Fastest and lightest weight? From what I've heard chrome uses about 1.5x-2x as much memory as firefox, which is known to be a memory whore.

In terms of javascript, I believe that chrome is one of the slowest. For the simple benchmarks that are something like a repeating loop that uses a date it's faster, but for libraries like jQuery (which are now what the majority of web developers use) it's slower.

Speed means nothing. Each browser is fighting each other to load pages milliseconds faster than the others. That's so little that you can't even comprehend it.

Until Chrome allows me to modify its chrome (odd sounding, but correct vocabulary there), I have no use for it. Until then, Firefox will remain my browser because I can transform it in any way I want. My browser is used so much that I have developed it to work as I need it to. Every single thing about it is customized to fit my workflow. Chrome can't do that, thus Chrome is not king.

Chrome doesn't take my cup of tea either unfortunately. Yeah, sure, maybe it's fast... but Eric already showed why that may be flawed. It isn't nearly as customizable as I'd like either, so for now I stick to Fx.

Chrome doesn't have the SimAquarium widget.

Ya know, as long as we're throwing out things we like about other browsers...

Until you use Firefox for five minutes, and then it's using 20x as much as Chrome is with one tab open.

As for the speed of jQuery, this is Chrome on the left, and Minefield on the right. Ignore the color coding, the results are compared against other libraries and the fastest and slowest one are highlighted in each browser (Although you can see that of the libraries tested, jQuery was consistently the fastest one in Chrome).

Can we have a link to the full set of results? Might be useful either way.

It's actually a tester that does it. However, jQuery themselves produced a very complete tested set of results themselves with a high number of trials. I'll go with their answers. linky. Also note that you test you provided is one for selectors only, and does not show the speed of any other operations such as creating elements and so forth. It's hardly a comprehensive test.

In terms of extensions, firefox can't control what you put on there. However, a plain firefox with no extensions is not that bad in terms of memory. Except for extensions, the amount of memory used by a browser does not change based upon how long it's been open. For all amounts of time, Chrome uses 1.5x-2x as much memory.

Safari sucks for Macs. How is it good on Windows?

Nothing Apple is good on Windows. ><

I'm not a fan of Apple products period. So that rules out all those "Fruity" browsers. Chrome has PNG issues, I've found (could be fixed b now).

---

FireFox is my weapon of choice, which other browser lets you skin its UI with a hot Animé chick?
This court stands adjourned...

Opera. For someone addicted to pr0n, it's the safest and most secure.

When did I say anything about iTunes? And you've failed to mention how Safari is anything but suck.

Josh mentioned anything apple sucking, so that's probably where he got that.

Safari is just in general dangerous due to all the security problems (at least it used to be, might have gotten better by now).