Webkit has
better compatibility but it is quite slow.
Did you just randomly come up with this idea? As far as I can tell
Webkit is like usual, neck in neck with chrome and firefox for
rendering and JS performance test.
Calvin
Of course, I came in with this idea just randomly :)
These browsers have to be tested on a slower computer to see the difference between them.
-Firefox is, from the tests I can do on a slower computer, faster than the others (it
excludes dillo, you'll understand why... I love it, but it's incomplete)
Chrome seems to have the best implementation of Webkit, but it is a modified version of
it.
-Webkit-based browsers (like arora and others) have a nice render, but it takes a lot of
cpu, so it end up being slow on a slow computer.
-KHTML, when it doesn't freeze on a Javascript, is comparable in cpu use and speed to
Webkit, but it loads all the pictures first and only when every single picture is loaded,
it displays the text of the page, so it's very long to see something when you are not
on broadband.
It's sure that they all have their advantages and inconvenients, but they are
amplified on a slower computer. This might be why you haven't seen much difference
between different rendering engines on your computer.
-Alexandre
