Comments on: Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) Beta 1 vs. Safari 3.1 vs. Firefox 3.0 vs. Opera 9.5 vs Flock (Firefox 2.0) – Browsers Memory Battle #2

By: ameo

ameo — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:37:39 +0000

unbelievable

By: MEGAERA

MEGAERA — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:21:31 +0000

I WAS VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF SAFARI THAT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT…ITS SPEED.
I’M MORE OF A FIREFOX GUY. BUT WHEN I INSTALL IT AND PUT IT ON A TEST RUN…DAMN!!! IT REALLY IS LIGHTING FAST. IT RUNS VERY SMOOTHLY ON MY CORE 2 DUO, 2GB RAM MACHINE…BETTER THAN FIREFOX 3.

By: Wiki

Wiki — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:36:52 +0000

I don’t believe it

By: alex

alex — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:37:27 +0000

Can you please stop blogging about something you don’t have any clue? It’s really pointless to compare the memory usage of 4 different softwares (if there is no crazy big amount of differences)?
1) You don’t know what the memory is used for, it’s probably used for something good. (eg. fast history browsing in this context)
2) Why do you think I want my browser to use as little amount of memory as possible? If I have 4 gb of RAM, it’s because I want the software to use it for something usefull!

I just love the previous comparisons of Firefox with no add-ins at all and Opera with several features enabled. Why not test total mem usage of Thunderbird + Firefox vs Opera with Opera Mail.

By: Morghus

Morghus — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:46:25 +0000

I struggle at seeing the point in these tests. Unless there’s a catastrophic amount of memory used, to the point of being crippling, it’s redundant information, no?

I mean, most people should be getting so much RAM now it’s more of a question of “which browser spends the least time in surfing the top 100 most popular websites” or something, instead of these stupid nitpicking tests that exclusively target specifics we won’t notice in any real setting.

Or am I completely off base here? Just the way it seems anyways.