• On CBS.com: Sexy women of CBS
June 19, 2008 5:42 PM PDT

Browser bruiser: Opera 9.5 versus Firefox 3

Posted by Seth Rosenblatt
  • Print

Two of the four major browsers have undergone some big changes in the past two weeks. Firefox 3 is, of course, the big news of the week, pulling down eight million or so downloads in its first 24 hours in the wild. However, the Opera browser updated to its much-awaited version 9.5 last week. Since both of them have got game but for different reasons, let's take a look at how they match up.

Empirically, the two most-cited complaints about browsers are speed and memory. Now, I'm a big fan of Firefox because it's so easy to customize, so despite concerns I had about placing both browsers on "equal footing," it would be misleading to test Firefox devoid of extensions, so I left in my cadre of add-ons, and ran both with fifteen tabs open--a more or less standard browsing session for me.

Opera's browsing Notes.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

Using the SunSpider JavaScript test, Firefox 3 scored around 5500 microseconds to process the tested scripts, with a margin of error at around three percent. Opera 9.5 scored about 7280 milliseconds on the same test, with a margin of error around 1.5 percent, making it nearly one and a third times as slow as Firefox 3. This isn't surprising, given how long Opera's been using the same rendering engine. Assuming they get to Opera 10 before Mozilla puts out Firefox 4, it would be interesting to go back and re-compare them.

Firefox used approximately 127 MB RAM with the 15 tabs open, while Opera used around 117 MB. This was a little bit surprising, since Opera is definitely running on the older code. It might be attributable to the various extensions I use in Firefox, but it's more likely that despite the claimed 15,000 fixes deployed in Firefox 3, there's still quite a bit of room to plug those memory leaks.

Firefox 3's "Awesome bar".

(Credit: CNET Networks)

There's more to browsing than just benchmarks, of course. Users who browse by cell phone and like to keep all their personal settings synchronized are sure to look favorably at Opera, which has made a name for itself breaking into that market. Opera also bakes in a lot of excellent features, from its location bar--most likely the inspiration for Firefox's new "awesome bar"--to speed dialing, password management to resumable downloads, an icon-based sidebar to a synchronizable notepad.

Firefox, of course, has its plug-ins, and that level of user innovation and customization built on an open-source foundation clearly has been a winning combo for Mozilla. Many of the newest features in Opera 9.5, like the ability to see if a password works before saving it, are also part of Firefox 3. Pausable downloads, session management, and searchable bookmarks are also available in both.

Choosing between these two alternative has more to do with personal preference and browsing style than either one sporting a killer feature. With Mozilla claiming more than 20 percent of the browser market between Firefox 2 and 3, though, it's obvious there's only one alterna-juggernaut.

UPDATED: Corrected "microseconds" to milliseconds.

Originally posted at The Download Blog
Recent posts from Webware
Music and browsing take flight in Songbird
BlackBerry's mobile Web site gets a refresh
Zagat on iPhone: 'A disappointment' die-hards will still 'love'
Facebook Marketplace relaunch powered by Oodle
Gmail comes to the desktop in gadget form
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 98 comments
by The_Decider June 19, 2008 7:01 PM PDT
Where to start on this mess. First off, congratulations on writing a tech article without having the first clue about it. Now to the comedy.

If FF uses 127 MB of memory with those tabs open, how in the hell can you attribute that to memory leaks? Just because it is more than Opera doesn't mean it is a memory leak. Do you even know what a memory leak is?

It really isn't fair to use third party add-ons in a comparison since Mozilla has no control over those. A lot of those are written by amateurs who are flying by the seat of their pants.

"It might be attributable to the various extensions I use in Firefox"??? Run it without the add-ons and see how much memory it uses. Are you sure you know anything about computers? A bug fix might force FF to use more memory. Did you know that performance increases are often at the cost of memory. It often takes more code and more RAM speed up your application, The age of the code has nothing to do with its efficiency or memory use, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The compiler used on the 'old code' certainly does. I wouldn't expect that you know any of this since you work at CNET.

I can't believe crap like this comes from a website that is supposedly technical in nature. If you were the only one writing crap like this it wouldn't be a big deal but most of you pseudo-journalists don't seem to know the first thing about computing.
Reply to this comment
by Etamar L. June 20, 2008 11:16 PM PDT
Unfortunately, The_Decider is right on most fronts. Style-wise, I would drop the flame and h8 towards C|Net. Seth - you really have to consult with a technical person before writing this kind of article, because it does comes out as not too deep and unprofessional.
by The_Decider June 19, 2008 7:01 PM PDT
Where to start on this mess. First off, congratulations on writing a tech article without having the first clue about it. Now to the comedy.

If FF uses 127 MB of memory with those tabs open, how in the hell can you attribute that to memory leaks? Just because it is more than Opera doesn't mean it is a memory leak. Do you even know what a memory leak is?

It really isn't fair to use third party add-ons in a comparison since Mozilla has no control over those. A lot of those are written by amateurs who are flying by the seat of their pants.

"It might be attributable to the various extensions I use in Firefox"??? Run it without the add-ons and see how much memory it uses. Are you sure you know anything about computers? A bug fix might force FF to use more memory. Did you know that performance increases are often at the cost of memory. It often takes more code and more RAM speed up your application, The age of the code has nothing to do with its efficiency or memory use, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The compiler used on the 'old code' certainly does. I wouldn't expect that you know any of this since you work at CNET.

I can't believe crap like this comes from a website that is supposedly technical in nature. If you were the only one writing crap like this it wouldn't be a big deal but most of you pseudo-journalists don't seem to know the first thing about computing.
Reply to this comment
by Sam463 June 19, 2008 7:37 PM PDT
good comment
by Astrophizz June 19, 2008 7:26 PM PDT
I admire the audaciousness of your double-post, The_Decider, but please don't troll with wacky punctuation and caps lock. I can't imagine you'd get a job as a tech writer with your writing style and objective analysis, but I digress. I would like to point out that Opera runs with the functionality of ~150 Firefox addons with the ability to add more through widgets and such. As a ratio of memory-usage/functionality I'd say Opera stomps Firefox. Opera also beats Firefox in pretty much all site rendering areas (CSS, HTML, DOM, etc) other than Javascript. However a number of sites are not Opera friendly and that's what holds me back from using it. That isn't due to a lack of standards compliance on the part of Opera (whose release build gets an 83 on Acid3, better than Firefox's 71) but just that sites pay more attention to the quirks of IE and try to accommodate browsers with larger market share.
Reply to this comment
by Sam463 June 19, 2008 7:37 PM PDT
good comment
by The_Decider June 20, 2008 8:50 AM PDT
Troll? It was an extremely polite critique of some of the worst drivel I have seen in a while. I never said I was a writer, unlike this guy who claims to know what he is writing about.
by The_Decider June 20, 2008 8:51 AM PDT
The double post is the result of the incompetence of the CNET web designers. It is a bug ridden mess.
by HawkPidgeon June 21, 2008 12:29 PM PDT
To The_Decider (on your replies to this comment):

I have to say that your comment was definitely not polite. Saying that someone's article is drivel is not courteous in the slightest. While I must agree with you on some points, you could have stated them in a more appropriate manner.
by Astrophizz June 19, 2008 7:36 PM PDT
Pardon me, I think I made up a word there. I should have used "audacity."
Reply to this comment
by Stormx13 June 19, 2008 9:44 PM PDT
@ "astrophizz"

I'm like a caveman compared to you and "the Decider" when it comes to this stuff. But for some reason I have a fascination with the various browsers. As well as cell phones, gps devices, etc.

I did my own rudimentary speed tests and found Opera to be marginally the fastest browser, by seconds or fractions of a second. In any event, can you cite some examples of sites that were not Opera friendly but otherwise friendly to Safari and/or Firefox?
Reply to this comment
by miarno June 20, 2008 8:04 AM PDT
The ABC website, where you watch television online. Blogger used to be really iffy w/Opera, better now -- same with Flickr. Many sites don't support Opera, but do Firefox. Once a week there's a form I try to fill out and information just won't "take"
by adkiller2k7 June 21, 2008 1:17 AM PDT
Google groups
Hotmail
Yahoo Mail(Causes opera to completely crash)
by kenny9966 June 20, 2008 12:09 AM PDT
Anything with silverlight involved does not work with opera. Grrrrr. Various sites link linksys where u have to choose your product for support drop down menus do not work either. That does not stop me from using opera though. As much as i love FF Opera is still my fav.
Reply to this comment
by codevalley June 20, 2008 2:00 AM PDT
Firefox 3 also does not support silverlight.
by kuliddar June 20, 2008 5:25 AM PDT
I don't think you can do a proper comparison of two browsers if you have one that you leave add-ons that weren't included in the original download. It should be tested as what it comes with, period. I like FF3 but I find that there is a lack of innovation when it comes to RSS feeds, which is more and more common in sites and is an integral part of all the other browsers. It's pretty sad that you have to use an add-on to have a proper RSS viewer (Brief).

As far as speed is concerned, at this point it really doesn't matter. I think it matters more for older computers with slower cpus and less memory. I've tried FF3, Opera and IE7 and I don't really notice a speed difference on my end.
Reply to this comment
by strobedumas June 20, 2008 5:39 AM PDT
Hi Seth,
I am apalled at the biased attitude with which this article was written. I use both FF3 and Opera 9.5 and have been using both browsers since at least 8 years now. I guess you have been missing one major point. FF3 is very good by itself but it DOES NOT have the same functionality as Opera 9..5 without its extensions. Now if you are a first time user of a non-IE browser, this fact will really attract you that you can customize FF3 to your liking but what happens when
1. you use FF3 across multiple computers ( you would have to copy your profile to all those machines to get the same functionality)
2. you travel a lot and like to use a pendrive based installation. You would still have to copy all your extensions and profiles on to the pendrive for FF3)
3. You lost your profile for some reason. You either must have a backup profile or start from scratch.

Opera scores here in all the above situations. You can have all the functionalities you need with a standard installation on any of your multiple computers or your pendrive without having to worry about a backup of your profile. You can if you want backup all your bookmarks into Opera link or delicious and get them anywhere.
As far as speed and site rendering is concerned, Opera is more standards compliant than FF3 as has also been pointed out in above comments. It is just a better browsing experience if you dont want to spend time about finding the extensions you need, downloading and installing and rebooting.
Now this is not to say, that FF3 is lesser than Opera 9.5 in terms of quality. Considering where it started off from, FF3 is a proud achievement for all who believe in open source software including me. I give my thanks to the mozilla foundation for that.
It just doesn't suit cnet to be comparing red apples to green apples. Both browsers are in a league of their own. It is a matter of personal choice to choose which one you want to enjoy.
I hope these kind of posts are not what cnet will be always.
Reply to this comment
by strobedumas June 20, 2008 5:39 AM PDT
Hi Seth,
I am apalled at the biased attitude with which this article was written. I use both FF3 and Opera 9.5 and have been using both browsers since at least 8 years now. I guess you have been missing one major point. FF3 is very good by itself but it DOES NOT have the same functionality as Opera 9..5 without its extensions. Now if you are a first time user of a non-IE browser, this fact will really attract you that you can customize FF3 to your liking but what happens when
1. you use FF3 across multiple computers ( you would have to copy your profile to all those machines to get the same functionality)
2. you travel a lot and like to use a pendrive based installation. You would still have to copy all your extensions and profiles on to the pendrive for FF3)
3. You lost your profile for some reason. You either must have a backup profile or start from scratch.

Opera scores here in all the above situations. You can have all the functionalities you need with a standard installation on any of your multiple computers or your pendrive without having to worry about a backup of your profile. You can if you want backup all your bookmarks into Opera link or delicious and get them anywhere.
As far as speed and site rendering is concerned, Opera is more standards compliant than FF3 as has also been pointed out in above comments. It is just a better browsing experience if you dont want to spend time about finding the extensions you need, downloading and installing and rebooting.
Now this is not to say, that FF3 is lesser than Opera 9.5 in terms of quality. Considering where it started off from, FF3 is a proud achievement for all who believe in open source software including me. I give my thanks to the mozilla foundation for that.
It just doesn't suit cnet to be comparing red apples to green apples. Both browsers are in a league of their own. It is a matter of personal choice to choose which one you want to enjoy.
I hope these kind of posts are not what cnet will be always.
Reply to this comment
by roben.anderson June 20, 2008 5:58 AM PDT
tyuicc23--

Some short words for you:

Spammer

&

Sharp MX Series
Reply to this comment
by xtina-lover June 20, 2008 6:10 AM PDT
what a stupid, biased and incomplete comparison this is! I completely agree with what Astrophizz and strobedumas have said above. Also, what about security issues with these browsers?! and I ask you Seth: Is a simple javascript test enough to see which one is better in rendering & showing webpages?! Reading this article is such a waste of time!
Reply to this comment
by r_dyp June 20, 2008 6:22 AM PDT
Opera 9.5 and Mozilla Firefox 3 add a new dimension of browser war. They change their looks,add new features, lower RAM consumption, increases speed of browsing and others. But I prefer Opera. Except some website rendering problem, Opera is too fast, safest, easy to customerization, too many features in-built (actually Moziila Firefox copies many of Opera's features). My hot fav is Opera. Guys try it. And here i don't know why he tried Firefox with its addon loaded. With add ons Firefox consumes more RAM. Opera is best on RAM management, I tried it oprning 50 tabs atonce from my bookmarks - Firefox hangs but Opera took it easily. The_Decider is right - whats in old or new code..Opera supports all web standards better than Firefox.( in acid3 test opera's 83 against MF's 71). I think Opera is better as most webpages are now written thinking about IE and MF, but Opera manges these problems. Most suprising Google often does not support Opera. God knows why? and last thing- I don't care about MF's market share as it's promoted by Google. Where IE a crap gets maximum market share. While opera being low on marketing can't get market share on desktop platform...
Reply to this comment
by charnish June 20, 2008 7:14 AM PDT
I appreciate the comparison of Opera and FF, particularly in the comments, but how do they compare to Safari, which I'm told by Apple is the fastest browser?
by r_dyp June 20, 2008 6:30 AM PDT
and I forget to add something Mozilla Firefox is not a crap like IE. Its cool for those are migrating from IE, but when you are quite geek, You must start to like Opera. I think the article is a crap and made in a hurry. but I wonder how CNET allows such crap??
Reply to this comment
by benjaminstraight June 20, 2008 6:30 AM PDT
The bugs take time to work out.
Reply to this comment
by Pard68 June 20, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
I ran the same test on Firefox as you did, I had the test opened only, nothing else. I also had all add-ons off but FoxyTunes, and it was not running. I scored an average of 3000 ms with a 1.8% margin of error. The only other thing that may have been holding my bandwidth back was AIM, however I was away and was not receiving any messages. The lowest I got was a 2304 MS with a margin of error at about 1.2%.

It seems to me you need to take your trials more like a science expirement. You need to use Scientific Method and keep everything controlled save your variables.
Reply to this comment
by thought_less June 20, 2008 6:44 AM PDT
You also said "..to accommodate browsers with larger market share,," referring to Internet Explorer - Actually, I can't get rid of IE, so I would say you should refer to IE as 'market slavery'.
Reply to this comment
by forrestcupp June 20, 2008 6:45 AM PDT
Opera is a great browser, but I've run across a lot of web sites that do not support it. That's a show stopper to me no matter how great it is.
Reply to this comment
by pf6682 June 21, 2008 10:02 PM PDT
In Opera, if you come across site that it does not support, you can right click it on and it have the function where you can open say ff3 to view that site.

I use all three of the browsers and I even try Flock, but my favourite is Opera.
by falpizar June 24, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
I have to agree with you on this one. I initially had both browsers(IE7 doesn't even compare, i like the "tab" option though, about time too!) How can you complain about FF3 taking up a lot of RAM and OP being faster and so forth when in this case FF3 will pick right off where OP couldn't take it. I uninstalled Opera because it was not supported by a couple of main websites i visited daily. I mean OP was fast, but without the add-on's that FF provides i really can't just leave it.
by Frosty2881 June 20, 2008 6:46 AM PDT
A memory leak means that memory was allocated but never deallocated after it was no longer in use. A memory leak is wasted space due to programming errors. Thats is not why firefox uses more memory. It might be due to its very aggressive caching policies or the something else that it uses the memory for, but i grantee you that the extra memory firefox uses is not wasted space in the form of memory leaks. Also security which is still one of the most important issues in browsers was completely left out of the article.
Reply to this comment
by sslneve June 20, 2008 6:52 AM PDT
To The_Decider,

Dude, you can critique and question the experience of the columnist without having to offend him. Your rant didn't seem to enlighten me on the issue either, it's a rather obnoxious read on the comment thread. If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider June 20, 2008 8:54 AM PDT
It wouldn't enlighten you. This forum does not allow for paragraphs or enough length to be able to explain things in detail. It is not my fault that you don't understand freshman and sophomore level CS topics. There is nothing nice to say about this ignorant crap. Ironically, you have nothing nice to say, yet you posted.
by viditbhargava June 20, 2008 7:08 AM PDT
***....shame on cnet for posting such an article...i agree with xtina-lover, Astrophizz and strobedumas on what they say.
one javascript test with 15 tabs....what kind of a test is that???
FF3 doesnt have the features that Opera 9.5 has and Opera doesnt have the speed of FF....could you not get a hands-on experience of the two and then write the advantages of the two and the bugs that are there which could help the users decide better??
Reply to this comment
by smuppi June 21, 2008 7:57 AM PDT
@viditbhargava

You are somewhat confused, it seems.

Firefox does have (most of) Opera's features through extensions.

And even though Firefox beats Opera at "artificial" speed tests like SunSpider, Opera is faster than Firefox when used on actual real-life web sites.

Remember, JavaScript only makes up a tiny bit of all the time spent by a browser to render a page.

So Opera is faster than FF, but FF has extensions to get at least something similar to Opera's features.
 See all 98 Comments >>
advertisement

About Webware

Say No to boxed software! The future of applications is online delivery and access. Software is passé. Webware is the new way to get things done.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Webware topics

In the news now

A tech veteran responds to the recession

LogLogic's Patricia Sueltz heard a clear message about the economy from investors, but she already knows a thing or two about navigating through tough times.


Obama's AG pick on privacy

Eric Holder has criticized the warrantless wiretapping program, but his views on other online policies may not be that far from those of the Bush administration.


advertisement
Click Here

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right
  • Business Tech

    IPOs a thing of the past?

    At AlwaysOn Venture Summit West conference, investment bankers, venture capitalists, and private equity players weigh in on the prognosis for the IPO market.

  • Gallery

    Photos: Space station marks a decade aloft

    The first pieces of the International Space Station went into orbit 10 years ago. Now a full-fledged lab facility, it continues to grow.

  • Security

    Apple deletes Mac antivirus suggestion

    Apple removes statement to customers urging them to use antivirus software, saying that Macs are safe "out of the box."

  • Beyond Binary

    Microsoft expands Vista SP2 testing

    Starting on Thursday, the software maker will make public a test version of the service pack update to Vista.

  • Video

    A toast to online wine A toast to online wine
  • Digital Media

    EFF, Bush administration spar over telecom immunity

    Feds tell district judge government must be allowed to protect the heartland. EFF says that is fine, but don't strip away constitutional rights.

  • Video

    Wi-Fi while you fly Wi-Fi while you fly
  • Gaming and Culture

    From Cy Young to video game fame

    Tim Lincecum, one of the best pitchers in baseball, was chosen to be the cover athlete for 2K Sports' next baseball game. On Tuesday, he did a motion-capture session for the game.

  • Green Tech

    Ta ta, Tesla

    Are the Valley-based VCs and big-wigs who back Tesla Motors really serious about asking the federal government for low-interest loans?

  • Gallery

    Photos: Top-rated reviews of the week

    Here are a few of CNET Reviews' favorite items from the past week, including Adobe suites, laptop bags, and a Panasonic flat panel TV.

  • The Download Blog

    Music and browsing take flight in Songbird

    Music and browsing mashup Songbird has kicked the remnants of its shell to the curb, and the program's main emphasis as a music browser couldn't be more clear.

  • Green Tech

    Ford accelerates electric-vehicle plans

    In its turnaround plan presented to Congress, Ford says it will invest billions in fuel efficiency and introduce a family of hybrid-electric and all-electric cars.