Thursday, June 26th, 2008
Sam Allen has done something that I was actually going to try to do… use browsers for a period and try to measure what happens to performance and such over that time period. Real usage. Normal usage.
Sam created browser memory profiles from his work and then concluded:
These profiles are meant to provide a picture of what the memory behavior of popular browsers is over a period of time, not to provide absolute benchmark times. Firefox 3.0 shows memory usage that is significantly lower than Firefox 2, which also does very well. Here is a summary of my results.
- Safari 3.1
Safari on Windows shows extremely poor memory management, and I do not know whether
it ever reaches a high water mark. If this is by design, it is certainly a design
that looks inefficient and seems to contradict Apple’s marketing.
- Firefox 3.0
This browser exhibits memory usage that is by far lower than the others. It releases
memory to the system and the trend line is nearly flat.
(This is likely due to the
efforts outlined here.)
- Flock (based on Firefox 2.0)
Flock did very well and this browser and Firefox 2.0 could likely be run for long
periods without causing many problems. The extensions probably reduced the efficiency
- Opera 9.5
Opera's performance was about as good as Firefox 2.0 (Flock), and it could likely
be used for very lengthy sessions. However, Kestrel is certainly not a revolutionary
or even notable technology in this arena.
- Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1
IE did well in the profile, although a worrying trend in the data could indicate
that it would keep escalating. However, this browser could likely sustain many hours
of moderate usage.
Posted by Dion Almaer at 8:47 am