Today we will make a comparison of the most popular Internet browsers on Linux: Firefox, Epiphany, Konqueror, Opera, and Google-Chrome.
In particular, we are going to test the "compatibility" (in some cases still truncated) that these browsers have with the HTML5 video tag. The video file in question has a relatively high resolution and, although it is only 22 minutes long, it is 150 MB. |
Test system features
HP Pavilion dv5000
Processor: AMD Turion 64 Mobile Technology ML-40
Memory: GB 1
Graphics: ATI Radeon Xpress 200M
Operating System: Ubuntu 9.10
Desktop Environment: GNOME 2.28.1
First impressions
The 5 explorers got started in a reasonable time. Firefox and Epiphany looked particularly nice as they seamlessly integrated into the GNOME theme I was using at the time. When it comes to the integration with the OS, Opera and Google-Chrome are the worst. This despite the fact that it is possible, in Google Chrome, to make it use the gtk / metacity theme (you only need to go to Settings and enable that option. I also liked the fact that both Firefox and Opera made it clear that I was visiting a page with RSS. When switching to 'full screen' mode, I didn't like that the address bar and controls were still visible in both Epiphany and Konqueror.
Explorers and versions
Firefox
- Mozilla / 5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: 1.9.1.7) Gecko / 20100106 Ubuntu / 9.10 (karmic) Firefox / 3.5.7
Epiphany
- Mozilla / 5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-us) AppleWebKit / 531.2 + (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari / 531.2 +
Konqueror
- Mozilla / 5.0 (compatible; Konqueror / 4.3; Linux) KHTML / 4.3.5 (like Gecko)
Opera
- Opera / 9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto / 2.2.15 Version / 10.10
Google Chrome
- Mozilla / 5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US) AppleWebKit / 532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome / 4.0.249.43 Safari / 532.5
In all cases, I used the browser available from the repositories or I downloaded the package that Opera and Google published for download.
javascript
Use the V8 Benchmark Suite - version 5 to compare the browsers in question. Do not forget that in this test, the higher the results, the better.
Google-Chrome came out in first place with a score of 1019, Epiphany came in second with 652, and Firefox came in a distant third with a score of 83,8. Opera scored 53,6, and Konqueror threw an error during the test.
acid 3
The only two browsers that got a perfect score were Epiphany and Opera, although Google Chrome claims to also have a perfect score, it scored 98/100.
Flash
No browser had a problem finding / installing the necessary flash plugins and I was able to play You Tube videos without any problem. However, to get it to work in Epiphany I had to "Refresh" the page I was viewing, and Opera at one point crashed before playing the video properly.
HTML 5 video tag
Only Firefox and Chrome were able to play the video using the HTML 5 video tag. Luckily, this is something all explorers are going to fix soon.
Final conclusions
There are several very good quality internet browsers for Linux. Personally, I prefer Firefox because of its ability to complement my GNOME themes perfectly and its ability to handle HTML5 (Theora) video tags. I also really like the expandability it has through the huge library of extensions.
Please do not forget to leave your comments and preferences.
Seen in | The Linux Box
Hеllo Dear, are you really ѵiѕiting this site regularly, if only afterwagd you will definitelу obtain fastiԁious know-how.
My web page: ac moore coupon printable 2011
For me there is no other like Opera, since I installed it for the first time in Windows it was to understand it as if I had been using it for a long time. It has everything without having to go around adding things. And since I switched to ubuntu, the first thing I did was install opera for me, the other browsers do not exist (even if I have others installed because something can always fail)
In Windows I love Opera, more than Chrome, it has very good things! and has been a pioneer in several more.
But in Linux I couldn't adapt… I don't know why! Even the themes look ugly in Linux. So I've been using Firefox for a long time, it's simple, customizable, and gives me good security.
Note: the part that I don't like about chrome is the synchronization tool, if by pure chance or by mistake you synchronized chrome on a computer that is not yours, the security becomes null. They would have access to your bookmarks, mail, calendar, reader and passwords of all your social networks, even your search history !!! and it is not possible to desynchronize a computer remotely. I know it sounds silly but I know a lot of people who have happened to it.
When you can, try to update this post, it would be interesting a test today that HTML is already more installed
Respecting your opinion, I dare to disagree because, in my opinion, google chrome in windows has destroyed all existing browsers, although it has some errors. Keep in mind that it is still a baby compared to firefox. But at the speed that it is growing it will leave an unpleasant taste of inferiority to other browsers.
Greetings from Colombia. Edwin
It is true. Can be. In fact, I am now using Chromium. However, be prepared because version 4 of Firefox comes with everything: http://usemoslinux.blogspot.com/2010/11/firefox-4-se-viene-con-todo.html
Greetings and thanks for commenting!
Pablo.
I've been an opera fan since I was on windows. As soon as I switched to linux, what I regretted the most was having to leave my opera. Imagine the joy when I found out that there was an opera for linux (everyone criticizes opera for not opening its code). that surely firefox in a free OS would play locally. The second surprise was to discover that firefox in linux has the same cons as in windows ... average rendering, excessive consumption of resources (eyep opera tmb consumes although to a lesser extent and renders better).
Excellent blog there are very good things
Very thick Opera! As you say, a pity that it is not a "free" program. 🙁
Thank you very much for commenting! We hope you send us notes about Opera so we publish them… if that interests you, of course!
Cheers! Paul.