Firefox 3.5 vs. Chrome 3 Showdown, Round 1: How private is private browsing?

By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published June 29, 2009, 4:03 PM

Banner: Special series

This is the week that the Mozilla organization is expected to unveil what may very well be the most significant half-point release in its history: the 3.5 edition of the Firefox browser. While Betanews tests confirm the new version literally blows away its own predecessor in terms of speed, operating two-and-one-half times faster in page rendering and functionality on average, your own eyes will tell you it's a much faster browser.

And those same eyes will tell you that Google Chrome is already a much faster browser, by virtue of a supremely fast V8 JavaScript engine that its developers have been refining since version 1 made its debut last year. In recent Betanews tests, the Chrome 3 beta has overtaken the stable release of Apple Safari 4 as the fastest Web browser publicly available, posting a performance index score that's 83% faster than Firefox 3.5 RC3 on Windows XP SP3. So while Firefox has made extremely significant gains, it may take open source developers until version 4.0 for it to catch up with Chrome in the speed department.

Firefox's developers tell Betanews that version 3.5 makes up for that gap in the functionality department, by providing tools and resources that Chrome currently cannot match. We decided to test that theory for ourselves, with a new series of tests that pits the two most viable choices for alternatives to Microsoft Internet Explorer against one another in everyday, real-world tasks.

Chrome users have already come across that browser's "Incognito" function, which brings up a window exclusively for pages whose history and cookies will not be tracked permanently. Firefox 3.5 formally inaugurates a similar feature with "Private Browsing." Yes, we know there's stuff that folks don't want their bosses knowing they're looking at. But the other typical use-case scenario involves folks who are shopping for gifts for other members of the household, and they want those gifts to be secret.

There are certain things that do need to be remembered during an online shopping experience. You find things, you compare them, you make notes, you do research. So our question was, is each browser capable of remembering what it needs to remember and forgetting what it needs to forget?

Our first simple test begins with the "shopping cart" (if either browser fails this test, it shouldn't be shipped). Most shopping sites can maintain a running shopping cart list for their customers, even when those customers aren't logged in. In order for sites to do this, it needs to maintain some kind of session state, which requires a cookie. So this does mean that Incognito / Private browsing maintains cookies, although they should go away after the session ends. At least that sounds about right.

To make sure this is indeed the way these features behave, I started shopping carts on the Web site of one of my favorite tech gear suppliers, Xoxide.com. Here, as is the case with most sites, you don't have to log on as a returning customer to launch a shopping cart. Xoxide is having a Fourth of July sale, and I like to check out the deals in case I want to build yet another computer. My wife might not appreciate yet another glowing receptacle of whirring electronic mayhem adorning our already wire-strewn household, so I begin by shopping incognito with Chrome 3.

Google Chrome 3's Incognito window co-exists with its main window, and both clearly have different user sessions.

Chrome lets you run a standard window alongside the Incognito window, and marks the latter with a little "cloaked spy" icon in the upper left corner. As I start building a little near-term history, my first fear is that it will have some impact on the non-private history outside the Incognito window. So in the main Chrome window, I pull up Xoxide, and I discover that window does not perceive the same shopping cart. That's good.

Next, is there any chance that the history buffer in the main window would "remember" the URL for checking the shopping cart from the Incognito window? With Xoxide, as it turns out, there's one URL for checking the active shopping cart -- and having already done that in the main Chrome window, I've messed up my test. So I have to rig a similar test using a different retailer: Newegg.com. With Newegg, the shopping cart's URL begins with a different prefix, secure.newegg.com. When I begin typing "secure" in the main window's address bar, it does not offer to complete my URL with the shopping cart name from the other window. More good news.

Firefox 3.5's Private Browsing mode works a bit differently: You can't have both private and non-private windows open simultaneously. You have to exit Private Browsing mode (which is marked with the phrase "Private Browsing" in the title bar) to return to standard mode. With Private Firefox, I started a fresh Xoxide shopping cart and chose something new. Then to check whether I left any trail, I exited Private mode and checked Xoxide in the main window. Shopping cart is empty, and there's no trail of it in the history buffer of the "Awesome Bar," which is what I expect.

Next, I return to Private mode. Here is where the "experience" changes: When you exit Private Browsing mode in Firefox 3.5, that is when you erase your trail. Your shopping cart ceases to exist at that point, which truly means Firefox works as advertised.

Next: The trail unravels…

1 | 2 | Next Page →

Comments

View comments by with a score of at least

welcome and thank you for mercy

Score: 0

|

I've been using Chrome Beta 3 for some weeks. I experimented with Incognito, though not with shopping carts. I just went to a porn site and found the history was not kept in the browser, but the site's cookie was. I had to use CCleaner to remove it.

Score: 0

|

Did you reboot prior to looking for the cookie? IIRC, chrome doesn't clear much of the stuff until a reboot occurs.

Score: 0

|

That's useless then.

Score: 1

|

Why? Because it's that hard to shut down the PC?

Score: 0

|

I usually use Standby instead of rebooting daily. Most users would not expect cookies to be stored at all in Incognito.

Score: 1

|

Technically, they aren't supposed to be. I'm sure it's something that they will fix eventually, but for now it requires a reboot. I don't consider it an "End of the World" bug, but I suppose there are people who will see it differently.

Score: -1

|

what about Flash setting cookies?

Score: 1

|

try better privacy:
https://addons.mozilla.org/sk/firefox/addon/6623

to the article, you can't really compare an unstable browser (Chrome) to a stable PLATFORM (Firefox 3.5).
it is like comparing your small yacht with a USS Enterprise ship, both sail, that's about it...

and trusting Google in privacy, what a joke, google lives from advertisement...

Score: 0

|

So where are IE8 and Safari left out?

Score: 0

|

Not sure why Safari was left out, but IE8 was left out because it really does not compare to Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera. IE8 has by _far_ the worst standards support, by _far_ the worst performance, and by _far_ the worst security. Basically, it sucks hard.

Score: 0

|

Ok but this was about privacy, not internet standards...

Score: 0

|

I'm fortunate in the fact that I don't need to deceive my wife with all this newfangled stuff. I never buy the wife a present, and she knows it.

Score: 2

|

When you closed out Chrome completely, before restarting it, did you make sure that no instances of "chrome.exe" were running. I have closed out Chome and still had the process running, it could conserve the cookies until all instances the process have ended completely. Just a possibility.
I am overall impressed with the results of Chrome's Incognito, I found it much easier to use and more enjoyable overall than Firefox's Private Browsing sessions.

Score: 1

|

I generally browse with Chromium nightly builds as my default browser, updating them a few times a week. I'm currently using 3.0.191.0 (19573), and the behavior in this version is completely different than that found in the official release of Chrome. If I close the browser, everything is gone. I just added an item to a shopping cart at Newegg, closed the browser, and went back to Newegg, and the item in the cart is gone. It's hard to believe that the 'official' builds of Chrome behave that much differently than the nightly builds. There may have been a bug in that build preventing cookies from being cleared.

Score: 2

|

I really like Chrome, but Firefox with all its plug-ins, in particular Ad Block Plus and Firebug, make it the browser of choice.

Score: 0

|

My default will always be Firefox=) chrome is not that bad either I use both can't wait to try 3.5 when it comes out both are way better than IE8...

Score: 1

|

It would be nice if Firefox would allow you to simultaneously run a "private browsing" session and a normal session.

Score: 4

|

Good article, but my experience with Chrome is different. I can log into various things (betanews, slashdot, gmail, etc.) and even put some things into a guest shopping cart on various sites (newegg, zipzoomfly, etc.). But when I close Chrome and open it again, it is all gone, without needing to reboot. This is how incognito mode has worked for me in Chrome since day one, am I missing something here?

Score: 4

|

definitely Firefox does it the way it should be.

Score: 0

|

Microsoft's Ray Ozzie: 'Nobody's going to be 100% open'

The mobile apps ecosystems of the world may converge over time, led by apps being ported over across platforms, according to the Chief Software Architect.

Will Firefox beat IE9 to Direct2D rendering?

Just days after Microsoft executives gave conference attendees a peek at a new rendering technology, a Mozilla contributor revealed he's working on the same thing.

Where there's smoke: Apple warranty stance raises troubling questions

Carmi Levy | Wide Angle Zoom: Smoking can be dangerous not only for your lungs, it appears, but for your Apple hardware warranty.

AOL's decision to rebrand as Aol. takes a bad brand and makes it worse

The idea behind the social Web is to crowd source before bringing out something new. But not at AOL, which new logo debuted with a cry of "fail!" across the blogosphere and Twittersphere today.

Microsoft 'worked with Apple' for Silverlight on iPhone, says Goldfarb

By not making such a big deal out of trying to stream video to the iPhone, Microsoft got a big deal out of it, revealed the Silverlight product manager.

Clicker.com cuts through the Web video chaos

In a world where homemade video and Hollywood movies travel the same pipeline, it's good to have a real search engine to cut through the clutter.

A case study in improving software: What Office 2010 can learn from Notion 3

A music composition product gambles with a complete overhaul, in an effort to make headway against two well-known competitors in a tough market.

Kindle 2 update adds battery life, native PDF reader

Amazon has pushed out an update to the Kindle 2 e-reader that lengthens battery life and adds a native PDF viewer.

Safari on iPhone gets competition from a $1 browser app

Apple likes to say it gives iPhone users a full browsing experience, but a new competitor tries to incorporate more desktop browser features.

Action Replay maker sues Microsoft for Xbox 360 'predatory technological barriers'

Third-party video game accessory maker Datel has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft over the Xbox 360's recent Dashboard update.

Microsoft's Bob Muglia and Ray Ozzie on Silverlight vs. standards

Bob Muglia: "We're trying to provide people with an environment that has capabilities that you just simply can't do today in the standards-based world."