Which Linux Browser Is The Fastest? (zdnet.com) 160
ZDNet's Networking blog calls Firefox "the default web browser for most Linux distributions" and "easily the most popular Linux web browser" (with 51.7% of the vote in a recent survey by LinuxQuestions, followed by Chrome with 15.67%). But is it the fastest? An anonymous reader writes:
ZDNet's Networking blog just ran speed tests on seven modern browsers -- Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Opera (which is also built on Chromium), GNOME Web (formerly Epiphany), and Vivaldi (an open-source fork of the old Opera code for power-users). They subjected each browser to the JavaScript test suites JetStream, Kraken, and Octane, as well as reaction speed-testing by Speedometer and scenarios from WebXPRT, adding one final test for compliance with the HTML5 standard.
The results? Firefox emerged "far above" the other browsers for the everyday tasks measured by WebXPRT, but ranked near the bottom in all of the other tests. "Taken all-in-all, I think Linux users should look to Chrome for their web browser use," concludes ZDNet's contributing editor. "When it's not the fastest, it's close to being the speediest. Firefox, more often than not, really isn't that fast. Of the rest, Opera does reasonably well. Then, Chromium and Vivaldi are still worth looking at. Gnome Web, however, especially with its dreadful HTML 5 compatibility, doesn't merit much attention."
The article also reports some formerly popular Linux browsers are no longer being maintained, linking to a KDE forum discussion that concludes that Konqueror and Rekonq "are both more or less dead."
The results? Firefox emerged "far above" the other browsers for the everyday tasks measured by WebXPRT, but ranked near the bottom in all of the other tests. "Taken all-in-all, I think Linux users should look to Chrome for their web browser use," concludes ZDNet's contributing editor. "When it's not the fastest, it's close to being the speediest. Firefox, more often than not, really isn't that fast. Of the rest, Opera does reasonably well. Then, Chromium and Vivaldi are still worth looking at. Gnome Web, however, especially with its dreadful HTML 5 compatibility, doesn't merit much attention."
The article also reports some formerly popular Linux browsers are no longer being maintained, linking to a KDE forum discussion that concludes that Konqueror and Rekonq "are both more or less dead."
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox syncs book marks in the way that I prefer over Chrome, so no matter how fast Chrome is I won't use it.
Plus if I just want to look up something fast I tend to use elinks/lynx/w3m.
Re: (Score:1)
The thing about Chrome is that is comes from Google.
I will not use anything from them directly (VPN rules ok).
They know so much about each and everyone of us yet still they want more.
The more Google know, then the more the Ad Agencies and As Slingers know about you, your life, your friends and your universe.
Google/alphabet == Big Brother 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It's not fast, but the best at all the things you want to do." -- "So you should be using Chrome instead!"
Yeah, right.
To strengthen you point: if you want to use the same browser on desktop and on your smartphone, Firefox is the only one that has proper ad-blocking on mobile. Many other mobile browsers have ad-blocking, but none of the block those intolerable "related content" fake news bottom-of-the-page spammers. Only Firefox with ublock origin properly blocks invasive ads on Android.
The other ad-blockers on mobile (integrated in the browser or not) suck so much that I'm beginning to think they are all getting money fr
X11 vs the world (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: X11 vs the world (Score:1)
I've yet to find a benchmark that shows Wayland as a winner on speed. So far X11 is faster on almost all tests I've read.
Re: (Score:3)
And what is really the issue considering the fact that most of the slowness on the web is either the network or the remote server.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get beyond simple "race" style benchmarks. The guys reviewing GPUs for gaming realized that years ago and now look at things like the 99th percentile framerate and micro-stuttering.
For a browser "speed" as experienced by the user is a combination of things. Rendering performance, network performance, tricks like pre-loading and speculative DNS lookups, JS performance... But also the UI and how quickly it allows things to be done, how responsive it is. A great example is Internet Explorer/Edge. Do
Re: (Score:2)
X is largely irrelevant. Today, X is used to do three things:
1. Push pixmaps from the application to the screen. Notice that nowhere does X get involved in doing any rendering of those pixmaps.
2. Push UI events from the user to the application, and poorly participate in window management.
3. Allow applications to open a windowed OpenGl context.
It's a lot of cruft that does nothing much, only so that some obsolete pure X11 application will still keep on working. Architecturally speaking, it's nonsense. For mo
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't.
Re:X11 vs the world (Score:4, Funny)
It's irrelevant. The next version of systemd will include its own windowing system.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what you mean by "poorly optimized drivers". The only things that an X server is expected to do and do well today as far as screen drivers go is to composite pixmaps generated by the painting backends in Chromium, Qt, GTK, etc. An X driver is not meant to do any drawing anymore - yes, the X servers still leave the old code paths around so that some obsolete app might use the X server to actually draw other primitives on screen. Nothing of note uses an X server that way anymore.
Given this, the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or get a faster computer and see the speed difference.
Or just use Wayland.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea for some applications, once it's ready for prime time, but all the "X sux" shit from the fanboys and Daniel Stone detracts from it. Those losers (not the main dev community but a loud bunch of fanboys) are actually using the new, slow, buggy piece of shit gtk3 gedit as their "proof" that X is slow, while the gtk2 version of gedit has no trouble at all (and X is not the problem).
Oh wait - you are just trolling aren't you? Please don't because my point about lazy programmers of
dillo (Score:2)
dillo is very fast and it have a GUI also... it do not have javascript, but that is a feature for many people!
Beyond the threshold of fast enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once robust standards were being followed and browser speed went past some point, I stopped caring about which was the fastest. Care much more about interface features and plugins that I want. Next was the many other annoying things that I was able to customize to my taste, a menu item up or down on a list, a button I could or could not move, maintaining a familiar interface, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for me FF is still a bit laggy, but it is still the best browser overall. Vivaldi is the next best and is definitely snappier that FF especially with a resource-intensive site like Twitter. Vivaldi seems a lot faster for sites with video. I generally use both. I've used Konqueror but yes it looks like there's basically not much going on with it and it doesn't even have a lot of basic options one expects in a browser. Opera is ok but I had it blow up on me not long ago. I think Vivaldi is
Re:Beyond the threshold of fast enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been using FF since it was new. I have occasionally looked at other browsers and several are faster than my FF, at least partially because the plugins and modifications that I use slow FF down somewhat. But FF is fast enough that changing to a faster browser would not improve my productivity. And I've got a nice set of plugins and extensions on it that I would have to put together from scratch if I changed browsers. That is, assuming other browsers offered similar features, which as near as I can tell, they do not.
Speed isn't the only criterion for measuring a browser's goodness. The ability to tailor it to your personal workload is much more important these days. And once you've got a browser tweaked to your best practices, do you really need to take the massive hit of finding, installing, and configuring the plugins of some other browser that would duplicate what you've already set up in your old FF?
If you really need a faster browser, most of us who have been around the block would be better off running the same browser and OS on faster hardware. But this doesn't apply to young'uns who have yet to establish productive work habits. Their best approach would be to talk with some older guy who knows what he is doing about which browser he uses, how he has it set up, and what his workflow is.
Re: (Score:1)
It's amazing how fast a browser actually can run once you ban certain script elements from loading, certain calls and manipulations of the DOM (I don't think it's the business of most websites to check if I have a microphone or webcam installed and enabled nor what type and brand of hard disk I am using, nor do I think they have the right to disable any of my input devices or functions thereof for any reason), and all advertising. Even the "slow" browsers run amazingly well compared to what we had to choose
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Who cares about the last drops of speed? If a page is really heavily Javascripted, like some of those data browsers, then JS speed matters, but otherwise only plugins like Block, NoScript and Disconnect plugins are a very good reason to stay with Firefox. Chrome is also more of a memory monster.
Re: (Score:2)
"10k please" Linux kernel: "Fuck off and die"
AFAIK, Linux will never say "Fuck off and die" unless you're out of *virtual* address space, for which you'd need to allocate helluva lot more than 20 gig.
Isn't is apparent? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless your output goes to a text-to-speech reader, elinks is worlds better. Lynx doesn't even have tabs.
But indeed, both win over graphical bloatware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lynx. It doesn't have to deal with all those bandwidth intensive graphics.
That's why I always use data URI in my web pages instead of images. You don't have to look at my graphics, but you're gonna download them anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
A black-and-white image? convert trollface.png trollface.ubrl && cat trollface.ubrl
A colour image? catimg [github.com] -r2 | ansi2html (package colorized-logs), elinks with use_document_colors=2 only.
A histogram? braillegraph [github.com].
The first and the last work in plain Unicode text, the second one requires HTML.
On any site with basic Unicode support I'd include samples, but, you know, Slashdot...
Have to rule out Chrome (Score:2, Insightful)
Chrome is Google product. Doesn't it continually report to the mother-ship? That would make *you* the product.
Re: (Score:2)
People say that but have yet to produce any packet logs showing what it does. So until someone steps forward with proof I will chalk this up to neckbeard paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
It keeps coming up because we'd like to understand why Google would spend money developing a web browser.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be obvious why Google would want to provide a free web browser to its products (some might mistakenly call them "users"). They want to ensure their products have safe, secure, and functional access to their services, and controlling the browser means they get to control that experience to a larger degree.
But I highly doubt Chrome spies on its products. Why? Because there's no need for the browser itself to snoop when 3rd party cookies do the job just as well "legitimately". A huge perce
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if you happen to sign in to Chrome (which I do) to use their sync service (because I and my household are all bought into the Android ecosystem), Google flat out admits that unless you encrypt your data with a passphrase so that they can't read it, they will parse any data you keep stored on their servers to sync to your other devices.
The downside to using a passphrase, is that if you accidentally forget what you used (which in my older age, has happened once now), then your only option is to clear th
Better browser than IE = more Google ads served (Score:2)
Google derives income by connecting the publishers of documents on the web with sponsors through services such as AdSense/AdWords and DoubleClick. When people find documents through Google Search, use other Google properties, or view a participating publisher's documents, Google gets a cut of the ad revenue. The more web browsing, the more money for Google. So a better browser is likely to keep people on the web longer.
Internet Explorer stayed a piece of shit for far too long. Then Microsoft actually got a
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Microsoft spend money on Edge?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have to - if they give up then they have admitted defeat and their shareholders will see their shares drop.
Re: (Score:2)
To sell Office 365.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Chrom... [reddit.com]
Re:Have to rule out Chrome (Score:4, Informative)
I run LittleSnitch on my mac, and when I open Chrome, it calls to several of Google's addresses: appspot-preview, gstatic, www, and fonts.. It also does that when opening an empty tab. It gets images and fonts and whathaveyou from those sites, (all unnecessary, BTW: the page functions just as well when all traffic is blocked), and it of course reports URLs for "malware" detection. That should give Google a nice bunch of data to work on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good luck doing an HTTP GET, or fetching any kind of data from the internet if you can't transmit packets.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the joke [kym-cdn.com].
Use Google's product! It's closed source! (Score:4, Insightful)
Said a marketer who does not understand what Linux users expect from their computing.
Chrome is fast, but doesn't block ads or scripts (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
guess you never heard of uBlock origin.
Which is useless as it lacks the interface to block crap via URLs. Blocking via DOM is semi-good for visual elements only, what I want is to get rid of trackers first, decrapifying view being only a side effect (as every ad is also a tracker).
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, uBlock Origin supports URL based blocking as well as DOM based. In fact URL based is the primary method it uses since that avoids loading the content at all. It also supports importing DNS blocklists with automatic updates, from a long pre-defined list of your own custom URLs.
uBlock Origin does everything AdBlock Plus does and much, much more, and is faster to boot. It's better, even on Firefox/PaleMoon.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, uBlock Origin supports URL based blocking as well as DOM based. In fact URL based is the primary method it uses since that avoids loading the content at all.
For third-party lists, yeah. But adding your own rules is uncomfortable at best. I might be a doofus, but I can't seem to find a way to provide a list of URLs requested by the page you're on -- ie, an equivalent of Adblock's "Open blockable items". The best approximation in uBlock Origin I managed to find is some "dynamic filtering" that apparently allows blocking by domain only. For that, I already have RequestPolicy which does that so much better, with a "default deny" rule on third-party assets.
If uB
Re: (Score:2)
Click on the uBlock icon, and in the window that opens click on the icon next to the dropper. If you hover over it, it will say "open logger". Then you get a new tab where you can click the reload button at the top and see exactly what was loaded and what was blocked and by which rule.
You can use the dropper to select an element on the page. You can start with a deep one and then use the list it shows to walk up the tree, to find the highest element, or simply edit the rule to just the URL if you want that.
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. Looks like that logger window is empty and doesn't even appear like it should have anything in it -- unless you manually reload the page you want to kill parts of, losing dynamically loaded pieces and so on.
You can't also just click on an entry to make a filter -- unless I'm missing something, on uBlock Origin you need to copy the URL, go to some other place several clicks away, manually write and edit the rule. On the other hand, AdBlock Plus takes you directly to a "new filter" dialog, with a fe
I wonder how Pale Moon would fare.... (Score:5, Informative)
I switched to it a few months ago from FF, and it seems much more responsive to me. It is especially better in startup-to-response time, where FF was taking 30 seconds.(no, I didn't have a ton of add-ons or customizations)
Speed really is only one piece of the puzzle. I was satisfied with the speed of chromium when I tried it for a while, but FF has the features I use. I much prefer the way FF does bookmarks, the bookmark toolbar, and tabs. That is why I have been very satisfied with Pale Moon... the features of FF I need without the bloat and dog-slow response.
Re: (Score:2)
--I've been using Palemoon for the last couple of years now (mainly on Linux, but also on the Win side occasionally) and it definitely uses less memory and crashes less often than Firefox in my experience.
--Personally I don't care which browser is the fastest, PM has been meeting my needs and is more STABLE.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't my experience at all. It would crash a lot more, and there were pages that would render fine in Firefox which would render incorrectly in PM. So I gave up and went back to Firefox, which now has 64 bit builds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If any application is taking 30 seconds to load up, you've got issues. Heck, LibreOffice loads up a complex spreadsheet for me in less than 5 seconds.
Maybe you're using an old hard drive that needs serious defragmenting? Or your configuration files for the app are totally borked?
I get messed up configuration files slowing down my Banshee startup. I just blow away the config directory and it's good again for a few months.
Re: (Score:2)
My hard drive is less than a year old. My install of Mint 18 was a fresh install. I tried a new FF profile, new config files. Plenty of RAM (8 GB, less than 1GB used)
The issue was that FF would start up in the same time it always would, within a few seconds. However, it would sit and wouldn't take any kind of input for 30 seconds. CPU was quiet, RAM was quiet, disk was quiet. It even did this if I passed it a URL from the command line. It would sit for about 30 seconds, then would become responsive.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a load of hidden tabs in Firefox? I was using the old Spaces thing or whatever it was called, and had about 50 tabs saved in there. Turns out that was making it take 30 seconds to start up. Deleted them all and it was down to 1 second to become responsive again.
It was the UI buggery that made me move to PaleMoon.
Vivaldi is blink based (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Vivaldi is actually a fork of Chromium. Their code base tracks Chromium, with their own custom changes to add in Opera like features. The UI is identical to Chrome in many places.
This is wrong (Score:1)
Re: This is wrong (Score:1)
Re: This is wrong (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
PHP and ASP are server side. Yeah, they can use GET and POST, but they are not necessary to the use GET and POST. Any HTTP client "supports" HTTP generated by PHP and ASP.
BTW, SSL support in dillo is only an alpha prototype plugin. It does no cert caching or authentication.
Re: (Score:1)
Typo (Score:1)
Read the benchs (Score:2)
"WebXPRT: This is today's most comprehensive browser benchmark. It uses scenarios created to mirror everyday tasks."
Basically, Firefox is not the fastest at all things Javascript synthetic performance, but it's the fastest for real world web-browsing.
Based on that... I would actually recommend using Firefox?
Depends on your CFLAGS (Score:2)
I can guarantee that if you compile it yourself, with optimized CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS, that Firefox and Chromium will come out ahead of the poorly optimized builds that get released by the non-open source browsers.
Personally I use compiled versions on my Funtoo [funtoo.org] Laptop and Workstation. Yes they take some time to compile but if you only upgrade twice a year it's not so bad. Upgrading every release would simply be too much. My CFLAGS are nothing crazy: "-march=native -Os -pipe"
There is also the added benefit tha
Re: (Score:2)
Because I've never seen that before...
The truth is that binaries packaged to run on a wide range of hardware misses out on many modern day optimizations.
I use Funtoo/Gentoo because I like the flexibility and the ability to configure everything, the additional performance is simply an added bonus. If I wanted to depend on an OS vendor to make decisions for me, how is that any different from just using Windows?
Vivaldi is Blink too (Score:3)
The summary is wrong that Vivaldi is a fork of old Opera (the Presto engine), it is in fact the same Blink engine that powers Chrome and new Opera, but with brand new chrome (non-capital, aka the interface around the engine) which is recreating the power-user features of old Opera rather than the cut-down interfaces that other browsers are working towards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Konqueror (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Web browser, Konqueror has sucked for a long time. While there was a time when I used Konqueror exclusively, its renderer fell increasingly further behind the other browsers. It needs to die as a Web browser.
As a file manager, though, it is still top dog. Its killer feature (aside from I/O Slaves, which are awesome) is the ability to split the screen into multiple panels. Dolphin is a brain disease that needs to die, just for its inability to do more than two panels, and Konqueror as just a file manager needs to resume its rightful place as the default file manager.
A second-best would be to have Dolphin be able to split panes like Konqueror does. At least then, Dolphin would no longer be the abomination that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is split panes better than simply being able to do Windows 7-like window snapping? It's not like you can't afford the memory for another window, right? Then the feature doesn't have to be in the app at all.
Spoken like a non-FOSS writer (Score:5, Insightful)
>""Taken all-in-all, I think Linux users should look to Chrome for their web browser use," concludes ZDNet's contributing editor. "
And maybe ZDNet doesn't understand Linux users. Many, perhaps even most of us, do not want a closed-source, closed-developed, semi-spyware, anti-configuration-friendly Chrome browser as our preferred browser.
Oh, and his main benchmarks: Speedometer is a "webkit-designed benchmark" and it surprises him that the webkit based browsers did considerably better than Firefox (the only non-webkit browser in his lineup)? Then a Google (think webkit again) based javascript benchmark, same result. Yet when he used Kraken and Jetstream, miraculously the browsers were just a 10% and 11% spread (with Chrome not winning either). BTW- he never ran Ooort, which Firefox seems to always win (and by a lot), and Peacekeeper, which Firefox usually wins.
My take: Firefox does just fine with speed. It is not the fastest, but the speed difference isn't as much as one might think, and it certainly isn't the only important factor when choosing a browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Many, perhaps even most
This is confirmation bias. Linux is getting more and more popular by the day, and a large portion of the user base couldn't give a shit about proprietary vs open debate as long as it fits their use cases.
A lot of people switched to Linux because it's not MS and they didn't want to buy Apple hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Lynx is the fastest... (Score:5, Insightful)
But who cares. It's security/privacy that I want. All the browsers seem just fine speed-wise.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you're right about links. For usable browsing, I'm giving Palemoon a try right now.
It's the hardware, stupid (Score:2)
You'll need a fast CPU anyway (Core 2 Duo and up), gigs of RAM and the patience to live without H264 hardware acceleration if your graphics are too old or unsupported (such as Radeon 5450 under Ubuntu 16.04).
There's no other way around if feeding your computer with mounds of garbage to be parsed, interpreted, compiled and encabulated.
Fun fact : didn't PDF files use to be slower than web pages? Now it's the other way around.
Maybe we could make a "website" out of a PDF document with hyperlinks to other PDF fi
Trump Supporters (Score:1)
Trump Supporters have small genitalia. Why?
Memory Usage!!! (Score:2)
Fast isn't everything (Score:1)
Presumably x86 -- what about ARM ? (Score:2)
I notice browser slowness much more on my ARM devices than even on Celerons. I think the biggest differentiator is who can multi-thread the best to take advantage of available processors.
Article: -1 Flamebait (Score:2)
Actually it doesn't matter which one is the fastest. ... ... and on the other hand, nobody selects browsers by rendering speed. People select them by interface, startup time and addons. This matters a lot more than if the page renders 10ms faster.
Browsers are optimizing since years and with each release they claim to be 10-30% faster. If it were true, pages would be rendered instantly
Really not that bad. (Score:2)
On JavaScript benchmarks, all the browsers are within 5%. Nothing that the end user will really notice.
The only test where Firefox falls flat was designed by the web-kit team, and suprise, suprise all the other browsers listed are web-kit variants.
Really though servo is set to knock all the other browsers right out of thier socks.
What was that old DOS game called? Oh yes,... (Score:1)
Firefox is really fast ... (Score:2)
Firefox is really fast, depending on many factors ...
I upgraded from Kubuntu 14.04 to 16.04, and Firefox is the fastest I have seen in years. Maybe it is because Canonical have switched to the 64bit version, or something else. This is on an 8 year old laptop.
Regardless, you have to install the following:
- uBlock Origin (block ads)
- NoScript (Disable Javascript and Flash except from white listed sites)
- Cookie Monster (Don't accept cookies except from white listed sites)
- Classic Theme Restorer (Makes it loo
Obsolete question (Score:1)
Re:Edge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Edge (Score:5, Insightful)
This solves your problem, but requires some work.
A Linux install with a virtual box instance running a nicely sandboxed version of Windows is the solution. If you run it in seamless mode you can even set it up to have dedicated VMs for different apps, and have those apps appear and behave on the linux desktop like regular applications. By setting up a shared folder and storing all data on the host (not on the VMs), and allowing clipboard sharing it becomes completely transparent that the app is running in a VM.
I run the windows apps I require that way, and with VTx the virtualization doesn't really suffer any performance penalty.
It takes a bit of work to set up but then once its running you realize you have the best of both OS worlds. No more rebooting... etc... all the pains associated with Windows, but windows compatibility. As a bonus you can snapshot the VMs, which means if something gets screwed up due to an update or patch you can just revert to the working snapshot and finish whatever work you need, and leave the patching issue to later.
Admittedly you need to invest a little time to learn how to use Virtual Box and set it up, but its worth it.
Plus as you said if the OS goes to pot, you can move your VMs to any OS that runs VirtualBox. I recently switch Linux distros, and migrating was fairly painless (I kept home intact), and used my existing VMs with the new distro without blinking.
I was a Mac User a long time but once the hardware became shitty (battery problems) and even more expensive, and with the OS only being supported for two cycles eventually forcing a hardware buy (the old hardware doesn't support the newer OS, and the older OS version is no longer patched/supported) I said good bye to Apple. I've used this Linux + VM strategy on several machines now and have never look back or missed my Mac since (in fact its running linux now too).
Re: (Score:2)
and with the OS only being supported for two cycles eventually forcing a hardware buy (the old hardware doesn't support the newer OS, and the older OS version is no longer patched/supported) I said good bye to Apple. I've used this Linux + VM strategy on several machines now and have never look back or missed my Mac since (in fact its running linux now too).
That only happened during the switch from 68k to PowerPC and from PowerPC to intel.
I doubt there is an Intel Mac out that does not support the most rece
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the i686 Macs (dual core CPU half-way between a Pentium M and a Core 2 Duo)
Also, Core 2 Duo systems are old themselves (old graphics, old firmware) so I wouldn't count on them not being deprecated.
Re:Edge (Score:5, Funny)
Haven't you heard? The desktop is dead! Everybody works on tablets and mobile phones now. There will not be a new photoshop for desktops, the next version will only be available on Android and iPhone. Because that's where the market is now. You insensitive clod, asking that companies like Apple or Microsoft keep pouring money into the dead desktop ecosystem... They have better things to do with their time.
I hear that when my company is going to change office later this year, instead of my two large monitors, I will be given an iPhone to run Visual Studio on (it will be running on an emulator, of course). Apparently once you get some experience with that tiny on-screen keyboard, you can work even faster than with a real keyboard and mouse, and compile times only suffer a little when you do it 'in the cloud'. And instead of a desk, I will get a plastic chair to sit on, since I won't need so much space for all that hardware.
You may not like it, but it's the wave of the future. Why, last night I went to the local IMAX 3D theatre, and we all sat there streaming the movie to two mobile phones (one for each eye). The experience just blew me away, it was so incredibly life like.
Really, nobody should be investing into desktops. Desktops are dead, and Apple and Microsoft should be applauded for seeing this early and not investing any shareholder value into a deadend.
BTW, can you tell us more about that grape picking position? It sound interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
and with the OS only being supported for two cycles eventually forcing a hardware buy (the old hardware doesn't support the newer OS, and the older OS version is no longer patched/supported) I said good bye to Apple. I've used this Linux + VM strategy on several machines now and have never look back or missed my Mac since (in fact its running linux now too).
I tried that too, at the beach. What kind of sun glasses do you wear? Mine where either to dark (to see the screen properly) or to bright (was still bli
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard? The desktop is dead! Everybody works on tablets and mobile phones now. There will not be a new photoshop for desktops, the next version will only be available on Android and iPhone. Because that's where the market is now. You insensitive clod, asking that companies like Apple or Microsoft keep pouring money into the dead desktop ecosystem...
Damn, that was brutal! Well played though.
Re: (Score:2)
If MS were interested in market share they'd release an Android port.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple told me, "Safari so goodie."
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Sent from my BSD desktop
Re: (Score:3)
username checks out.