYS choked for me, be it Konqueror, Iceweasel/Firefox. But in Chrome, at last, the maps and things spring into being.

So I'll keep it for that application.
Steven_Rosenber

May 28, 2010
9:34 PM EDT
I have a couple of Web-delivered apps that used to demand IE but work with Opera. Now they are OK with FF, no longer work with Opera and really don't work in Chrom/ium.

But if I'm not doing that specific set of tasks, I'm using Chromium more and more. It behaves a bit better than Epiphany, which is also based on Webkit.
tracyanne

May 31, 2010
3:47 AM EDT
There's no NoScript addon for Chromium, so regardless of speed I won't use it.
helios

May 31, 2010
6:25 PM EDT
Chrome features a multi-process architecture and a strong policy sandbox that resists malware beautifully without needing the user to whitelist all the sites they visit. That may not address the flash argument but it shows they are on the right track...but yeah, No Script would be a good idea.
Steven_Rosenber

May 31, 2010
11:04 PM EDT
I'm giving my Compaq 7770dmt a workout right now. That's 233 MHz of Pentium II power, 144 MB of RAM. I've been running Debian Lenny on it for quite a long time, and the only thing that really makes it all work is the Opera browser.
tmx

Jun 01, 2010
3:05 PM EDT
I am becoming aware of how much faster other browsers are moving ahead of Firefox in speed, not just Chromium.

Opera 10.60 seems to be faster than all. This benchmark probably don't mean much: http://clients.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/results.action?key... , but from my usage it seem to be true.

I still would like NoScript and Cookie Monster, but I enable javascript and cookies per site. One thing that is true though Opera backward compatibility such as for Widows98 and Linux powerpc allow good browsing experience for older computer.
Koriel

Jun 01, 2010
4:13 PM EDT
In the same boat as some others unless the chrome api is modified to allow on the fly proxy redirection a'la foxyproxy its useless to me as well.
Steven_Rosenber

Jun 03, 2010
1:22 AM EDT
I don't have Opera on my Ubuntu Lucid install. ... should remedy that asap.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!