Browser Speed Test
- Thread starter Bozo
- Start date
Weren't we talking about meauring speed where it doesn't matter somewhere else? Ah, and I like this part:
Almost like testing harddrives using multi-GB datasets and 4+ queue depths...
Almost like testing harddrives using multi-GB datasets and 4+ queue depths...
Sol
0
I don't know that I really think this guys methodologies are all that valid... P3-800 with 256MB of RAM and XP-SP2?
Wouldn't such a system just sit there and swap even without anything loaded?
Surely if IE loads any componants at startup, as I believe is the general consensus, that would give it an exagerated advantage on such a system since it is already in memory when any other browser starts and must be swapped out first.
Even if that's not a consideration I just don't think that a setup like that would really reflect the performance most users could expect. Clearly memory and CPU will be a bottleneck for all the browsers (and anything else on the system), for most people, however, I would expect the hard drive to have more of an impact on startup times since actually finding and reading the executable could well be the slowest part of the process.
As a rough estimate IE cold starts in 2-3 seconds for me, Firefox in about 4-5 seconds, so roughly double or a little less, the posted results show it to be arround 2.5 times which I just don't see being typical on a modern PC.
Wouldn't such a system just sit there and swap even without anything loaded?
Surely if IE loads any componants at startup, as I believe is the general consensus, that would give it an exagerated advantage on such a system since it is already in memory when any other browser starts and must be swapped out first.
Even if that's not a consideration I just don't think that a setup like that would really reflect the performance most users could expect. Clearly memory and CPU will be a bottleneck for all the browsers (and anything else on the system), for most people, however, I would expect the hard drive to have more of an impact on startup times since actually finding and reading the executable could well be the slowest part of the process.
As a rough estimate IE cold starts in 2-3 seconds for me, Firefox in about 4-5 seconds, so roughly double or a little less, the posted results show it to be arround 2.5 times which I just don't see being typical on a modern PC.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Nope. I did install XP with the service pack on a similar system (it might have had 384MB of RAM though) and it was usable. Not speedy, but reasonnably responsive. Certainly enough for office work.Sol said:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Freshly installed XP Pro SP2 with no running programs all all the default crap (eg System Restore) pretty much uses 220 - 240MB RAM.
Unless that guy did a bunch of tuning to his Windows setup, I think he's at least partially constrained by RAM.
Unless that guy did a bunch of tuning to his Windows setup, I think he's at least partially constrained by RAM.
Bozo
0
I have a P-3 800MHz with 384Meg RAM running XP + SP2 and it does just fine. It's only used for surfing the net and some office type programs though. Matter of fact, it runs F@H as a service whenever it's turned on.
Bozo :mrgrn:
Bozo :mrgrn: