With the new release of Opera 10 Beta2 and K-MeleonCCF ME 0.096 coming out, I decided to make a simple test of both browsers. :drool:

I) Memory Usage

First I am concerned of memory usage cause it's crucial for older system on which both browsers are popular.

1. Startup memory usage
At startup with no tabs open, K-Meleon cost less memory than Opera:



2. One website memory usage (www.cnn.com)
For testing the memory usage for just one website open, I delibrately open www.cnn.com to see which browser cost more memory:



K-Meleon only consumed half of the memory of Opera 10.

3. Several website memory usage
To see which browser can handle better memory usage when several websites open at the same time. I openned 6 websites:

http://www.cnn.com
http://www.msnbc.com
http://www.yahoo.com
http://www.msn.com
http://www.apple.com
http://www.nba.com

together in both browsers, here is the result:



K-Meleon has better performance than Opera 10

4. Memory release performance
It's also important for browser to release memory when tabs are closed. So I closed all tabs in last test, the memory usage of both browsers after this is as follow:



K-Meleon has better performance than Opera 10

II) Javascript performance

Thanks to the latest treacemonkey js engine from Mozilla, K-Meleon's JS performance is more superior than Opera 10: (Test page: http://wd-testnet.world-direct.at/mozilla/dhtml/funo/jsTimeTest.htm)



III) CSS Loading performance

Opera 10 does have some speed advantages over K-Meleon, like CSS loading performance, with the test page:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/csstest.html

Opera 10 is a little faster than K-Meleon:



IV) Results

From data above, you can see that if you have an older system with slower CPU and less memory, you want to use a fast, responsive and very customizable browser, K-Meleon is much better choice than Opera 10 in this sense.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 09:48PM by Hao Jiang.

Quote
Hao Jiang
With the new release of Opera 10 Beta2 and K-MeleonCCF ME 0.096 coming out, I decided to make a simple test of both browsers. :drool:

Hao,

How abou the same test with FF 3.5.xxx?


<VBG>

N

Quote
ndebord

Quote
Hao Jiang
With the new release of Opera 10 Beta2 and K-MeleonCCF ME 0.096 coming out, I decided to make a simple test of both browsers. :drool:

Hao,

How abou the same test with FF 3.5.xxx?


<VBG>

I havn't done that yet. But supposedly, K-Meleon should be better than FF in memory usage.

Quote
Hao Jiang

Quote
ndebord

Quote
Hao Jiang
With the new release of Opera 10 Beta2 and K-MeleonCCF ME 0.096 coming out, I decided to make a simple test of both browsers. :drool:

Hao,

How abou the same test with FF 3.5.xxx?


<VBG>

I havn't done that yet. But supposedly, K-Meleon should be better than FF in memory usage.

Hao,

Without a doubt imo. SQLite overhead slowed my install of FF3.5 so much, that I went to the portable version and some about:config modifications to improve speed and reduce bloat. Also turned off the anti-phising component as my feelings are that allowing Google to choose for me which sites are black and white is not productive. After all, Google domains are quite extensive and I question their ability to self-police their own domain names.

N

test results are not surprising
not just sqlite database, xul is firefox biggest performace hinderer. whatever performance gains added to a gecko engine; kmeleon benefits will be double that of firefox.

Quote
Hao Jiang
I havn't done that yet. But supposedly, K-Meleon should be better than FF in memory usage.

Neither have I.

For older tests - I placed K-Meleon exe, kplugins etc. into Firefox, Xulrunner GREs.

Result - K-Meleon is faster - more so when used K-Meleons's own chromes.

K-Meleon gets a further push when only browser dll components are used.

You can only look when You get hold of non static GREs where You can delete unneeded files.

To get the: build Yourself, Orca, Lunascape...

BTW. FireFox and Thunderbird both have the capability to browse or receive mail

In Theory K-Meleon must be only faster when unneeded parts of chrome and components are culled

p.s. the margin is below the threshhold to be noticed but the gain is substantial when You applied over time.

p.s. for JS script performance V8 is the current state of the art (especially on new powerfull systems)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2009 04:32AM by guenter.

in fact, opera 10 consume less cpu usage than km, possiblely because of slower js engine.

Hao, I hope you'll find time and co-op with Fred and with someone who use Mac to make a thorough review of folowing browsers: (Kmeleon, Kmeleon CCF, No baked Gorilla Km - optional), FF, Opera, TWB, Lunascape, Google Chrome, Dillo, Qtweb, Galeon, Kazehakase, Konqueror, Shiira and Epiphany.

I have enough of claims from "big gun browsers" that they are the best ones. Since Km is the best, they are obviously lying (all of them).

This kind of independent test would/will show the truth for the time being.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2009 01:10PM by panzer.

Quote
panzer
I have enough of claims from "big gun browsers" that they are the best ones. Since Km is the best, they are obviously lying (all of them).

IMO there is no such thing like the best but only the best to meet your own needs.
Therefore no matter how unbiased test results might be, the only realistic way to find out which is the best for you is by investing some time and testing yourself.

Imagine everybody could choose once in his life a car for free.
Do you think everybody would opt for the same brand or model?

Just my 2 cents, I hope you don't mind

i totally agree but i think firefox is bullshit

firefox/seamonkey and flock aare the only browsers not using native os api.. xul for core is ok and great for extensions ..very 'bendy', easy to develop etc but building a complete interface for a heavy demanding application like a browser is hmm..not smart

when chrome was out, there was a discussion/debate at mozillazine about dropping xul interface but some of the 'young turks' argued that neither safari or chrome are using native widgets and still very fast and responsive.. which shows how much they really know about other browsers.

in fact chrome and safari do use windows api..they only skin it to hide it for useless eyecandy..but beneath it's all cairo, same concept as lunascape and orca.. firefox is the other way round..it's all xul but skinned to appear like native api.

you can make an xul interface for something like a simple notepad it won't have much affect but for a broser..it's plain stupidity and xul has proven to be the worse of them all ..for example, gtk+ is great on nix but crappy on windows, python has proven to be a winner on all platforms and xul is utter crap on all oses.

Quote
chinarobin
in fact, opera 10 consume less cpu usage than km, possiblely because of slower js engine.

I wouldn't agree with you on that. Actually during most of my tests, I noticed K-Meleon uses less CPU than Opera 10. Maybe you mean Opera 9?

Check latest review on PCworld:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/168623/browser_speed_tests_latest_firefox_is_faster_but_not_as_fast_as_google_chrome.html

They talked about web page loading speed and the method they used is pretty fair. K-MeleonCCF ME 0.096 should be as fast as Firefox 3.5 while Opera 10 beta is really slow in this test.

Quote
Yogi

Quote
panzer
I have enough of claims from "big gun browsers" that they are the best ones. Since Km is the best, they are obviously lying (all of them).

IMO there is no such thing like the best but only the best to meet your own needs.
Therefore no matter how unbiased test results might be, the only realistic way to find out which is the best for you is by investing some time and testing yourself.

Imagine everybody could choose once in his life a car for free.
Do you think everybody would opt for the same brand or model?

Just my 2 cents, I hope you don't mind

I know there is no perfect browser. I would test it myself, but I do not have internet connection at home.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2009 01:09PM by panzer.

Quote
Hao Jiang

Quote
chinarobin
in fact, opera 10 consume less cpu usage than km, possiblely because of slower js engine.

I wouldn't agree with you on that. Actually during most of my tests, I noticed K-Meleon uses less CPU than Opera 10. Maybe you mean Opera 9?

km usually boosts higher cpu usage than opera 10 at the time of page loading，but it will decrease soon after that，any way i like km ccf, it's fast, light,and has enough basic functions. i am still using kmccf 0.092 as it could remember passwords.
i hope it can be solved asap though i know it needs a lot of hard work.

thanks for terific working, haojiang!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2009 04:25PM by chinarobin.

Opera is better yet, simply because it brings all its functions, K-Meleon is still a long way to go.

Quote
Upload
Opera is better yet, simply because it brings all its functions, K-Meleon is still a long way to go.

I only want browser functions i a browser, no mail or p2p downloader.
& I hope K-Meleon never goes the Opera way.

greetings to CL from DE

Isn't going now?

For me it has more and more features that I don't use at all. And if I were using 1.5.x there were more.

Well then, do wrong to compare a suite with a standard browser.

browser interface is not good, that they lack

Quote
Sign
Well then, do wrong to compare a suite with a standard browser.

browser interface is not good, that they lack

If Opera can provide a browser-only version, I can compare that. However Opera dosn't provide it. And they only have this bloated suite version.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2009 07:42PM by Hao Jiang.

Hao,

I remember Opera when it didn't have an email client and the users were hot about Hong Kong's Foxmail 2.0 (if memory serves). Which is how I got hooked on that email program (now using v5). As the program became more bloated over time and more and more weird in its interface, my interest faded to today's indifference.

N

I'll agree with you guys that the latest Opera isn't as fast as Firefox, or maybe even K-Meleon. However, Opera's always been stable for me even with heavy browsing (think lots of plugin and javascript heavy sites like Youtube and Digg/Slashdot, and pr0n too). I think its coding is much more efficient than either K-Meleon or Firefox. Opera's program files folder is only 6.6 MB, whereas K-Meleon is 17.7 and Firefox is 25.5 MB. I also noticed that by visiting the same set of web sites, Opera's cache is smaller than Mozilla-based browsers (maybe it compresses the cache?) It doesn't matter that Opera is a complete suite with features I won't use since the code is leaner; some things, like the download manager, are much better than Firefox or K-Meleon's offering.

I also think the memory usage graphs for Opera are misleading, since its default settings for memory are at automatic, so it will use as much RAM as it can take to cache web pages. You can feel the speed when you're going backwards and forwards through your browsing history, or by reopening closed tabs. K-Meleon by contrast only uses a maximum of 4 MB ram to cache web pages by default.

Just a counterpoint analysis by both an Opera and K-Meleon fan.

I don't understand some of these comments about Opera.

The latest one is far better as a basic browser than the older so called "leaner" ones.

I think there is a tendency to let ideology get in the way of just using something.

ps I don't surf with Opera so I'm not promoting it, it's just I was pleasantly surprised with v 10



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2009 10:11PM by Arrow.