arstechnica.com— Microsoft's own speed tests show IE beating Chrome, Firefox. Microsoft has released its own tests that show IE8 can load many websites faster than two open source browsers: Firefox and Chrome...
Mar 15, 2009View in Crawl 4
The only extension I have on here if FireBug. Using it on an MSI GT735 Laptop (AmD X2 Turion, 4GB RAM, 360GB HD) using Linux Mint 5 on kernel 2.6.24-23
Microsoft might conduct any number of tests, Do you really expect them to release any results that do not favor their product?(i'm sure they must have tested javascript speed and CSS3 compliance, did any of those get published?)Microsoft has a history of conducting, ordering or sponsoring biased tests. Their "get the facts" campaign website used to be full of them. (and it)In this case:They focussed on just 1 browser characteristic and ignored all others, possibly because it was known beforehand that this would be an area where they expected to score well.They loaded all pages into cache before loading it again for testing. See previous objection.Sites that serve different content based on what browser was used (read: scripts that make even Internet Explorer render a page more or less correctly) were discarded.Microsoft Silverlight and Microsoft Media player add-ons were installed on all browsers. So in all cases microsoft code was running and i would not be surprised if the microsoft add-ons for IE received a little more attention to detail from the developers than the add-on for the competition. It is also not a real world scenario as i know plenty of people using firefox, but not one that uses these add-ons.
Excuse me, but these aren't extensions. merely "features".(but then IE does have extensions...it's just that we don't have any that we can name off the top of our heads.)
Being fast isn't the only thing a browser should be. I've got a Firefox extension called Rikaichan that translates Japanese into English. Does IE8 have that? I applaud Microsoft for trying to improve itself. IE8 is a step in the right direction. But that doesn't mean I'm going to drop Firefox. And how about some W3 compliance on the part of Microsoft.
IE6 is prehistoric!! IE6 came out 8 years ago in 2001. Why even measure against it.That is like Apple comparing the latest release of Safari 4 to the last web browser they shipped for Mac OS 9.IE6 was a standards disaster because Microsoft was either unwilling or unable to implement the box model properly. Everyone else was able to get their browser compliant with the W3 spec for box model.
Well, I think we know why there was no Javascript testing.Google, Apple, and the Firefox team all announced huge changes in their Javascript engines that they made to speed them up. Speed started to matter a lot to web browser users & makers the past couple years because Ajax/DHTML has bee used by companies like Google and Yahoo to make full scale apps run in the web browser.Microsoft was mum about speed improvements in their Javascript (well, JScript as they call it just to be different, I suppose). IE still does not have SVG support, which is a major W3 standard for doing graphics, either. IE just lags behind in so many areas.IE keeps dropping off of platforms. Microsoft made an IE for Unix or Linux that appeared and then was gone in the blink of an eye. Microsoft made an IE for Mac OS X that they dropped within a few years.Now IE only runs on one platform and it is the only browser to have that limitation.Safari: Windows, Macintosh. Firefox: everything. How come Microsoft cannot write standards compliant, portable code when everyone else can?
If a web browser's rendering is non-compliant then everyone creates pages that use workarounds that depend on the non-compliance, if they support that browser. Then you have pages that will not look right in other browsers.The result is a lot of workarounds in web pages that make pages bigger, load slower(!), take more time and money to develop!The same holds true of Javascript implementations. IE chose not to use Mozilla's object model for no reason and made up their own. That makes DHTML require two implementations to work: one for everything but IE, one for IE. Rich Internat Application (RIA) libraries have to be bigger/slower because of this.
falafelkioskenMar 15, 2009
no it isn't. buried
marx2kMar 16, 2009
The only extension I have on here if FireBug. Using it on an MSI GT735 Laptop (AmD X2 Turion, 4GB RAM, 360GB HD) using Linux Mint 5 on kernel 2.6.24-23
mithrasinvictusMar 16, 2009
Microsoft might conduct any number of tests, Do you really expect them to release any results that do not favor their product?(i'm sure they must have tested javascript speed and CSS3 compliance, did any of those get published?)Microsoft has a history of conducting, ordering or sponsoring biased tests. Their "get the facts" campaign website used to be full of them. (and it)In this case:They focussed on just 1 browser characteristic and ignored all others, possibly because it was known beforehand that this would be an area where they expected to score well.They loaded all pages into cache before loading it again for testing. See previous objection.Sites that serve different content based on what browser was used (read: scripts that make even Internet Explorer render a page more or less correctly) were discarded.Microsoft Silverlight and Microsoft Media player add-ons were installed on all browsers. So in all cases microsoft code was running and i would not be surprised if the microsoft add-ons for IE received a little more attention to detail from the developers than the add-on for the competition. It is also not a real world scenario as i know plenty of people using firefox, but not one that uses these add-ons.
lockdeltzMar 16, 2009
IE8 is a major improvement over IE7, but does anyone know a good spell checker for IE8?
wikinerdMar 17, 2009
Excuse me, but these aren't extensions. merely "features".(but then IE does have extensions...it's just that we don't have any that we can name off the top of our heads.)
kibbledbitsMar 17, 2009
Hmm next generation of IE tested against current generation of other browsers. Yea that sounds accurate :-/
ren1999Mar 22, 2009
Being fast isn't the only thing a browser should be. I've got a Firefox extension called Rikaichan that translates Japanese into English. Does IE8 have that? I applaud Microsoft for trying to improve itself. IE8 is a step in the right direction. But that doesn't mean I'm going to drop Firefox. And how about some W3 compliance on the part of Microsoft.
wbkangMar 25, 2009
IE4 was actually gazillion times faster than Netscape at the time.
tpboyleJun 20, 2009
Not according to this site it's not <a class="user" href="http://tengrandburiedhere.com/winner.html">http://tengrandburiedhere.com/winner.html</a>
johnnysoftwareNov 17, 2009
IE6 is prehistoric!! IE6 came out 8 years ago in 2001. Why even measure against it.That is like Apple comparing the latest release of Safari 4 to the last web browser they shipped for Mac OS 9.IE6 was a standards disaster because Microsoft was either unwilling or unable to implement the box model properly. Everyone else was able to get their browser compliant with the W3 spec for box model.
johnnysoftwareNov 17, 2009
Well, I think we know why there was no Javascript testing.Google, Apple, and the Firefox team all announced huge changes in their Javascript engines that they made to speed them up. Speed started to matter a lot to web browser users & makers the past couple years because Ajax/DHTML has bee used by companies like Google and Yahoo to make full scale apps run in the web browser.Microsoft was mum about speed improvements in their Javascript (well, JScript as they call it just to be different, I suppose). IE still does not have SVG support, which is a major W3 standard for doing graphics, either. IE just lags behind in so many areas.IE keeps dropping off of platforms. Microsoft made an IE for Unix or Linux that appeared and then was gone in the blink of an eye. Microsoft made an IE for Mac OS X that they dropped within a few years.Now IE only runs on one platform and it is the only browser to have that limitation.Safari: Windows, Macintosh. Firefox: everything. How come Microsoft cannot write standards compliant, portable code when everyone else can?
johnnysoftwareNov 17, 2009
If a web browser's rendering is non-compliant then everyone creates pages that use workarounds that depend on the non-compliance, if they support that browser. Then you have pages that will not look right in other browsers.The result is a lot of workarounds in web pages that make pages bigger, load slower(!), take more time and money to develop!The same holds true of Javascript implementations. IE chose not to use Mozilla's object model for no reason and made up their own. That makes DHTML require two implementations to work: one for everything but IE, one for IE. Rich Internat Application (RIA) libraries have to be bigger/slower because of this.
rockleemanMar 19, 2010
yea... <a class="user" href="http://myideason.com" rel="nofollow">http://myideason.com</a>