They praise Internet Explorer’s SmartScreen filter for protecting users against significantly more social malware than any other current browser, and by the looks of the chart below this is by some significant margin.

In their report the firm describe socially-engineered malware as…

Socially-engineered malware attacks pose a significant risk to individuals and organizations by threatening to compromise, damage, or acquire sensitive personal and corporate information; statistics from 2008 – 2010 show that this trend is increasing at a rapid rate. According to a recent study by AVG, users are four times more likely to be tricked into downloading malware than be compromised by an exploit; criminals continue to increase their use of malware as a cybercrime attack vector. Anti-virus researchers report detecting between 15,000 and 50,000 new malicious programs per day, Kaspersky Lab has even reported detecting up to “millions per month.”

They go on to describe IE’s SmartScreen filter as…

The SmartScreen Filter protection offered by Windows Internet Explorer 9 has two components: URL Reputation, which is included in IE8 and Application Reputation, which is new to IE9. IE9 caught an exceptional 92% of the live threats with SmartScreen URL reputation, and an additional 8% with Application Reputation. IE9 with SmartScreen offers the best protection of any browser against socially engineered malware. Protection against malware targeting European users matched our broader findings from the Q3 2010 global test.

The results are quite something, and other browser makers, Apple, Mozilla and Google will no doubt fight back rigorously with strong statements that their browsers are every bit as safe and secure as Internet Explorer, if not more so.

In the tests though, Internet Explorer 8, the previous generation of Microsoft’s browser, caught 90% of all live threats with IE9 catching 92% and reaching 100% of all threats when the known reputation of applications was factored in.

This is compared to the other browsers.  Apple’s Safari caught just 13% of live threats, Mozilla FIrefox 4 also caught 13% which had dropped from the 19% the browser caught in the same tests last year.  Opera 11 caught only 5% of all threats and Google’s Chrome browser caught, again, just 13% of all live threats.

StartScreen is not a widely talked about feature of Microsoft’s browser.  The company describes it as…

a feature in Internet Explorer that helps detect phishing websites. SmartScreen Filter can also help protect you from downloading or installing malware (malicious software).

They say that is “analyses web pages” as you visit them to “determine iof they have any characteristics that might be suspicious”, “checks the sites you visit against a dynamic list of reported phishing sites and malicious software sites” and “checks files you download from the web against a list of reported malicious software sites and programs known to be unsafe.”

This feature though is only as good as the people who keep the information up to date, which means that a 92% success rate today might not mean you’ll get that tomorrow.

Every week, new social malware is being discovered that is trying to trick users into installing it and surrendering personal information such as their credit card details with ever increasing believability.  The recent attacks on Apple Mac users by Mac Defender is an example of just how convincing this software can be.

The weak link with malware and viruses will always be the user, as it will always be this person who has to click or select something in order for malware to infect their PC.  It’s commonly said that the only safe PC is one that’s still in the box and has never been switched on.

First problem, the report is not online yet. Cnet linked to an old report that contained limited information on the subject, as it was published in August 2009. Only an abstract of the new report is available on the USENIX website.

We study the security and privacy of private browsing modes recently added to all major browsers. We first propose a clean definition of the goals of private browsing and survey its implementation in different browsers. We conduct a measurement study to determine how often it is used and on what categories of sites. Our results suggest that private browsing is used differently from how it is marketed. We then describe an automated technique for testing the security of private browsing modes and report on a few weaknesses found in the Firefox browser. Finally, we show that many popular browser extensions and plugins undermine the security of private browsing. We propose and experiment with a workable policy that lets users safely run extensions in private browsing mode.

So, what are the findings of the report according to Seth? The private browsing modes of Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer and Safari are not necessarily as private as the developer’s claim.

Why is that? Because add-ons may undermine the mode. While the browsers do not store data in private browsing mode, add-ons or extensions may very well do so. There are simply no control mechanisms yet to prevent them from doing so.

But that’s something that the Mozilla Firefox developers have already recognized in February, 2010.

But even if add-ons record activity it may not mean that the privacy is compromised. That largely depends on the data that is stored and how it is stored and made accessible in the browser. Another consideration is that Google Chrome for instance, disables all extensions by default, but gives the user the controls to enable them in private browsing mode.

Lastly, the study did not include the Opera web browser which it should have. What does this all mean for users who use the private browsing mode? That depends. First on the add-ons that they use, and if some store records of private browsing sessions, and second on the dedication and technical knowledge of users who want to spy on someone else’s web browsing sessions.

Browser developers like Mozilla should consider adding a no-extensions policy to the private browsing mode of Firefox, to prevent data leaks in the mode. A more sophisticated solution, like only enabling extensions that are known not to record data in private browsing mode, should be the ultimate goal though.

Two standards are currently competing with each other to become the HTML5 video standard: Ogg Theora and h.264. This would not be such a big deal for computer users if most browser developer’s have not decided to support only one of the two formats.

If you visit Youtube’s experimental HTML5 video page you notice that they make use of the h.264 video codec only meaning that browsers that only support Ogg will not be able to play the videos. Dailymotion on the other hand supports only Ogg, Theora + Vorbis and not h.264.

This means that users will run into situations where they cannot play HTML5 videos even if they browser supports HTML5 because of the different standards and they browser developer who decided to only support one standard.

Here is a list of web browsers and the HTML5 video formats they support (included the minimum version required)

• Google Chrome 3: Ogg Theora and h.264
• Internet Explorer 9: h.264
• Mozilla Firefox 3.5: Ogg Theora
• Safari: h.264
• Opera: Ogg Theora

Which browser is the best for end users? Google Chrome 3 and newer versions obviously as it is the only web browser that supports both video standards. Have a different opinion? Lets here it in the comments.

Two of the most popular web browsers have been compromised on day one of the conference. Both Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Mozilla’s Firefox web browser were compromised on that day meaning that security vulnerabilities exist that have not been patched in the latest versions of the web browsers.

No security researcher even tried to exploit the Google Chrome web browser which many attribute to its sandboxing. Apple’s Safari browser was exploited as well and the Opera web browser, was once again, not even included in the contest.

Video of Internet Explorer 8 being exploited:

Is it safe to say that Google Chrome is the most secure web browser currently? It probably is but that does not mean that there are no exploits for it or that it offers a completely secure environment as Chrome security vulnerabilities have been discovered in the past as well.

If you look at Ghacks for instance you notice that 47% of all visitors that visited our site in the last year have been using Firefox followed by 35% Internet Explorer users, 7.34% Google Chrome users, 4.31% Safari and 3.52% Opera users. It is likely that the stats look similar on other technology sites whereas general websites still see Microsoft’s Internet Explorer at the top.

The picture changes if you look at the stats of December 2009. Firefox lost almost 8% and ranks with 39% behind Internet Explorer which gained 6% and is now at 41%. Google Chrome managed to get another 2% and is close to breaking into the two digits with 9.67%. Safari and Opera both dropped about 0.5% each.

There are two main reasons for the change: Basic keyword optimization brought new visitors to the website of which many prefer Internet Explorer over other web browsers. The second reason is the release of Internet Explorer 8 in March of 2009 which boosted the stats for Internet Explorer.

Google Chrome manages to get marketing share because it it actively promoted by Google on sites like Amazon but also on Google’s own site as well.

Web Browser Predictions:

• Google Chrome will reach 15-20% of market share on tech sites by year’s end.
• Opera and Safari will not be able to gain significant market share.
• Internet Explorer will lose market share (Internet Explorer 8 will gain but 6 and 7 will lose)
• Firefox will lose market share

I will – on a personal note – likely switch from Firefox to either Google Chrome or Opera. Firefox is a great web browser and the main reason for running it as the main web browser are its extensions. But it feels slow and memory hungry. The likely choice as of know is Google Chrome as it supports the Last Pass extension. If someone would port NoScript I would switch immediately.

Could be that I switch back to Firefox once the devs release Firefox 3.6 or 3.7 although 3.6 cannot compete with the speed of Google Chrome or Opera 10.5 alpha. Opera would be the prime choice if the developer’s would consider better extension support so that popular extensions could be ported to the web browser.

What about you? Will you switch web browsers in 2010? What has to happen to make you switch?

It improves on three major points and one of them is better stability for third-party plug-ins. Good to see Apple doing that.

]]> http://www.ghacks.net/2009/11/12/safari-4-0-4-released-update-now/feed/ 3 http://www.ghacks.net/2009/09/15/pbtweet-enhances-twitter-experience/ http://www.ghacks.net/2009/09/15/pbtweet-enhances-twitter-experience/#comments Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:26:19 +0000 Martin Brinkmann http://www.ghacks.net/?p=16387 PBTweet is a bookmarklet and userscript that enhances several aspects of Twitter by changing or adding new functions to the popular social network. Before we start looking at the features a word about compatibility. The bookmarklet works with most Webkit based web browsers including Safari and Google Chrome. The userscripts are compatible with Greasemonkey for Firefox but also with Greasekit for Safari and Chrome userkit.

The features that are added are manifold for a userscript / bookmarklet. PBtweet will display conversations in chain balloons which makes it much easier to follow them on Twitter. It will also remove redundant tweets automatically, add more messages automatically once the end of the page has been reached, insert new messages automatically at the top, expand shortened urls, offer picture previews and indicators and provide access to actions like translating and replying to messages.

The developers have created a demonstration video that is showcasing the functionality of PBTweet which is embedded below. It gives a great visual overview of the features offered by the bookmarklet / userscript.

Interested users find installation instructions and downloads at the developer’s website.

The web browsers of the test were: Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3.5.2 with and without adblock add-on, Google Chrome 2, Opera 9.64, 10.0b3 and Safari 4. Three laptops were used in the test. Two entry level Gateway laptops with AMD and Intel cpus and the ASUS Eee PC 1005HA netbook.

Gateway NV52

Gateway NV58

Asus EEE PC 1005HA

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8 is the web browser that drains the least amount of battery on the two entry level laptops. Most other web browsers with the exception of Safari come close to that results, especially Firefox with the adblock add-on. The benefit of the adblock add-on suggests that web advertisement does have an impact on battery usage. Safari 4 is the only web browser in the test that performed worst in all three tests.

Google Chrome 2 was first in the netbook test with all other web browsers close by except for Safari which completely drained the battery of the netbook more than two hours earlier than the other web browsers.

Even if the test needs to be replicated with a larger website sample size it seems to indicate that laptop users are better off without the Safari web browser. Internet Explorer 8, Mozilla Firefox with adblock and Google Chrome were the best performing web browsers in the test.

Xmarks, a company that is offering plugins to sync bookmarks between installations of Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Safari, have now announced that a limited beta release for the Google browser is available on their website. Limited beta in this case means that users with an Xmarks account can join the waiting list of the Google Chrome Xmarks beta plugin. They will be notified once they are able to download the plugin for the Google Chrome web browser.

The developers mention scaling and stability reasons for limiting the beta downloads in this stage. Google Chrome users who are interested in the plugin should sign up for the alpha on the Xmarks website. They also need to ensure that they are running a development build of the Google browser with extensions enabled. Several features of the bookmark syncing plugin are currently not included in the Google Chrome version of the plugin including missing support for custom bookmark servers, syncing profiles and the discovery feature.

Xmarks for Chrome is the first Google Chrome plugin that syncs bookmarks between different web browsers.

The test analyzed the web browser’s phishing protection. Both Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3 (that is Firefox 3.0.11 and not Firefox 3.5) managed to score an average block rate of 83% and 80% during the 14 days of testing. Opera 10 managed to block 54%, Google Chrome 26% and Safari a whopping 2%.

The average phishing URL catch rate for browsers over the entire 14 day test period ranged from 2% for Safari 4 to 83% for Windows Internet Explorer 8. Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3 were the most consistent in the high level of protection they offered. Statistically, Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3 had a two-way tie for first, given the margin of error of 3.96%. Opera 10 beta came in third due to inconsistent protection during the test. Chrome 2 was consistent, albeit at a much lower rate of protection, and Safari offered minimal overall protection.

The test analyzed the average response time to phishing attacks. Internet Explorer 8 finished first with an average response time of about 5 hours closely followed by Firefox and Google Chrome. It took Opera about double the time and Safari more than 10 times to protect against emerging phishing attacks.

Many users will criticize the test because it has been sponsored by Microsoft. This alone should not be reason to dismiss the findings as inaccurate. There have however been accusations of manipulated reports by NSS Labs in the past which are for example mentioned in a blog post at the Opera website. Some of the points of criticism like mixing beta and final versions or limiting test urls to a very low number are also valid points in the new report.

Even critics have to admit on the other hand that Microsoft has made progress with Internet Explorer 8. The web browser might still not be as fast as the others but it is definitely a solid web browser which could be the most secure web browser when it comes to protecting users from phishing attacks. It has to be noted that the test is only considering the automated protection.

Microsoft’s new proposal could ultimately remove Windows 7E from the operating system landscape. They suggest to provide a ballot screen after installation giving users the choice to install a web browser of their choice from a selection of possible alternatives including Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera and Safari.

A mockup screen was posted that visualizes how the ballot screen could look like (please note that the browserballot.eu website is currently not working)

Additional blank spots are reserved on the right side of the screen that could be filled with additional web browsers if requested or needed. It should be noted that this new proposal would mean that Internet Explorer would be installed as the default web browser during installation of the operating system and that the ballot screen would be displayed afterwards to give the user the option to install another web browser and make it the default browser on the computer system.

Microsoft’s proposal is available at the Microsoft Presspass website.

FavBackup is a web browser backup and restore application for the Windows operating system that supports the five popular web browsers Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari and Google Chrome. Users can use FavBackup to backup and restore web browser settings and files.

FavBackup displays a list of options and web browsers in its interface upon startup. It should be noted that the software program is fully portable and does not require an installation. The options include creating a backup of the selected default web browser installation, of all selected web browser installations and to restore these settings again. Only one web browser can be backed up or restored at a time. It is for example possible to backup all different versions of Firefox or Google Chrome using the safe backup option. Backing up Firefox and Internet Explorer on the other hand would require two backup runs.

The difference between the backup and safe backup option is that the former only backs up the default web browser installation while the second will backup all installations of the selected web browser. FavBackup will display a list of settings and files that can be backed up after making the selection. This includes backing up bookmarks, cookies, plugins, extensions, preferences and history among other things.

One interesting aspect of the program is that it is possible to restore less data. It is for example possible to only restore bookmarks or cookies although a full browser backup has been created during the backup phase.

There are a few things that should be improved by the developer though. The first would be to provide an option to backup multiple web browsers at once. This is more comfortable than having to start the backup software multiple times to backup all installed browsers. An option to backup portable versions of the web browsers would also come in handy. Finally support for Opera 10 has to be added so that it can be backed up as well.

FavBrowser is a free portable software program for the Windows operating system that can be used to backup and restore web browsers easily.

A web browser memory usage comparison was recently posted a the Dot Net Pearls website that compared the memory usage of the Google browser Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Opera 10 and Safari. The web browsers were configured to open 30 tabs over the command line which where then closed manually by the author except for one. A script running in the background recorded the memory usage of all processes during that time which were then used in the comparison.

The results of the web browser memory usage benchmark were then divided into three chars displaying the maximum, average and final memory used by each of the tested web browsers. The Mozilla Firefox web browser used the lowest amount of computer memory of all tested web browsers while the Google Chrome browser showed very high maximum and average memory usage.

And here is where the tester got it wrong. To compute the memory usage all processes where taken into consideration which effectively meant double-counting the shared memory for each process. As the Chromium blog points out:

If you’re measuring memory in a multi-process application like Google Chrome, don’t forget to take into account shared memory. If you add the size of each process via the Windows XP task manager, you’ll be double counting the shared memory for each process. If there are a large number of processes, double-counting can account for 30-40% extra memory size.

To make it easy to summarize multi-process memory usage, Google Chrome provides the “about:memory” page which includes a detailed breakdown of Google Chrome’s memory usage and also provides basic comparisons to other browsers that are running.

Google Chrome’s result would still be higher than that of Firefox even after the adjustments but this is one of the trade-offs of a multi-process browser (which Google Chrome is). You would get the same result with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8 if the tester would have tested that web browser as well. This was apparently not possible due to technical difficulties.

Another aspect that needs to be mentioned is the test result of the Opera web browser. Opera is using an automatic setting called Automatic RAM Cache that is enabled by default. This allocated about 10% of the computer memory by default and should be disabled in memory benchmarks. Opera would most likely still have been beaten by Firefox but the gap would probably have been lower.

Start Panic tries to raise public awareness for Internet privacy issues on their website. They have implemented a script that will gather information about previously used websites from the user’s web browser. Two aspects make this interesting. The first is that it is a cross-browser solution. It works in all major web browsers including Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and Safari. The second aspect is that it will display results even if the user clears his web browser’s history, cookies and cache regularly. The current browsing session is recorded normally in all web browsers which usually have options to automatically clear these traces on exit only.

The process is started by the user who has to press the Let’s Start button. It can take a minute or two before the results are displayed. The list should contain the list of websites that have been visited in this browsing session. It might contain more websites if the user is not deleting the history regularly.

Little is revealed about how the script does its magic but it seems to rely on JavaScript. Anyone with JavaScript disabled in the web browser does not have to fear this privacy issue.

How does it work? Without going into much detail a virtualization technique is used that emulates OS subsystems that allow virtualized applications to be run. These applications are run in sandboxes to avoid conflicts to the host system and other applications.

The virtualization technique is not limited to web browsers but can practically run any applications like video players, file sharing tools or Twitter clients. The available applications and web browsers can be started from virtually any modern web browser including Internet Explorer, Firefox or Opera. Firefox users will need to install a Firefox add-on that is provided on site before they can launch any applications.

A click on any web browser listed on the Xenocode website will launch the sandboxing process. This will start a Xenocode executable on the host system and the desired web browser. The core application uses about 25 Megabytes of computer memory and the applications launched in the sandbox use about 25-30 additional Megabytes.

It is a bit strange though that the core process will remain in memory even after closing down the sandboxed web browser. There is no obvious way to close the Xenocode application itself other than killing it in Windows Explorer. A fast computer system is definitely beneficial when running the sandboxed web browsers.

Xenocode provides an interesting way of test driving web browsers. The service could use some additional documentation and a close option for the core program though.

The question to ask is therefor the following: Why is the Mozilla Firefox web browser more popular than the other three Internet Explorer contenders? Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is in a unique position as it is distributed automatically with the Windows operating system ensuring a large chunk of the web browser market share for Microsoft automatically.

A look at a comparison of all five web browsers at Google Trends and their search and news volume over the last five years reveals some interesting information. Firefox started to become the most searched after web browser in 2004 and was able to keep the lead until today. The other web browsers spiked at specific times, e.g. during the release of Google Chrome, but failed to take advantage of those spikes.

Mozilla Firefox (light blue line) definitely gets more press coverage than the other web browsers which might be one of the reasons for its popularity. If you open a computer magazine you will most likely find Firefox articles but rarely anything about Opera, Chrome or Safari.

Speed or compatibility are most likely not a deciding factor for the popularity as all web browsers are speedy and stable enough to provide a good user experience. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is still lagging behind speed wise but the latest Internet Explorer 8 made a huge jump in this regards and is closing in on the other web browsers.

The main reason for Firefox’s success is its extensibility. Firefox add-ons are increasing the possibilities of the web browser enormously and they also ensure that any new popular feature that might be introduced by another web browser company will be offered to the Firefox community as well. The main advantage of this approach is speed. When Opera introduced Speed Dial it took only a short time before the first Firefox add-ons appeared that mimicked that feature.

Ten years ago it would have taken months or even years as those features would be implemented by the developers of the web browser directly. The add-ons ensure that Firefox stays on top or close to the top in all regards. This is something that no other web browser is offering currently. Microsoft tried with the Internet Explorer Marketplace but it never gained the popularity that it needed to take off. Opera tried with their Widgets. Widgets are small extra windows that provide many of the features that add-ons do. The main problem for many users is that the widgets cannot be integrated into the web browser’s interface. Both Safari and Chrome do not offer something similar yet. The extensibility is obviously not the only reason for the success but it makes a huge difference.

Now it’s time to chime in and let me hear your opinion. What do you think about web browser popularity?

This may however be not the only problem associated with private browsing. A recent paper by security researcher Kate McKinley confirms deficiencies in all web browsers and especially in Apple’s Safari. Not only normal cookie and data handling was tested but also plugin related handling of Flash and Google Gears data. The surprising result was that no browser passed all private browsing tests.

In fact, all of the existing private browsing modes have some form of data which is not cleared when users enter or leave private browsing modes. Although Chrome cleared the only tested type of data it stored, it was surprising to find that Gears data was not cleared, since Gears is included in the browser. However, this behavior is consistent across all browsers tested, as we will see later.

Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 clears cookies and session storage properly, but the persistent storage (window.globalStorage) is preserved between a normal and private browsing session.With IE 8 (Beta 2), both cookies and session storage were cleared properly, however the IE user Data stores were not cleared between the normal and private browsing sessions.

Safari on Windows fared the worst of all in these tests with respect to private browsing, and did not clear any data at all, either before entering or after exiting the private mode. On OSX, Safari’s behavior was quirky; in no case was the HTML 5 database storage cleared before or after private browsing. Previously set cookies seem to continue to be available if the user entered a private browsing session, but if the user started the browser and went directly into private browsing, it seemed to behave as expected.

All browsers have troubles with Flash Cookies and their private browsing modes. This is largely due to the way Flash Cookies are created and stored (without user interaction and means to display warnings). So what’s the conclusion in this matter? Users who like to use the private browsing mode should not use Apple’s Safari in its current stage. They should also make sure to either disable Flash and other third party plugins or use settings that prevent them from acting automatically (for example by using NoScript in Firefox).

Check out the Flash Cookies Explained article if you want to read up on Flash Cookies and find out where they are stored and how they can be deleted from a computer system.

The browsers were tested running the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark, Kane’s Web Browser Javascript Benchmark and the Acid 3 test. Feel free to run the tests with your web browsers but note that results will vary as the computer’s hardware influences the test on different systems.

The only way to compare results is by running the tests on the same computer system using the same environment. The first two tests are testing the JavaScript engine of the web browser while the Acid3 test is a web standards test.

SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark (Less is better, time in ms)

Kane’s Web Browser Javascript Benchmark (Less is better, time in ms)

Acid 3 Test (more is better, max is 100)

All values:

Google Chrome managed to beat the competition in both Javascript tests. Opera 10 Alpha on the other hand was the only browser that scored a perfect score in the Acid 3 web standards test.

Internet Explorer 7 was last in all three tests. Microsoft has made advancements in Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2 but is still way behind in comparison to the other web browsers.

Cnet used the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark to test browser performance of the browsers. There are other factors that have an impact on JavaScript performance like the processing power of the computer system.

The results were that the latest Firefox 3.1 beta with the new JavaScript engine TraceMonkey was the fastest with a score of 2,257, followed by Chrome with 2,904, Firefox 3 beta 1 without TraceMonkey with 4,233, Safari 3.1.2 with 6,351 and Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2 at the end with a score of 9,025.

Cnet failed to test any version of Opera and should probably have tested the latest nightly test of Safari instead. Here are the results that a Windows XP service pack 3 with a Intel 8400 Wolfdale processor and 4 Gigabytes of computer memory.

• Firefox 3.1 Beta 1 without TraceMonkey- 1800
• Firefox 3.1 Beta 1 with Tracemonkey 1817
• Firefox 3.03 – 2139
• Opera 9.6 – 2736

It’s a bit surprising that Firefox without TraceMonkey was faster than Firefox with it enabled. It could be due to the fact that the portable version of Firefox has been used to run the tests. But the interesting question is, how does your browser compare? You need to run at least two browsers to be able to tell how it compares to the other browser.

Keep in mind that JavaScript performance is not everything and that page loading time is dependent on additional factors.

His application recorded the memory usage of the browser every three seconds over a period of three hours each and the graphs show clearly that there does not seem to be an end to Safari’s memory hunger. In the end Safari was using more than 630 Megabytes of RAM compared to 111 Megabytes for Firefox 3, 191 Megabytes for Flock, 190 Megabytes for Opera and 194 Megabytes for Internet Explorer 8.

The conclusion of the author is that “Safari on Windows shows extremely poor memory management [..] certainly a design that looks inefficient and seems to contradict Apple’s marketing”.

Firefox 3 on the other hand seems to have memory efficiency written all over its face.