7076910
story
Comments: 103 +- Mobile: Alternative Mobile Browsers Tested For Speed, Usability, JavaScript Rendering on Tuesday November 17, @12:00PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topichandhelds.gif); width:65px; height:78px;
handheld
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccellphone.gif); width:75px; height:74px;
cellphones
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicie.gif); width:64px; height:64px;
msie
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmozilla.gif); width:80px; height:64px;
mozilla
CNETNate writes "Do Opera Mobile, Skyfire, or Mozilla's Fennec have the power to take down the BlackBerry browser, IE on Windows Mobile, or Safari on the iPhone? This lengthy test aimed to find out. Speed, Acid3 compliance, JavaScript rendering capabilities, and general subjective usability were all tested and reviewed. So were Opera Mini and the default Symbian browser, but these two were unable to complete some of the tests and benchmarks."
Related Stories
One of the pleasures of reading old letters is the knowledge that they
need no answer.
-- George Gordon, Lord Byron
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
WebKit on Palm Pre? (Score:3, Interesting)
What about the Pre's browser? It'd be interesting to see how it differed from Safari.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The pre's browser is based on WebKit, so it's the exact same engine as Safari, this is (presumably) why they didn't test it, or Nokia's (also WebKit) browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that [quirksmode.org]. The test over at Quirksmode shows the various versions of WebKit to be very different, even between mobile and desktop Safari.
I don't think the GSM Pre has been released yet, so there may be no Pre over in the UK. That may be why it wasn't tested.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And so isn't Opera, because Apple doesn't want to let other browsers in its phone.
But on Windows Mobile side it's clear that Opera is a lot better than the IE that comes with it. As I use Opera on desktop too, it's great that it contains the usual features like mouse gestures too. And performance, rendering and "it feels fast" wise it dominates on both mobile and desktop.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does Opera Mobile include the mouse gestures? Or, finger gestures, I guess. How does it distinguish between a gesture and scrolling?
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Pre's browser? It'd be interesting to see how it differed from Safari.
The only difference that matters: It's not on the iPhone.
And is that a good or a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can replace the browser on a Blackberry, and the article mentioned they were getting ready to have an Android comparison as well.
Great slashvertisement (Score:5, Interesting)
CNETNate writes about a test on CNET's site which isn't a test at all. They have tried several browsers, described them in two to three paragraphs each, and measured JavaScript execution speed with the help of a nameless benchmark. Not even a mention of which sites were used for testing.
Great job!
Re: (Score:2)
CNETNate writes about a test on CNET's site which isn't a test at all. They have tried several browsers, described them in two to three paragraphs each, and measured JavaScript execution speed with the help of a nameless benchmark. Not even a mention of which sites were used for testing.
Great job!
You clicked on a CNET article. Surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
You clicked on a CNET article. Surprised?
After that "test" and eight pages (the ninth contains nothing), "surprised" is not the word I'd use to describe how I feel...
I've learned a lesson. Never again will I click on a link leading to one of CNET's sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't care but since its on cnet its probably in 10pages. Screw that .... thanks for the warning.
Nope. 9.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's only 8, because page 9 is a page of odd links to other digital products.
BTW, here's the results page [cnet.co.uk].
Re:Great slashvertisement (Score:4, Informative)
Sunspider isn't exactly a nameless Javascript benchmark..
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. All that "next page" clicking ate my brain.
But it's not like there's no benchmark cheating...
Actually, this is brilliant (Score:2, Funny)
The real test is how fast you can get through their article on a mobile phone. Consider this a distributed browser speed test.
Re: (Score:2)
have the power to take down the BlackBerry browser[...]?
Seriously?! Blackberry browser? Mine takes so long to load (Blackberry Bold) on a 3G network that it is really unusable. I guess you could put it up against Monks transcribing the Jewish apocrypha onto parchment and it might beat them, but only if they had to send it hundreds of miles on the backs of donkeys.
I really haven't found a browser that works very well on my Blackberry. Opera works okay, and Bolt seems alright if a little weird.
Damn I wish that I could switch to the Droid, but I'm locked in a co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reading comprehension fail:
"As on our desktop browser tests, we tested standards compliance with the Acid3 test, and JavaScript-rendering abilities with the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark."
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
We've distilled each browser's strengths, but note you can't get all of these on the same phone -- if you've got a BlackBerry, you're stuck with its browser...
You are most certainly not. I typically have Opera up and running before I configure my email on a new BlackBerry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've got a good parity in features and interface for the beta versions of Mobile and Mini, which suggests things are going to improve a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
"Horrible"? That's saying too much. It's simply quite different, targeted mainly at hundreds of millions of feature phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Opera Mini is streets ahead of any of the blackberry browsers, whether it be speed (it's faster downloading and rendering pages), UI (it's alot easier to use on a phone and much faster to scroll) and ease of reading (the BB browser has one of the worst placements of elements I've ever seen).
The S60 browser (I have both this and Opera on my Nokia) is pretty good, although the UI is *slightly* clunkier than opera and navigating on a non-touchscreen phone is a little bit more cumbersome.
Some companies
It's kind of funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
HTC Ozone (Score:2)
Despite it's use of an unskinned version of Windows Mobile 6.1, I absolutely LOVE my HTC Ozone...except the included web browser.
What would be the best alternative for this particular phone? I'm likely not going to get a new phone until the sequel to the Droid is released, as I love the Ozone's hardware and don't want to give it up any time soon. Still, the included web browser sucks.
Suggestions for a different web browser for my Ozone?
Re: (Score:2)
Opera Mobile beta (currently) 10 could be already available for Windows Mobile. I am a Symbian owner but I can remember Opera 9.5 beta (late replaced by 10) was released only on Win Mobile and Symbian UIQ3 (touch screen).
You better keep eye on Opera.com mobile team blogs/pages. I am pretty clueless about Windows Mobile... Does it have J2ME support? If it is the case, Opera Mini would do a great job for ordinary browsing without beta hassle.
Article conclusion - summary (Score:2)
You can debate the validity of the data, but to save you from wading through nine pages of ads, listed here roughly in order of speed: Browser - Javascript - compliance
Fennec - 11391ms - 93/100
SkyFire - 14659ms - 52/100
Safari - 15499ms - 100/100
Opera Mobile - 40249ms - 100/100
IE - 74537ms - 5/100
Blackberry - DNF - 13/100
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary of article... (Score:3, Informative)
------- -- -------------- -------------------- ------------ -----
Skyfire Windows Mobile and Symbian S60 1.1.0.12052 on WinMo 14,659 ms 52/100 Yes
Opera Mobile Windows Mobile and Symbian S60 9.7 beta 40,249.20 ms 100/100 No
Fennec Windows Mobile or Maemo 1.0a3 on WinMo 11,391.20 ms 93/100 No
Safari iPhone OS version 3.1.2 15,499.20 ms 100/100 No
Internet Explorer Windows Mobile 7 74,537.60 ms 5/100 Yes
BlackBerry browser BlackBerry OS version 4.6.1.199 Did not finish 13/100 No
[Skyfire]: Uses server to render pages. Web sites looked accurate but heavily compressed. Flash videos jerky, out of sync and will not open in full screen.
[Opera Mobile]: Can easily open multiple pages and switch between them.
[Fennec] (a.k.a Firefox Mobile): Slick interface. Fastest at loading complex pages. Clearly a pre-release product.
[Safari]: Multiple pages won't load simultaneously. User interface is serene and easy to use.
[Internet Explorer]: Slowest overall browser. Handled Flash the best of those tested. Flash videos can be opened full screen but become jerky and out of sync.
[BlackBerry browser]: Browser doesn't come close to a full Web experience. Slowest at loading complex pages.
Um, what? (Score:2)
The challengers
Skyfire (Windows Mobile, Symbian S60)
Opera Mobile (Windows Mobile, Symbian S60)
Fennec (Windows Mobile, Maemo)
The incumbents
Safari (iPhone)
Internet Explorer (Windows Mobile)
BlackBerry browser (BlackBerry)
So... for "incumbent" we have three platforms. For "challengers" we also have three platforms -- but only one of them is shared with "incumbents". How are the results of that execution on Symbian at all relevant to BB or iPhone users?
Unless they're saying that rendering, javascript, at al will behave identically from platform to platform -- which I find a bit hard to swallow. If they're going to perform tests, they should be meaningful ones - the only meaningful comparison here are the windows mobil
This just in... (Score:2)
Different programs perform differently on different computers!
How about the Zune HD Browser? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Android uses WebKit to render pages, so you can essentially put it in the same box as Safari, along with the PalmPre, and Nokia's browser.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That doesn't really take into account usability. Things like fast interface, mouse gestures (finger gestures?) and so on can count a lot too and is missing in atleast Nokia's browser and IE. Opera wins a lot more with it's usability, so its not always only about the rendering engine.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak about Android but Nokia's Webkit based browser really shows that you can waste an excellent framework and ship one of the worst Mobile browsers shipped to date with it.
Just recently, Nokia skipped Webkit update on E71, the most sold smart phone of them in USA because E72 is on the way and they also ship 5800 touchscreen. That is Nokia for you.
Re: (Score:2)
My Motorola droid gets 93/100 on acid3.acidtests.org, which is the same score my Windows firefox 3.5 gets. My Linux 3.0.14 firefox only gets 72/100.
Re: (Score:2)
They mentioned Android right here:
Opera looks set to release a version of its Opera Mobile browser for Android soon -- when that happens we'll be taking Android competitors into the ring, so stay tuned.
They buried that right on the first page of the article though, so I can see how you missed it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't even load a CA signing cert
Sure you can. I imported my employer's CA certificate, and I have no problems using Safari on the iPhone with websites using certificates from that CA.
I used the iPhone Configuration Utility to create a "profile" containing the certificate, which makes it easier to install, but it's just some XML wrapping around the certificate. There are examples around that show how to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure you can. To add a custom CA cert, just make a link to it and have the user explicitly touch that link. Make sure the MIME type for the reply is application/x-x509-ca-cert. Try it and if it doesn't work, shout, but it should.
I'd imagine the same thing will work for a site cert, only with a different MIME type, but I'm not certain. Either way, given that StartCom issues free basic SSL certificates, the only sane reason to us
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. To add a custom CA cert, just make a link to it and have the user explicitly touch that link. Make sure the MIME type for the reply is application/x-x509-ca-cert. Try it and if it doesn't work, shout,
IT DOESN'T WORK!!
:D ;)
Everything I've tried only creates some "profile" that doesn't have my certs validated by the CA. In fact, it doesn't seem to do squat. Clicking the link works for every other browser, but not Safari on iPhone. Safari on iPhone is broken. And of course there's the silliness of accepting the local cert temporarily to apply the CA signing cert anyway. Good thing I'm one hop from my own server.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Safari on iPhone definitely supports JavaScript and SSL.
Re: (Score:2)
What about JS and SSL don't work on the iPhone? Flash doesn't work, of course, but JS and SSL work fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and as I stated in reply to that post, you can in fact import a root CA. I don't know why people believe that you can't.
As far as ghetto image animations, I don't know about that specifically, but in general, Javascript works for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this makes no sense. I use the default Web app on my Nokia E71, and most pages render correctly and most flash objects work fine. I can even use homestarrunner.com if I want to, which I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, does the browser-induced load make much of a difference next to the additional power drain induced by the WLAN adapter? Even for devices where that doesn't matter as WLAN is always kept on, is the difference notable? Granted, my questions can be asked through the exact same tests as yours.
Isn't that a function of the network or device and no