runouw.com

EDIT:
EDITED STUFF WILL HAVEA NEXT TO THEM




So I was bored and I looked at the apple page...


laa te da te dummm doo doo doo!!!



OMG ITS DA NEWWW LEOPARDDDD!!!


Well... really I could care less since im fine with my OS. But like I said, I was bored so I clicked on it.

A few pages later looking at the "OH SO IMPORTANT" new features I saw the new Safari version 4.0


It said that Safari had better performance than alll of the other browsers...

So, I clicked on the chart:




according to this chart, Safari had around 1 second, while Firefox had well....more

I wasn't so sure about that so I decided to do a little experiment. Heres how it works:


Programs needed:

Firefox 3.5

Safari 4.0

Microsoft Word

Paintbrush

I was going to see if safari had the same performance that apple said it did. To test this I used two different websites:

Google.com is a simple website that has almost nothing on it, so a small site like that would have a very low Website To Find (The time it takes the website to find the browser...or WTF)

No Pun intended..


Oh wait, yes, pun intended.


So anyway, Apple is claiming that Safari has the lowest WTF out of all the other browsers WTF'S.

Like I said, google= Simple= low WTF

My other website is aol.com, its not extremely complex, but it is a lot more complex than google.

Therefor:
aol= high WTF


HYPOTHESIS: I think that both browsers will be around the same, however googles WTF will be higher than Safari's
Before starting I took a simple reaction time test, my average reaction time is around .25 seconds, so I will subtract that amount from the results. First, I did Firefox,

I started on the website that I wasn't doing first (google.com) and typed in the other websites URL (aol.com) then I pressed enter and at the same time started my stop watch, the second I saw the DONE at the end of the page I stopped the stop watch.


I AM USING A MACBOOK LAPTOP WITH OS X VERSION 10.5.8
I did this ten times with aol and google with firefox and safari. The only other program running was Word which I used to record everything:




Before subtracting .25



After subtracting .25


As you can see, both browsers had a significantly less WTF for Google, however, Safari had a less WTF all around.



THE AVERAGE AOL FOR FIREFOX WAS 2.028

THE AVERAGE AOL FOR SAFARI WAS 1.627


THE AVERAGE GOOGLE FOR FIREFOX WAS .261

THE AVERAGE GOOGLE FOR SAFARI WAS >20




*The reason why I have Safari >20 is because google's WTF is so low that I don't have time to stop my watch before the screen pops up... AKA that is very good!



As you can see Safari has a much less WTF than Firefox in both websites. While this may not be completely accurate, I think that its safe to say that Safari is faster than Firefox




Well thanks for enjoying my experiment! Until next time to test the WTF of other websites and other browsers!



THANKS to a remark by Superyoshi, performance isn't anything. While the new Safari features look great, I use Firefox for the add-ons and the work offline mode.

Well.

It loads faster.

But what about security?
Mozilla releases a patch 18 min after the leak was found. (Avg.)

And Extensions and Themes?
For FF there are many people which do lots of useful stuff since Mozilla said how to.

I stay at FF. FF FTW!

If you ask me, according to your results, I would say that Apple DID lie. Apple did not simply claim that Safari was faster than Firefox, it claimed that Safari was 1.92 seconds faster than Firefox. If you look at your empirical data, you found that Safari was only around 0.4 to 0.5 seconds faster than Firefox. That is around a 400% difference. As you can see, Apple was stretching the truth quite a bit. Also, from the point of view of a user, 0.5 is almost negligible, whereas 2 seconds is actually noticeable. So, if I were given that set of data, I would conclude that Apple was indeed lying. (But this is just a different way of looking at the data; your conclusion works as well.)

On the other hand, you did not draw data from a very wide range of websites. You had only Google, a site with very low WTF, and AOL, a site with higher WTF. How much higher, though, you do not know. What if you were to open an extremely large web page filled with images and videos? (I'm talking about the kind in which the scroll bar is only several millimeters tall.) From those sites, you may possibly to receive a WTF difference of over 2 seconds, or maybe even more. If you average those numbers together, you may find that the chart is completely accurate. Also, it may just turn out that Safari has a HIGHER WTF on larger websites. (Although, looking at your two previous trials, the numbers seems to suggest that this wouldn't happen...still, who knows.) Essentially, more experiments must be run to reach a stronger conclusion. (I may just run this experiment myself, if I get the time.)

Also, there are other factors, like, did you clear your cache before opening each page? But I won't go into that...

But what we CAN safely conclude, though, is that Safari 4.0 is indeed faster than Firefox 3.5, even if it is by very little.

Is kinda a science geek-ish ------------------------------------------------------------------>
TLDR: I wrote a bunch of BS, then countered my own BS. So...samegamereviews is right after all...?

I'm a user of firefox, and I say its pretty good! It's really close knitted, secure, and It has lots of add-ons for random pointless fun. lol

fourinone wrote:If you ask me, according to your results, I would say that Apple DID lie. Apple did not simply claim that Safari was faster than Firefox, it claimed that Safari was 1.92 seconds faster than Firefox. If you look at your empirical data, you found that Safari was only around 0.4 to 0.5 seconds faster than Firefox. That is around a 400% difference. As you can see, Apple was stretching the truth quite a bit. Also, from the point of view of a user, 0.5 is almost negligible, whereas 2 seconds is actually noticeable. So, if I were given that set of data, I would conclude that Apple was indeed lying. (But this is just a different way of looking at the data; your conclusion works as well.)

On the other hand, you did not draw data from a very wide range of websites. You had only Google, a site with very low WTF, and AOL, a site with higher WTF. How much higher, though, you do not know. What if you were to open an extremely large web page filled with images and videos? (I'm talking about the kind in which the scroll bar is only several millimeters tall.) From those sites, you may possibly to receive a WTF difference of over 2 seconds, or maybe even more. If you average those numbers together, you may find that the chart is completely accurate. Also, it may just turn out that Safari has a HIGHER WTF on larger websites. (Although, looking at your two previous trials, the numbers seems to suggest that this wouldn't happen...still, who knows.) Essentially, more experiments must be run to reach a stronger conclusion. (I may just run this experiment myself, if I get the time.)

Also, there are other factors, like, did you clear your cache before opening each page? But I won't go into that...

But what we CAN safely conclude, though, is that Safari 4.0 is indeed faster than Firefox 3.5, even if it is by very little.

Is kinda a science geek-ish ------------------------------------------------------------------>
TLDR: I wrote a bunch of BS, then countered my own BS. So...samegamereviews is right after all...?

Those were some good comments. Just let me tell you it took 50 minutes longer than I thought so I was tired when I finished. I'm sure that Apple used a certain website to obtain the WTF that they needed. (I love saying that like its a real thing! )

If you want to run the experiment (and your a windows user) you should try Safari vs. Internet Explorer or Firefox vs. Internet Explorer ect.
I could always help with the results with a different computer and reaction time ect.

Oh also, human time stopping is not really good.

http://webwait.com/

Example:

runouw.com

10 runs
[1] 1.77
[2] 3.90
[3] 1.64
[4] 2.63
[5] 1.70
[6] 1.53
[7] 1.02
[8] 1.19
[9] 1.08
[10] 1.34

Average load time:
1.78s

here are my results!
runouw.com
[1] 2.99 x
[2] 3.34 x
[3] 1.11 x
[4] 4.06 x
[5] 1.31 x
[6] 1.11 x
[7] 2.12 x
[8] 2.14 x
[9] 2.15 x
[10] 1.13 x
AVG:2.15
google.pl
[1] 0.64 x
[2] 0.27 x
[3] 0.17 x
[4] 0.17 x
[5] 0.23 x
[6] 0.16 x
[7] 0.32 x
[8] 0.26 x
[9] 0.18 x
[10] 0.17 x
AVG:0.26
And, this topic:
[1] 2.69 x
[2] 1.64 x
[3] 2.00 x
[4] 2.62 x
[5] 1.63 x
[6] 3.12 x
[7] 1.84 x
[8] 1.89 x
[9] 1.44 x
[10] 1.54 x
AVG:2.04
NINJA EDIT!
webwait.com
[1] 0.06 x
[2] 0.02 x
[3] 0.02 x
[4] 0.02 x
[5] 0.03 x
[6] 0.02 x
[7] 0.02 x
[8] 0.02 x
[9] 0.02 x
[10] 0.02 x
AVG:0.03(WTH?!?!?)

Superyoshi wrote:Oh also, human time stopping is not really good.

http://webwait.com/

Example:

runouw.com

10 runs
[1] 1.77
[2] 3.90
[3] 1.64
[4] 2.63
[5] 1.70
[6] 1.53
[7] 1.02
[8] 1.19
[9] 1.08
[10] 1.34

Average load time:
1.78s

well that hour was wasted... I guess this experiment is done so mods can lock.