Previous 1 2 Page 2

Page 2 of 2

Internet Explorer 11 (Trident)

Image: Jon L. Jacobi Internet Explorer remains the most widely distributed browser, and the one most targeted by malware.

IE remains extremely popular and useful—if for nothing else that downloading your browser of choice with a fresh install of Windows. It’s decently fast with HTML, exceptionally fast with Javascript, and renders pages reliably.

Also, because of its ActiveX technology, IE is sometimes easier to use with business-related sites such as Webex and HTML IT consoles such as Kaseya. These sites can seamlessly integrate their functionality into IE. With other browsers you must sometimes download and install an extension or background app. Windows User Account Control can prolong that process, so in a pinch I often simply switch to IE.

Image: Jon L. Jacobi Internet Explorer 11 can be easier to use with business sites because of its ActiveX technology.

IE was unable to complete BrowserMark, a problem noted only after a recent update, but it did score 3670 on Peacekeeper. More notably, it took a mere 74.1ms to complete Sunspider, making it easily the fastest browser for running Javascript.

Sadly, it’s every bit the memory hog that Chrome and Opera are, using 714MB in my nine-tab test. On the other hand, it used “only” 7 processes, half that of the WebKit-based Chrome and Opera.

Opera 23 (WebKit 537)

Image: Jon L. Jacobi Among the browsers we compared, Opera is worth a look for its easy configuration.

After a long, dark age of badly rendered pages, Opera’s now near-perfect in that regard. I say this even after uninstalling it just a few months ago due to its incompatibility with PCWorld's own web tools. Updates have smoothed out those kinks, and it's only a hair slower than Chrome.

Unlike Chrome and Firefox, Opera 23 doesn’t suffer invisible popups. It does use the same Webkit engine and run as multiple processes, and it's more difficult to shut down. It also lacks a home button, instead relying solely on a launch page of oft-used sites (Speed Dial).

Image: Jon L. Jacobi In our browser comparison running Browsermark, Opera was nearly as fast as Chrome.

Speed Dial is great if you work off of multiple sites, but it adds another step for those who work from a single page. My minor complaint: There’s no native feature for emailing a link to a page. You must install an extension for this functionality.

For HTML rendering, Opera was only a hair slower than first-place Chrome, scoring 5625 on BrowserMark and 5447 in Peacekeeper. It was a hair faster with Javascript, completing the Sunspider test in 150.1ms. Overall, you’d be hard-pressed to notice the difference between the two WekKit 537-based browsers in a hands-on.

Despite the list of minor complaints, Opera is currently my main work browser because it’s nearly as fast as Chrome, but easier to configure.

Safari 5.1.17 (WebKit 534)

Image: Jon L. Jacobi Among the browsers we compared, Safari is easy to use and runs with very low processing overhead.

Though king on the Mac, Safari is probably the least popular of the top browsers under Windows—a bit sad as it’s competent, easy to use, and light on the memory profile. Apple apparently ceased supporting Windows as of version 5.1.17, but we tested it anyway because of its thrifty use of memory.

And 'thrifty' is understating the case. It spawns only a single process and in my nine-tab hands-on test, required only 115MB of memory to display it. What happened between the WebKit 534 that Safari uses, and WebKit 537, the current choice of Chrome and Opera is quite amazing. The latter offers way more speed but sucks up a lot of resources.

Image: Jon L. Jacobi Safari posted a slower score in Browsermark than most of the competition, but it's still reasonably peppy.

Safari could be very handy on older systems with only 512MB or 1GB of memory. It has all the standard features found in the others, so you’re not giving away anything.

Performance in BrowserMark and Peacekeeper was decent: 4831 and 3062, respectively. It lagged in the Sunspider Javascript test, with a score of 179.9ms.

In our browser comparison, the Browsermark test showed pretty close performance by all products (except IE, which Browsermark could not run).

Test Results

To gauge each browser's rendering performance, we ran Rightware’s Browsermark and FutureMark’s Peacekeeper HTML5 tests, as well as the Sunspider Javascript benchmark.

If you want the fastest browser for rendering HTML—by far the majority of the actions that a browser performs—you have a choice between Chrome and Opera. They both spawn a lot of processes and memory to accomplish it. Of the two, I’d pick Opera for overall easier configuration.

In our browser roundup, Chrome 36 posted the fastest time on Peacekeeper, while Safari was almost twice as slow.

If Javascript is a priority, Internet Explorer is easily the fastest running it. IE uses a lot of memory as well, if about half the processes of Chrome and Opera.

A big shout-out to Safari which used by far the least amount of memory to present the same nine tabs. If you’re working on a computer with only 512MB or 1GB of system memory, its spend-thrift ways might come in handy.

However, if I had to pick just one to keep on my system, it would be Firefox. It's fast enough, it has the slickest interface, it uses considerably less memory than Chrome, IE, and Opera, and it's just generally the easiest to use.

Internet Explorer emerged as the fastest browsers running the Sunspider Javascript test, with Safari limping in at more than twice as slow.

Performance and memory usage may be moot if your needs extend beyond the ordinary, in which case the browser you choose as your mainstay may come down to add-ons.

Fortunately, as all the browsers we tested are competent, free and export and import bookmarks, you can use any, or all of them. Yes, life is good in the browser world.