Is webkit really that fast?

Rasi · 2009-03-04 20:39:22

...well... it surely isnt for me:

http://omploader.org/vMWJzNw

What is your experience?

*edit* of course both caches were empty in that video

Last edited by Rasi (2009-03-04 20:49:13)

Army · 2009-03-04 20:45:53

Seems like arora simply doesn't download the website as fast as firefox does. What could be the reason for that?

Rasi · 2009-03-04 20:48:51

I have no clue... i tried midori too and i can see images appear one after another in webkit while opera and firefox render the whole page instantly

Skripka · 2009-03-04 20:53:40

The webkit browsers tend to be slow, well the one's written for Qt4 anyway.

Arora is quite slow (ironically)...and also cannot do Flash, IME.

Rasi · 2009-03-04 21:32:05

Skripka wrote:

The webkit browsers tend to be slow, well the one's written for Qt4 anyway.
Arora is quite slow (ironically)...and also cannot do Flash, IME.

see my video... flash is working... since qt 4.5

Skripka · 2009-03-04 21:45:15

Rasi wrote:

Skripka wrote:
The webkit browsers tend to be slow, well the one's written for Qt4 anyway.
Arora is quite slow (ironically)...and also cannot do Flash, IME.
see my video... flash is working... since qt 4.5

Ah, well in the words of Adam Savage-"There's your problem"...I've been running Qt4.4.3

flamelab · 2009-03-04 21:57:41

The Qt4 browsers are faster with Qt 4.5, because the have been many Webkit updates in this version

ataraxia · 2009-03-04 22:09:58

Even on OS X, Firefox is noticeably faster than Safari for me. If WebKit is actually faster, none of the apps using it are able to show that speed.

Rasi · 2009-03-05 15:10:56

flamelab wrote:

The Qt4 browsers are faster with Qt 4.5, because the have been many Webkit updates in this version

Well, my video is with qt 4.5 - i cant notice any speed advantage over qt 4.4

Ranguvar · 2009-03-05 16:08:12

Don't forget that WebKit is only one piece of a browser. It may render the HTML, CSS, etc., but something else does the Javascript (which is a big piece), you have to consider the bloat of app itself, etc.

IMO most of the web browser tests these days suck. Use an extension or something that lets you time page load times, and visit some of your favorite big ones (fast ones, so your connection doesn't bottleneck the results).

tjwoosta · 2009-03-05 16:19:10

midori is extreamly fast for me...

way faster then firefox

its like i can just click and the page is open before i even get the chance to release the click

with midori i can even pass the acid3 test

it also outperformed firefox on some other test i took but i cant recall the name of it

anyway, i dont believe these tests are proper benchmarks for the full functionality of the browser

i still use firefox as my browser for a few reasons

1. midori is still buggy and ocasionally crashes

2. midori doesnt have many of the same extensions that i use with firefox

3. midori wont remember anything i enter into web forms

EDIT: oh, yea, i always use gtk apps because qt has always been slow for me

Last edited by tjwoosta (2009-03-05 16:23:07)

Arkane · 2009-03-05 17:31:51

Midori is much, much faster than firefox for me. But that's probaly due more to the browser as a whole than to webkit ; Conkeror is almost as fast even though it's XULRunner-based.

Dieter@be · 2009-03-05 18:38:55

midori also much faster then FF here.
I think ff is so slow because of the whole xulrunner framework. (doing way to much in javascript, and that combined with bloat...)

fumbles · 2009-03-06 05:27:38

Midori is insanely fast, but not as good as Opera, Firefox just sucks. Bloated and slow!

deltaecho · 2009-03-06 11:57:40

The support, extensibility, and cross-platform familiarity of Firefox makes it one of the best browsers available, IMO. However, if you're running Qt 4.5.0 compiled with the Raster engine, the Arora browser (git-version) can really lay down some streaks -- it's not yet up to par with FF3, as far as addons/features/etc. are concerned, but it renders quickly and well.

[Edit] Firefox's speed is greatly hampered by the filesystem on which it is running -- ReiserFS blows Ext3 out of the water when it comes to performance, and if you load your FF3 profile into RAM, it will really fly (assuming you want to risk loosing your data, but there are HowTo's floating around the internet explaining ways by which you may automatically back it up). To see a major speed improvement, you could always place your profile in a Reiser-formatted sparse file.

Last edited by deltaecho (2009-03-06 12:05:06)

Nezmer · 2009-03-06 12:47:56

fumbles wrote:

Midori is insanely fast, but not as good as Opera, Firefox just sucks. Bloated and slow!

Agreed .
Opera is my favourite browser now . I only use Firefox sometimes because I need BiDi support and character shaping( I think pango is the only library capable of doing this right) .

I will use Midori solely when It's ready .

Arkane · 2009-03-06 14:40:14

I'll use Midori when Webkit supports hint navigation.

Which probably isn't on their roadmap at all...

dr/owned · 2009-03-11 02:23:01

Sigh...just use firefox cause on the average of all platforms, it's plenty fast. It only starts dying if you have some crazy need to run 50 add-ons and have 20 tabs open at the same time. The addons will make its start time go through the room and 20 tabs starts creating memory hog and leak issues. But ext4 and FF 3.1 will likely make/keep FF the king of browsers.

Por lo general, what I tell everyone is that as long as you don't use internet explorer, it's fine by me. Safari just barely manages to squeak by even though they're part of that fanboy brand.

Last edited by dr/owned (2009-03-11 02:25:13)

mythus · 2009-03-11 14:29:49

I don't really notice webkit itself any faster, but KHTML, which webkit is built from, is faster (for me) than firefox. Which is great because I much prefer konqueror over firefox.

Rasi · 2009-03-11 17:45:50

mythus wrote:

I don't really notice webkit itself any faster, but KHTML, which webkit is built from, is faster (for me) than firefox. Which is great because I much prefer konqueror over firefox.

I keep seeing ppl say this. And somewhat just cant believe it - konqueror must be the slowest of all browsers here

Last edited by Rasi (2009-03-11 17:46:35)

mythus · 2009-03-12 18:38:22

*shrugs* Maybe it has to do with me running it on kdemod 4.2.1?

On one site I get this rendering time in Konqueror...
Render time: 0.2838 sec, 0.0935 of that for queries. Memory Usage: 2,801kB

In Firefox(latest version) on the same site:
Render time: 0.3278 sec, 0.1020 of that for queries. Memory Usage: 2,802kB

Noted the time difference isn't much, but still.

Now if I render the same page in Konqueror via the Webkit KPart...
Render time: 1.2838 sec, 1.0935 of that for queries. Memory Usage: 2,803kB

Arora crawled...
Render time: 1.4348 sec, 1.3343 of that for queries. Memory Usage: 2,803kB

Now the firefox has no added plug-ins atm as I mainly use konqueror. I have noticed though on my wife's laptop since she uses firefox and has some plug in-s it has a longer loading time, but the rendering time is basically the same. Also in LXDE firefox seems to render at or somewhat faster than konqueror., but that could be because konqueror has to load more not being in it's native environment.

Also results may vary based on type of site and which plug-ins need to be used... ie.. Firefoxs handles flash sites faster than Konqueror. But konqueror provides a quicker load up of non-flash based sites (for me). And despite that the rendering times ended up being so close together, the way konqueror displays the page seems faster to me while it may seem slower to those who prefer the gecko rendering method...

Berticus · 2009-03-12 23:03:42

Is there a list of some sort of midori extensions?

s3kt0r · 2009-05-26 17:15:00

Q: Is webkit really that fast?
A: Pretty fast here.

Gen2ly · 2009-05-26 17:30:57

Oh yeah. Webkit would be considered less feature complete. Firefox, IE have alot of code in them that can make any slapslick-html code become-rendered. But that said, I hope that webkit does well - Apple has done a good job with it, though their development seems to have slowed of late.

code933k · 2009-11-18 10:12:02

I do use uzbl and I can confirm this odd behavior too. Firefox rendering is about two to three times faster (appreciatively).

Webkit is not only slower ...in my Intel p8400 machine, I can't access a lot of private accounts (say banking) either. So I stick with Firefox for most things. It is good that XUL got competition, yet I prefer a lot its behavior than webkit's. Anyway, let's see if webkit keeps a "decent" memory footprint after the devs make it work for "real-business".

Till now, it is mostly hype than anything else. Firefox is as fast as the user can make it and mine is fast and stable as hell

Last edited by code933k (2009-11-18 10:14:02)

Arch Linux

#1 2009-03-04 20:39:22

Is webkit really that fast?

#2 2009-03-04 20:45:53

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#3 2009-03-04 20:48:51

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#4 2009-03-04 20:53:40

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#5 2009-03-04 21:32:05

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#6 2009-03-04 21:45:15

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#7 2009-03-04 21:57:41

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#8 2009-03-04 22:09:58

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#9 2009-03-05 15:10:56

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#10 2009-03-05 16:08:12

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#11 2009-03-05 16:19:10

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#12 2009-03-05 17:31:51

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#13 2009-03-05 18:38:55

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#14 2009-03-06 05:27:38

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#15 2009-03-06 11:57:40

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#16 2009-03-06 12:47:56

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#17 2009-03-06 14:40:14

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#18 2009-03-11 02:23:01

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#19 2009-03-11 14:29:49

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#20 2009-03-11 17:45:50

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#21 2009-03-12 18:38:22

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#22 2009-03-12 23:03:42

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#23 2009-05-26 17:15:00

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#24 2009-05-26 17:30:57

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

#25 2009-11-18 10:12:02

Re: Is webkit really that fast?

Board footer