Results 1 to 5 of 5
Hi All,
I have seen Chrome on Windows machines and it runs relatively fast compared to most browsers...I also know that it's only a beta right now for *nix BUT, ...
- 06-30-2010 #1Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 1,958
Why is Google Chrome So Slow
Hi All,
I have seen Chrome on Windows machines and it runs relatively fast compared to most browsers...I also know that it's only a beta right now for *nix BUT, why in the world is it so slow? I just did a couple tests and the mlb.com time was the most surprising, firefox full load time was about 10.3 seconds BUT "usable" (as in can see the flash scores on the left and the images loaded) was about 4 seconds, for Chrome full load and "usable" load were identical because the things loaded in a horrible order (the scores/pictures came up last!) and that time was about 8.4 seconds. Furthermore, a refresh for both showed firefox at 3.4 seconds and Chrome at 10.5 seconds.....
Just curious
Bodhi 1.3 & Bodhi 1.4 using E17
Dell Studio 17, Intel Graphics card, 4 gigs of RAM, E17
"The beauty in life can only be found by moving past the materialism which defines human nature and into the higher realm of thought and knowledge"
- 06-30-2010 #2Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Posts
- 4,651
Google Chrome 5 is in the "stable" channel for linux, so it's out of beta.
I haven't experienced it being slow. It starts far faster than firefox for me and seems more responsive in general. I'm using the 5.0.375.86 release on Arch. Maybe something to do with Ubuntu or the version you're using?
- 06-30-2010 #3Linux User
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- NH, USA
- Posts
- 276
speed is deceptive...
I have been jumping back and forth from Chrome to FF on both doze and Linux and found:
1. The loading speed of Chrome uses an old design trick - Show something asap and people will think you loaded fast. FF doesn't show untill it is almost ready with the page, Chrome puts up a blank window right away... perception is that Chrome is faster.
2. Both browsers have their quirks ... but they are both pretty good.
Unless you are loading mlb.com (or whatever) simultaneously in both browsers the test has no meaning as the site itself may slow down ot speed up in a matter of seconds.
Enjoy ...- Clouds don't crash - Bertrand Meyer
registered Linux user 393557
finally - hw to brag about - but next year it will look pitifully quaint:
Athlon64 X2 3800 - 1G PC3200 - 250G SATA - ati radeon x300
circa 2006
- 07-04-2010 #4Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
- Posts
- 8,970
What add-ons you have installed will also affect the perceived performance. The only way to do an apples-to-apples comparison is to install each from scratch and load them side-by-side, preferable on equal, but different, computers, and load the same set of pages a number of times (again, side-by-side) in order to get a smooth curve fit statistically (eliminating temporal anomalies). Perception is a funny thing.
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!
- 07-04-2010 #5Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 1,958
no add ons for chrome at all, installed the stable version and still see huge lags compared to ff....interesting to say the least
Bodhi 1.3 & Bodhi 1.4 using E17
Dell Studio 17, Intel Graphics card, 4 gigs of RAM, E17
"The beauty in life can only be found by moving past the materialism which defines human nature and into the higher realm of thought and knowledge"
Reply With Quote 
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts