Linux calls 60 times faster than IE

Lars Clausen · 16th October 2004, 05:15 PM

If i call my webserver with a Linux based browser client, like Mozilla (standard issue on Red Hat 9) a page is built by PHP in typically 3 mS. This is the time measured by the server to build the page, and skip it off to the local send cache.

If i call the exact same page with any windows based browser client, and on the same network as the Linux machine, it takes +200 mS to build it on the server.

???

The difference can be reduced if i reduce the number of font changes in a page.

Even more ???

Anyone has an explanation for that?

Sch3mat1c · 16th October 2004, 11:55 PM

IE6, I get 0.1 seconds. 75mS for this "create reply" page.

Which reminds me... hey Dan, whyzit report in double precision anyway? It doesn't even *know* what time it took down to 14 decimals...(seeing as there is no such thing as a 100 terahertz computer in existence).

Tim

Geek · 17th October 2004, 05:25 AM

It depends entirely on the browser, not OS.

The fastest Windows browser is a tie between IE6 and Opera 6.x

The fastest Linux browser is Lynx, bar-none. Next is Dillo.

Mozilla is way faster on Linux than Windows because the Linux version is native and can access the shared libraries faster (especially the image libs), while the Win32 version is self-contained.

Geek · 17th October 2004, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sch3mat1c
Which reminds me... hey Dan, whyzit report in double precision anyway? It doesn't even *know* what time it took down to 14 decimals...(seeing as there is no such thing as a 100 terahertz computer in existence).

Lotsa php based scripts do that....isn't that just stupid?

moses · 17th October 2004, 03:58 PM

Actually, as far as console browsers go, Lynx is a slow and bloated piece of crap. Don't even think about try to use it on even a highend 386. Both w3m and links support way more features and w3m uses far less resources. Also as for shared libs verses static, I'd have to say static compiled binaries would have a speed advantage if anything, as only that process can ever have access to them. If anything Mozilla is slow on Windows because Mozilla is just plain slow on most machines, and will always be slower then IE on Windows as IE is part of the OS.

1900 moses 20 0 49664K 38296K kserel 0:16 0.00% 0.00% mozilla-bin

I mean that's just 50M of RAM with mozilla idling. Add a few tabs and different webpages and she really jumps. Firefox does seem to render pages faster on this machine, but it still like it's RAM, a lot.

16th October 2004, 05:15 PM	#1
Lars Clausen diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The Lab	Linux calls 60 times faster than IE If i call my webserver with a Linux based browser client, like Mozilla (standard issue on Red Hat 9) a page is built by PHP in typically 3 mS. This is the time measured by the server to build the page, and skip it off to the local send cache. If i call the exact same page with any windows based browser client, and on the same network as the Linux machine, it takes +200 mS to build it on the server. ??? The difference can be reduced if i reduce the number of font changes in a page. Even more ??? Anyone has an explanation for that? __________________ www.newclassd.com

16th October 2004, 11:55 PM	#2
Sch3mat1c diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Milwaukee, WI	IE6, I get 0.1 seconds. 75mS for this "create reply" page. Which reminds me... hey Dan, whyzit report in double precision anyway? It doesn't even know what time it took down to 14 decimals...(seeing as there is no such thing as a 100 terahertz computer in existence). Tim __________________ See my Electronics webpage -- the home of Vacuum Tube Drag Racing. The key to being a successful Audiophile: "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Synchronization of “Calls to Prayer” in the Arab world	khadija	Everything Else	19	11th June 2009 09:35 PM
How to make sub 'faster'	bvan	Subwoofers	15	27th June 2006 09:47 AM
Design calls for .7mh, is .68 OK?	fazman	Multi-Way	41	3rd September 2005 06:14 AM
Is faster better ?	Alien8	Digital Source	8	5th March 2004 06:02 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

17th October 2004, 05:25 AM	#3
Geek diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2004	It depends entirely on the browser, not OS. The fastest Windows browser is a tie between IE6 and Opera 6.x The fastest Linux browser is Lynx, bar-none. Next is Dillo. Mozilla is way faster on Linux than Windows because the Linux version is native and can access the shared libraries faster (especially the image libs), while the Win32 version is self-contained.

17th October 2004, 03:58 PM	#5
moses diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Aberdeen, SD	Actually, as far as console browsers go, Lynx is a slow and bloated piece of crap. Don't even think about try to use it on even a highend 386. Both w3m and links support way more features and w3m uses far less resources. Also as for shared libs verses static, I'd have to say static compiled binaries would have a speed advantage if anything, as only that process can ever have access to them. If anything Mozilla is slow on Windows because Mozilla is just plain slow on most machines, and will always be slower then IE on Windows as IE is part of the OS. 1900 moses 20 0 49664K 38296K kserel 0:16 0.00% 0.00% mozilla-bin I mean that's just 50M of RAM with mozilla idling. Add a few tabs and different webpages and she really jumps. Firefox does seem to render pages faster on this machine, but it still like it's RAM, a lot.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)