# Wow Chrome Sure Spead Up My Web Surfing Switched from Firefox Have Windows 7 O/S



## Peachesbackwards

I've been posting how I've been dissatisfied about my internet speed (Not downloading but the time it takes to go from 1 site to another with the new sites Page fully up and loaded) as I was expecting more with an i3 Windows 7 8GB Ram, 300 Gig, Core 2 Duo, 2.13 Hz Laptop and fast speed DSL. I've been using Firefox for the last 5 years or so as it was faster than IE for me.

I had tried Chrome a year ago when I had an XP Core 2 Duo 4GB RAM notebook and was not impressed at all as it was slower than Firefox despite the hype. To make a long story short, out of curiosity, I tried Chrome on my Windows 7 Laptop and was amazed how much faster it was than Firefox. I acknowledged that perhaps I may have mucked up Firefox over the years tweaking it and maybe that was why the speed was mediocre. Note my downloading speed was roughly the same speed as Firefox but as I said my actual surfing time going from 1 site to another with the site I went to fully loaded up was significantly faster.

I'm just posting this as an unsolicited endorsement for Chrome on Windows 7 in case someone wants their web surfing faster.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Yeah, my customers who didn't want the complexity of FF were ecstatic over Chrome, it does the job nicely. I'm an Opera fan myself.


----------



## jamesd1981

alot of people would  argue chrome isnt the best, but there is no argument it is the fastest, no as good as fox for plugins etc, but if your not interested in plugins and stuff chrome is way faster than all the rest, internet explorer is probably the slowest


----------



## Demilich

jamesd1981 said:


> alot of people would  argue chrome isnt the best, but there is no argument it is the fastest, no as good as fox for plugins etc, but if your not interested in plugins and stuff chrome is way faster than all the rest, internet explorer is probably the slowest



*Wrong.* Research before posting.

None are truly *faster* than the other, per say, but, less taxing on your system. It's laughable how this "speed" war is such a good selling point for Google, that you people fall for it, as you did in the past with Firefox, every time.

If you're having trouble with your internet loading "slowly" in your browser, take a look at your system, or yourself. User error is probably the issue. I use IE 8, and my pages load instantly. But I must be the only one.


----------



## Feuerfrei.x

Demilich said:


> *Wrong.* Research before posting.
> 
> None are truly *faster* than the other, per say, but, less taxing on your system. It's laughable how this "speed" war is such a good selling point for Google, that you people fall for it, as you did in the past with Firefox, every time.
> 
> If you're having trouble with your internet loading "slowly" in your browser, take a look at your system, or yourself. User error is probably the issue. I use IE 8, and my pages load instantly. But I must be the only one.



i disagree -ive discovered Chrome IS faster thatn the other browsers, the others just dawdle and dawdle for centuries on my current internet connection, i only use IE if im downloading a big file due to the little pop up box that comes up is much more easier to use than the bar across chrome when it is odwnloading things.


----------



## hyperfire

Chrome IS faster. not due to user input at all. it's due to the way in which it works and the reduction of processes, similar to the way in which a lighter car will go faster than a heavier car with the same engine. I used to use firefox most commonly now i use chrome but i have firefox, opera and chrome in installed in some shape or form.


----------



## Demilich

hyperfire said:


> Chrome IS faster. not due to user input at all. it's due to the way in which it works and the reduction of processes, similar to the way in which a lighter car will go faster than a heavier car with the same engine. I used to use firefox most commonly now i use chrome but i have firefox, opera and chrome in installed in some shape or form.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, you just compared a car to a computer program. I don't see how that makes sense at all. "Chrome is faster in the way it works?" What? It does the same thing IE or FF does: it takes a load of text and commands sent from a URL, and turns these into a "web page". Making the page the way you see it with your eyes takes processor and RAM power, not browser power.

How is Chrome "lighter" than IE or Firefox?


----------



## Jet

http://lifehacker.com/#!5457242/browser-speed-tests-firefox-36-chrome-4-opera-105-and-extensions


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Jet said:


> http://lifehacker.com/#!5457242/browser-speed-tests-firefox-36-chrome-4-opera-105-and-extensions



I love that site!!! 
And I didn't know before today that I did lol


----------



## geek0x00

The reason chrome is fast is because it loads as it receives the webpage, i.e. when the first half downloads t goes to the screen right away. IE tries to get everything ready before displaying. In ad-free pages if you use a stopwatch to time until IE stops loading and Chrome stops loadng, IE often is faster. HOWEVER, if there is one element that doesn't load, like a banner ad with a typoed URL, IE will wait like 20 seconds until deciding "That link is probably broken!" and giving you the remainder of the page.

I use Chrome 10, IE 9, Firefox 4, SeaMonkey 2.1, and others alternately. I like IE, Chrome, and SeaMonkey the best.


----------



## Website Monitor

On my Windows 7 machine, I find Chrome to be by far the best browser, much faster than IE8, Safari for Windows and Firefox.

But the Flash plugin in Chrome seems to crash quite often. Does anyone else experience this too?


----------



## PohTayToez

Demilich said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, you just compared a car to a computer program. I don't see how that makes sense at all. "Chrome is faster in the way it works?" What? It does the same thing IE or FF does: it takes a load of text and commands sent from a URL, and turns these into a "web page". Making the page the way you see it with your eyes takes processor and RAM power, not browser power.
> 
> How is Chrome "lighter" than IE or Firefox?



LOL, do you think that all browsers interpret and represent code in the exact same way?  Do you not think that it is possible for one program to perform a function more efficiently than another?


----------



## NyxCharon

PohTayToez said:


> LOL, do you think that all browsers interpret and represent code in the exact same way?  Do you not think that it is possible for one program to perform a function more efficiently than another?



Exactly. A common way of thinking about this is the various sort methods in programming. There's merge,quick,fast,etc. Each one uses a different method. Some are good for small data sets, others are consistent regardless of data set size. So to say each browser interprets code the same way is a bit dumb in my opinion. Do they all serve the same function? Yes. But do they do it all in the same way? Nope.


----------



## Demilich

Nice bump. How interesting that each site has different statistics stating that each browser is "faster" than the other. Plus both of you seemed to miss my point altogether (even though that post you attacked is over two months old).

Each browser intercepts the website (or w/e) and displays the web page on your screen. Whether one browser excels in "intercepting" code over the other doesn't matter. In a real life situation using the browser of your choice will not make a noticeable difference, unless you're having some sort of issue with that browser and/or your internet connection.

Just to prove my own theory, I guess, uh, if I had one, ??, I'm using FF4 and IE9, by switching between sessions, and, still, I'm noticing a 0.00% difference in anything, while opening multiple tabs, blah blah blah. My friend uses Chrome on his computer, and, well, it doesn't run anything anymore efficiently than when he was running FF4. But he swears to me it runs faster, because the Google page told him so. Even though I'm seeing almost the same RAM usage with both browsers.

The problem with most people's browser slowing down, or taking a dump in the bed, is probably the 3 toolbars, 5 add-ons, and the ridiculous amount of cookies that are over 4 years old. Hell, I'm sure Chrome is noticeably faster than IE when IE is running 12 add-ons.

As has been stated many a time in this forum, benchmarks are hardly real world applicable.


----------



## teamhex

There is no faster(at least from what we can notice). 
My Firefox 4 with adblock plus and Noscript is "faster" then just plain Chrome. 
Its such a small difference that it doesn't really matter. 
Personally I use Firefox because im used to it and its highly customizable.


----------



## PohTayToez

Demilich said:


> Nice bump. How interesting that each site has different statistics stating that each browser is "faster" than the other. Plus both of you seemed to miss my point altogether (even though that post you attacked is over two months old).



My point was that the idea that all browsers function in the same way is absurd.  I kind of don't care about what your point was about, because it was founded on a completely fallacious idea.  



Demilich said:


> Each browser intercepts the website (or w/e) and displays the web page  on your screen. Whether one browser excels in "intercepting" code over  the other doesn't matter. In a real life situation using the browser of  your choice will not make a noticeable difference, unless you're having  some sort of issue with that browser and/or your internet connection.
> 
> Just to prove my own theory, I guess, uh, if I had one, ??, I'm using  FF4 and IE9, by switching between sessions, and, still, I'm noticing a  0.00% difference in anything, while opening multiple tabs, blah blah  blah. My friend uses Chrome on his computer, and, well, it doesn't run  anything anymore efficiently than when he was running FF4. But he swears  to me it runs faster, because the Google page told him so. Even though  I'm seeing almost the same RAM usage with both browsers.



Yes, on a top of the line, or at least a well maintained mid-range computer, you will likely notice little difference in the speed of the leading browsers.  However that is not exactly a common real-world scenario.  The average end user has an outdated computer and plenty of unneeded programs running the the background.  In this more common scenario, where system resources are scarce, differences in the way browsers perform become very obvious.  

I own a computer repair shop, and while I hate to admit it, a large portion of my work is simple Windows reinstalls.  As mundane as it is, it does allow me to see how different browsers perform on a clean install with no other interfering factors.  While I haven't given IE9 much of a shot yet (I hear it's much improved), I can definitely say that there is a huge difference between Chrome and previous generations of Internet Explorer.  You can disagree with that all you want, but the fact is that I've seen notable differences on dozens if not hundreds of computers.


----------



## ChrisUlrich

IE9 is already available?  It's better than 8?  I have no issues with 8 at all... what problems are there?

I heard Chrome just has less crap to deal with (extra weight I guess) when loading pages.  Like it's a much lighter script written so there is as many functions going on in the background which would result in a heavier (slower) loading time.

I use IE8 only because it's what I have.  I am gonna try Chrome now though.

Where do you get IE9?


----------



## lucasbytegenius

ChrisUlrich said:


> IE9 is already available?  It's better than 8?  I have no issues with 8 at all... what problems are there?
> 
> I heard Chrome just has less crap to deal with (extra weight I guess) when loading pages.  Like it's a much lighter script written so there is as many functions going on in the background which would result in a heavier (slower) loading time.
> 
> I use IE8 only because it's what I have.  I am gonna try Chrome now though.
> 
> Where do you get IE9?



It should install next time you check for Windows updates. 

Personally, I don't care what I use, just as long as it's fast and has the features I need. Most of the time, Opera falls into that category, but lately it's been Firefox 4. 
I think the difference here is the addons are slowing the browser down, because sure, Chrome's a swift one out of the box, but later, it starts getting slower and slower with the stuff I heap on it, and I don't exactly go addon crazy either. Same way with Firefox. The difference here with Opera is that there's few addons I need for it to do what I want it to do, (and there few addons for it anyway so I don't go addon crazy), it's got a lot of stuff built in. Ad block, sure, just block some elements of a web page and you're good. 
Personally I find Chrome to be quite slow compared to Opera and Firefox 4, and that's when they're all brand new and squeaky. The DNS requests take up most of my page loading time, while Opera is nearly instant with Firefox close behind. 
It all boils down to personal preference however, some people think foxes are cute, some thing basic colors in a circle is cool, and some just are too into operas that they need a browser to go with their obsession.


----------



## ChrisUlrich

I don't get it, IE8 is plenty fast for me... so confusing!


----------



## brendo8686

as much as i hate microsoft i think il stick with ie for a bit longer as im an seo and google already runs my life lol
il try it soon enough but remember that ie runs slower partly due to the plugins and security built into it

another thing
are you sure chrome doesnt lower the image quality on the sites your viewing making them load faster


----------



## lucasbytegenius

brendo8686 said:


> as much as i hate microsoft i think il stick with ie for a bit longer as im an seo and google already runs my life lol
> il try it soon enough but remember that ie runs slower partly due to the plugins and security built into it
> 
> another thing
> *are you sure chrome doesnt lower the image quality on the sites your viewing making them load faster*



It doesn't, it's the same in all three major browsers I think.
However in Opera if you enable Turbo it does affect the image quality a little.


----------



## raiderfan

I find no difference in my current and only browser I will use, Firefox 4.0.1 compared to Chrome v.11... both are just as fast to me. I like Firefox layout and preferences alot better. I do find them both faster than IE.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

raiderfan said:


> I find no difference in my current and only browser I will use, Firefox 4.0.1 compared to Chrome v.11... both are just as fast to me. I like Firefox layout and preferences alot better. I do find them both faster than IE.



Just use Firefox for a while and then use Chrome. Firefox has a tendency to get slower over time, more than Chrome or Opera has.


----------



## PohTayToez

lucasbytegenius said:


> Just use Firefox for a while and then use Chrome. Firefox has a tendency to get slower over time, more than Chrome or Opera has.



Definitely.  I tend to run with 2-3 browser windows and quite a few tabs.  If you keep Firefox open too long the memory leaks get really out of control but I don't have that problem with Chrome.  I used to love Firefox, and I like the redesign in FF4, but I've switched over to using Chrome all the time, especially now that they have the web store.


----------

