Hasta La Gadget!

This article was written on February 14, 2008 by CyberNet.

Something you may not realize is that Firefox has a setting that will prefetch websites and images to improve the user’s browsing experience, and it’s actually enabled by default. It will utilize your browser’s idle time to prefetch images and websites as determined by the webmasters.

Mozilla has an entire page setup to describe how the link prefetching mechanism works, and here is the summary that they provide:

Link prefetching is a browser mechanism, which utilizes browser idle time to download or prefetch documents that the user might visit in the near future. A web page provides a set of prefetching hints to the browser, and after the browser is finished loading the page, it begins silently prefetching specified documents and stores them in its cache. When the user visits one of the prefetched documents, it can be served up quickly out of the browser’s cache.

Webmasters can enable the prefetching by placing code like this in their website:

<link rel="prefetch" href="/images/big.jpeg">

The HREF is what points to the website or image that needs to be prefetched, and in this example a fullsize version of a thumbnail is cached so that it loads faster. This can obviously be a useful feature, but it can also result in unwanted cookies and cached items showing up on your computer. Even Google uses this to cache the first result that is displayed.

If you don’t want Firefox to do this then you’ll have to manually go and disable it:

1. In the Firefox Address Bar type about:config and press Enter.
2. Find the option that is named network.prefetch-next and double-click on it.
3. Change the value to false.

I’m not quite sure how I feel about Mozilla prefetching content without the users ever knowing. To me that is something they should ask users whether they want to enabled it when initially setting up the browser, especially since it can store cookies for websites that you yourself never actually visit.

What do you think about the prefetching?

Copyright © 2011 CyberNetNews.com

Related Posts:

Helpful Tip: Disable Drag & Drop Images in FirefoxCyberNotes: Cooliris Provides Faster, Easier Way To Browse The WebHelpful Tip: Disable the System Beep in WindowsHelpful Tip: How to Quickly Save an ImageEasily Disable The IE7 Automatic Install From Happening

This article was written on July 09, 2009 by CyberNet.

Ever since we did a browser comparison test last year there have been a lot of emails and comments asking if we were going to update the article to reflect new releases. I thought about adding in the new browsers as they came out, but decided against it for one reason or another. Instead I thought it would be better to just do a fresh article, and include even more stats than last time.

The main reason that I thought this was worthy of its own article was because a lot has changed in the last year. Since March 2008 we’ve seen major milestone releases from each of big browser makers, and to top it off Google Chrome has come onto the scene. These browsers have also shifted focus from adding nifty new features to diving deep into the code trying to squeeze out every last ounce of performance.

We’ve got a lot in store for you today ranging from JavaScript speed tests to memory usage comparisons, and we’ll even throw in some Acid 3 coverage. Lets go ahead and dive right in.

Notes about testing:

• All of these tests were performed on the same Windows XP SP3 machine that is wired into a network to eliminate the effects of wireless disturbances.
• All browsers started with a clean profile and no add-ons/extensions were installed.
• All browser data, including caches, were cleared before each test was run.
• Only one browser was open at a time, and no other applications (other than standard XP services) were running.
• Internet Explorer 8 was used in the native rendering mode (“standards compliant mode”).
• No plug-ins (Flash, Java, etc…) were installed on the machine to ensure that slow performance wasn’t due to the loading of a plug-in.

–JavaScript Tests–

The main speed test that everyone seems to use for JavaScript is SunSpider. Last year we compared the browsers with the SunSpider test prior to writing our first comparison, and so we wanted to try something different. That’s when we turned to the MooTools SlickSpeed Test. It tests various operations against a lot of common JavaScript libraries including MooTools and JQuery.

So which one did we go with this year? Well, we did both. We ran each test, SunSpider and SlickSpeed, a total of three times each. Then we averaged the results together to get the pretty little graphs you see below. For both of them the goal was for the browser to complete the tests as fast as possible, and so a lower number is better.

Sunspider Test:

1. Safari 4: 603ms
2. Google Chrome 3.0 ^Beta: 636ms
3. Google Chrome 2.0: 720ms
4. Firefox 3.5: 1278ms
5. Opera 10 ^Beta: 2975ms
6. Opera 9.64: 3931ms
7. Internet Explorer 8: 5441ms

MooTools SlickSpeed Test:

1. Opera 10 ^Beta: 330ms
2. Safari 4: 355ms
3. Opera 9.64: 375ms
4. Google Chrome 3.0 ^Beta: 464ms
5. Firefox 3.5: 580ms
6. Google Chrome 2.0: 763ms
7. Internet Explorer 8: 1901ms

–Website Rendering Tests–

I used the same method for testing website load times as I did last year. It’s a website called Numion Stopwatch that uses some fancy JavaScript to monitor when a page has finished loading, and then spits out the amount of time it took to complete.

We used two extremely popular sites for these tests: ESPN and the Wall Street Journal. Each site was loaded up three times in each browser, and then the results were averaged together. Obviously we were targeting which browser could load the websites the fastest, and so a lower number is better:

ESPN Load Time:

1. Safari 4: 1.936 seconds
2. Google Chrome 3.0 ^Beta: 2.194 seconds
3. Firefox 3.5: 2.380 seconds
4. Internet Explorer 8: 2.604 seconds
5. Opera 10 ^Beta: 2.605 seconds
6. Opera 9.64: 2.651 seconds
7. Google Chrome 2.0: 2.873 seconds

Wall Street Journal Load Time:

1. Google Chrome 3.0 ^Beta: 1.612 seconds
2. Opera 10 ^Beta: 1.989 seconds
3. Opera 9.64: 2.141 seconds
4. Safari 4: 2.166 seconds
5. Google Chrome 2.0: 2.552 seconds
6. Firefox 3.5: 2.886 seconds
7. Internet Explorer 8: 3.292 seconds

–Memory Usage Tests–

I’m sure this is what many of you were looking for. As geeks we like to have a lean browser that knows how to handle itself without us having to keep a watchful eye over it. That’s why we ran numerous different tests to see just how well a browser controls its memory usage when loading a decent number of sites, and also whether it’s able to release that memory once you’ve closed the tabs.

Here’s a rundown of the order in which we ran the tests to collect the stats:

1. We started the browser, and took a memory usage reading.
2. Loaded 10 predetermined sites in tabs, and took a memory usage reading after all the sites finished loading.
3. Loaded 15 more predetermined sites in tabs (totaling 25 sites), and took a memory usage reading after all the sites finished loading.
4. Let the browser sit for 10 minutes with the 25 tabs open, and then took a memory usage reading.
5. Closed all the tabs except for Google.com, which was always the first site opened. Then we took a memory usage reading.

And here are the results. The best browser for each test is highlighted in green, and the worst is highlighted in red.

–Acid 3 Tests–

Last year we also took a look at how the various browsers scored on the Acid 3 test. At the time a Safari nightly build was the closest to perfection by reaching a score of 86 out of 100. Today, however, is a different story. A few browsers can handle the test perfectly, some are very very close, and others (yeah, IE) have some work cut out for themselves.

Note: Click on any of the thumbnails for a full-size rendering.

1. Safari 4 (100/100) – It gets a perfect score and renders everything correctly.
   
2. Opera 10 ^Beta (100/100) – It gets a perfect score and renders everything correctly.
   
3. Google Chrome 2.0 (100/100) – It gets a perfect score, but not all tests are executed successfully.
   
4. Google Chrome 3.0 ^Beta (100/100) – It gets a perfect score, but not all tests are executed successfully.
   
5. Firefox 3.5 (93/100) – It gets a near perfect score.
   
6. Opera 9.6 (85/100) – This is the oldest release we tested, and it comes as no surprise that it doesn’t pass the test. It should be noted that the next milestone, version 10, does pass the test perfectly as seen above.
   
7. Internet Explorer 8 (20/100) – While they still have a ways to go before they get a perfect, I do have to give them credit for at least making the image look halfway normal. You know what I’m talking about if you remember what IE7′s rendering of the Acid 3 test was like.
   

–Conclusion–

So which browser is the winner? I wouldn’t really say any of them outshine the others. The problem that we are going to face with performance tests from here on out is that the browsers will all come very close to each other in the standings… often within a fraction of a second from one another. As the browsers continue to get optimized we will see these times get even closer, and performance might become less of a concern which picking which one we want to use. So I’d say to pick the browser you feel the most comfortable with, because it’s getting hard to distinguish one browser from another when it comes to performance.

What’s your take on the stats? Anything stand out to you? Will you be switching browsers based upon anything you learned here?

Copyright © 2011 CyberNetNews.com

Related Posts:

Standalone Versions Of Internet Explorer 3, 4, 5, and 6Microsoft: Firefox/Chrome are Insecure, Difficult to Use, and UnreliableFirefox Experiences Continued Growth With More than 15% of the U.S. MarketIs Firefox Going To Pick Up After Microsoft’s Mistake?Firefox, Safari, & Opera Hit Record-High Market Share

Hello, and welcome to Engadget. I’ll be your new host, Tim Stevens, taking over as Editor-in-Chief and leading you through this wonderful land of technology and innovation… maybe checking out a couple of KIRFs on the way, too. Though our site isn’t changing I wanted to introduce myself because, well, we’re going to be spending a lot of time together, you and I. So come on in, let’s get to know each other.

Continue reading Welcome to Engadget

Welcome to Engadget originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:00:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

When we reviewed the Nintendo 3DS (both times) there were some things we liked and others we didn’t, but one thing stood out as a true flaw: the battery life. Three to four hours on a charge just doesn’t cut it when portable game systems are traditionally known for shrugging off entire international flights. The 3DS would struggle with a puddle-jumper. Now, Nyko says it has a fix, and have released a battery backpack that promises twice the life of the stock console. Does it deliver? Not quite, but close.

Continue reading Nyko Power Pack+ and Charge Base for Nintendo 3DS review

Nyko Power Pack+ and Charge Base for Nintendo 3DS review originally appeared on Engadget on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 12:00:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

Clean and constant power is something that we take for granted here in the Americas. Sure, we’ve seen rolling blackouts in California before, and that outage in the Northeast back in 2003 was decidedly uncool, but those are the exception to the norm. Right now many Japanese citizens are dealing with power problems in the wake of the devastating tsunami, but in parts of Russia unreliable power is a decidedly reliable part of day-to-day life.

So, what’s going to happen when a couple-hundred-thousand fans from around the world swoop into Sochi in 2014, along with a flotilla of international media and all the world’s greatest athletes? The Winter Olympics will happen, and the power will flow. It has to, and it will thanks to that unassuming looking shipping container above. It’s being assembled at Ener1‘s facility outside of Indianapolis, and it’s actually a giant battery holding an amazing one megawatt-hour of power. That’s enough to juice 1,000 average homes for an hour, or to act as the mother of all UPS’s. Join us for a look inside and a video show how each of those packs is made.

Continue reading Inside the giant megawatt batteries that will power Russia’s Sochi Winter Olympic Games (video)

Filed under: Misc. Gadgets

Inside the giant megawatt batteries that will power Russia’s Sochi Winter Olympic Games (video) originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:41:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments