Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Says IE Faster Than Chrome and Firefox

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Mar 12, 2009 07:55 AM
from the well-we-all-have-to-design-for-the-broken-thing dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to its own speed tests, Microsoft's Internet Explorer loads most websites faster than both Chrome and Firefox when looking at the top 25 websites on the Internet. 'As you can see, IE8 outperforms Firefox 3.05 and Chrome 1.0 in loading 12 websites, Chrome 1.0 places second by loading nine sites first, and Firefox brings up the rear by loading four sites faster than the other two browsers. Also, in case you missed it, IE loads mozilla.com faster than Firefox, and Firefox loads microsoft.com faster than IE, just for kicks.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • mozilla.com (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bert64 (520050) <[moc.eeznerif.todhsals] [ta] [treb]> on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165245) Homepage

    Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...

  • by hatchet (528688) on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165251) Homepage
    I don't care if page loads faster if it doesn' show correctly. I bet lynx can load it faster than IE, but that doesn't make it the best browser.

    IE8 doesn't even have full CSS3 support. No corner-radius? What the heck is MS thinking?
    • by Spazztastic (814296) <spazztastic@gmail. c o m> on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:03AM (#27165313) Homepage

      Speed is everything, which is why I don't use it. Maybe if it didn't take more than 2 seconds to open a new tab (CTRL+T), I would be able to give IE7 some credit.

      Guess how long it takes on Firefox? Instant! No "Connecting..." or locking up!

        • by mpe (36238) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:43AM (#27165873)
          My experience with Firefox somehow differs a bit from yours. I used to see Firefox spend a lot of time in DNS queries for *everything*. Even if it's a host I just visited about a minute before. As a result I set up dnsmasq running on my computer and modified /etc/hosts so that every query goes through the local DNS cache. It's been working pretty well since. The wait time is dramatically reduced.
          Of course Firefox is not all to blame for the slow DNS but it shouldn't be making queries *that* often either, IMHO.

          BR>Actually it probably doing exactly what it should be doing. It's the job of the OS to manage the details of DNS resolution. Having applications do things like caching DNS lookups adds complexity to the application and causes all sorts of problems when they application writer dosn't know exactly what they are doing.
    • by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:09AM (#27165405) Homepage

      IE8 doesn't even have full CSS3 support. No corner-radius? What the heck is MS thinking?

      And you Sir, are clueless as to the current state of CSS3.

      Huge parts of the standard are still in the working draft stage.
      http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work [w3.org]

      Supporting a subset of CSS2 or CSS3 correctly is much more important. Bugs are far worse problems than omissions.

    • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:33AM (#27165735)

      You bring up an interesting point. It seems that we're approaching territory where the marginal increase in speed really isn't that significant. At this point the need for the greater marginal increase in accuracy would be much more appreciated than speed.

      That's why I have a hard time taking *any* of these software companies seriously when the only thing they can brag about is how incremental their speed increases are.

    • by EatHam (597465) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:38AM (#27165803)
      It's just like I say with sex...

      I may not be good, but at least I'm fast.
      • by pbhj (607776) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:35AM (#27165755) Homepage Journal

        But the reality is that, until they can be driven to under 50% of the browser market share, they pretty much get to set the standard.

        They, Microsoft, get to set the lowest common denominator, the truth is though that most designers will be using progressive enhancement meaning that Saf, FF, Op, Konq are getting a nicer overall look with slicker running features whilst MSIE is getting either a "degraded" view or a separately developed page (I'm considering MS targetted CSS to be separately developed).

        Basically, as a web designer since 1996-ish (and commercially for the last 5 years or so) I consider that MSIE has been holding things back all along. Less so now, but they're still not leading the way.

        As for CSS3. If MS had included some basics, like rounded corners and columns, then we could have started making some headway with a less hacked together internet. Moz and Webkit have these things already waiting for the spec to be finished.

        http://www.quirksmode.org/css/multicolumn.html [quirksmode.org]

        • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday March 12 2009, @09:05AM (#27166199)

          If they were one big company, and controlled 75% of the market share, of course they would. Let's say this super car company existed. And all the cars they built were tall and so required 7' of clearance. Now some worldwide body comes along and says the real "standard" for cars is that they should require no more than 5' of clearance. And a few smaller startup car companies embrace that 5' standard and start building shorter cars (and they capture about 20-25% of the market).

          Now, you're building a fast-food business in the U.S. and your building the cover for the drive-thru. Do you build it to 5' just because some international body said that was the "standard" or do you recognize the REAL standard and build it to at least 7'?

  • Oh well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arndawg (1468629) on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165253)
    A more useful test would perhaps be testing firefox 3.5 vs ie8 and chrome 2.0? Firefox 3 is already getting "old".
      • Re:Oh well (Score:5, Informative)

        by jabithew (1340853) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:39AM (#27165817)

        IE8 is still in beta, like FF3.5 and Chrome 2.0. By comparing the latest build of IE vs. old builds of Chrome and FF they're comparing apples* and pears.

        *No jokes about Safari.

  • by forand (530402) on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165255) Homepage
    How is this "good" they test 25 sites (who only views 25 sites?) and IE is faster 12/25. This doesn't seem very compelling at all. They don't even have a simple majority on their side.
  • by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot.exit0@us> on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165257) Homepage
    To Microsoft:

    I believe you.

    Honest! I do!

    Yea, right

  • Fair comparison... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by master_p (608214) on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165261)

    ...Microsoft tests its own release candidate software on its release candidate operating system and finds it faster than existing tried-and-tested software.

    Very fair.

  • by christurkel (520220) on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165267) Homepage Journal
    This doesn't mean a thing because while IE7 is fast; I use it at work everyday, it also breaks many web standards and does things in non standard ways. Speed isn't the issue here.
  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mdm-adph (1030332) <mdmadph@gmELIOTail.com minus poet> on Thursday March 12 2009, @07:59AM (#27165269) Homepage

    ...it's faster than the soon-to-be-old version of Firefox, and the soon-to-be-old version of Chrome. Way to stay ahead of the pack, there.

    Though, to be honest, that's actually not to bad for IE.

  • by wooferhound (546132) <tim@@@wooferhound...com> on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:01AM (#27165277) Homepage
    Sure it loads up sites faster, that's because microsoft left out all the code that renders the web pages properly . . .
    • by lhoguin (1422973) on Thursday March 12 2009, @09:05AM (#27166209) Homepage

      It is indeed funny but that's quite possibly one of the reasons that makes it be faster. The more you support, the slower it gets and the more you have to optimize to get the same speed as a less complete implementation.

      Their claims won't have much value until they get to the same level of standard support as the other browsers.

  • by Maxim Kovalenko (764126) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:01AM (#27165289) Homepage
    "Loads most malware faster?" See, corrected it. It is IE after all ;)
  • Dog bites man (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vivaoporto (1064484) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:02AM (#27165301) Homepage
    Upcoming version of browser outperforms current version of competitors is not remarkable. A most relevant comparison would include Firefox 3.1 (already in Beta) and Safari 4 (also in Beta).
  • What it shows (Score:5, Interesting)

    by William Robinson (875390) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:05AM (#27165347)
    that..Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox, and has to come up with some such FUD. A healthy sign about status of Firefox.
  • No Opera? (Score:5, Informative)

    by krou (1027572) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:09AM (#27165393)

    I prefer Firefox, but even I know Opera is amazingly quick.

    Regardless, since when is the speed of loading a website the measure of a good browser?

    Also, it's worth pointing out that this test shows IE is faster at loading cached pages, not uncached websites. From their paper [microsoft.com]:

    In the Internet Explorer lab: We visit each site prior to starting any site test. âoePreloadingâ the cache prior to a test helps ensure systems are at a known base before starting.

  • More details.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bert64 (520050) <[moc.eeznerif.todhsals] [ta] [treb]> on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:10AM (#27165411) Homepage

    It would be interesting to know what exactly those sites send to the browsers (many sites check your user agent and serve up different files depending on your browser, mainly because of ie behaving differently to every other browser out there)...

    It would also make more sense to load local caches of the sites, or network conditions could affect things (especially things like dns caching etc)...

    IE is massively behind other browsers when it comes to things like CSS, so i would imagine it has a lot less processing to do (Seeing as it ignores big parts of the spec), lynx also ignores big parts of the html/css specs and it subsequently loads sites very quickly.

    Also, comparing IE8 (in beta) Chrome (in beta) against firefox 3.05 (production and fairly old) seems a rather unfair and pointless test... And where were Opera and Safari in these tests?

  • Javascript ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eulernet (1132389) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:12AM (#27165449)

    And what about Javascript ?
    Frankly, GMail is super slow on IE7, not because of page loading, but because any Javascript in IE is super slow.
    In TFA, there is no site with Javascript !

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:16AM (#27165497)

    It's true that IE8 loads pages blindingly fast.

    What MS is missing, however, is that not all pages are supposed to be all blue background + some white text at the top.

  • by MoreDruid (584251) <moredruid@ g m ail.com> on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:17AM (#27165505) Homepage Journal
    are the benchmarks done on OS X, linux & Windows?
    I didn't RTFA, but it would be fair to run all applications on different platforms and see if it makes a difference. I bet they didn't do that.
  • by rhdv (748688) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:43AM (#27165879) Homepage
    After reading the original report I tried to reproduce a simple test for the adobe home page. I used Firefox 3.0.7 and pre-loaded the adobe home page (as suggested in the report), I closed the tab and opened a new one and reloaded the adobe home page. It loaded in 2 or 3 seconds instead of the 9 seconds in the report. I am not sure what to make of this report if a simple experiment to reproduce the measurements fails on the first try. I ran the test on Windows XP Professional SP3.
  • Meh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:47AM (#27165947)
    Companies have always made comparisons between their products and competitors' products. Sometimes they even skew the comparison so their product is shown as better. MS is no different. First they use their unreleased future product IE8 against their competitors' current products. Second they use a somewhat meaningless metric: Speed to load. The main complaints about IE in general is that is unwieldy, doesn't follow standards, and it is slow. Ironically this test only proves that. I'm not an expert in web browser engines but it seems to me that an engine performs faster when it does not have to render. Coming across a webpage with things it can't render, it will perform faster as it ignores those elements. Mozilla.com is probably a lot more web standards compliant than Microsoft.com. So IE will load mozilla.com faster as it will ignore many things. The reverse is true for Firefox on microsoft.com as it will ignore all the nonstandard elements. In the end the comparison is rather meaningless until they change the conditions.
  • by Jerry (6400) on Thursday March 12 2009, @09:25AM (#27166487) Homepage

    they didn't stuff the ISO committees, or bribe Nigerian distributors, nor sabotage the OLPC, hide illegal agreements violating the GPL behind NDAs.... and the list goes on and on and on...

    • by G3ckoG33k (647276) on Thursday March 12 2009, @09:15AM (#27166343)

      Yes, but what they forgot to say is that IE is faster than Chrome and Firefox, combined!

    • Re:Really (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mostly a lurker (634878) on Thursday March 12 2009, @11:15AM (#27168387)
      The speed at which Firefox starts and the time to load pages is heavily dependent on the extensions in use. For me, Firefox startup is pretty slow (about 5 seconds) because of my pretty extensive Adblock lists. Most pages load quite fast, helped by the Adblock lists. The speed at which Internet Explorer starts and loads pages is heavily dependent on how long ago a fresh install was done. Until the malware starts accumulating it can be pretty reasonable.
      • IE always has been faster. And I'm a firefox fanboy. Even with the bulk of add-ons stripped out, FF is still sluggish. IE is practically part of the OS, and that's a competitive advantage that FF can't beat. It just beats IE in every category other than speed.

        No. On Windows, IE starts faster than Firefox, much the same way Safari starts faster on Mac OS X (big surprise). However, even on Windows, the latest versions of Firefox beat IE in rendering and Javascript performance benchmarks.

        Sounds like Microsoft has been taking lessons from the NVidia and ATI/AMD School of Benchmarking. Lesson one at that school: pick some subset of data and "optimize" your benchmarks until they make your product look faster.

        • by ta bu shi da yu (687699) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:17AM (#27165507) Homepage

          I can't agree. The startup time of IE on my work Windows PC is atrocious. Firefox beats it every time. And I use IE extensively every day.

          • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:44AM (#27165883)

            Wait, wait, who cares about startup times. You mean, like, you actually close your browser?

            Now, don't tell me you also reboot your system.

            Let's be fair here. For the longest time, the argument of Linux booting slowly has been rebuked with a tongue-in-cheek "I see where you come from, but real systems needn't be rebooted every other hour to remain stable". For me it's the same with browsers, I close them once every couple days.

            Yet, sadly, I have to agree that FF has a problem here. It becomes really, really sluggish (and a mem hog) after a few days...

          • by stewbacca (1033764) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:44AM (#27165905)
            IE sluggishness is so bad, that even though we aren't allowed to have any other browser on our computers, I use Firefox. That's right, IE is so bad, I risk disciplinary action to avoid having to use IE. The best part about the "You will use IE7 or higher only" mantra of our idiot IT department is that our time card website doesn't work with anything beyond IE6, so we all have to run a stupid little script that fools IE7 into thinking it is IE6.
            • IE6? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Bedemus (63252) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:38AM (#27165805)

              The load time of IE6 is irrelevant. It's a nearly 8-year old browser, service packs notwithstanding. Lynx starts up faster than just about anything, but you don't see people bringing it up, because it doesn't belong in this discussion.

              • You can dream (Score:4, Informative)

                by coryking (104614) * on Thursday March 12 2009, @10:21AM (#27167469) Homepage Journal

                When 25% of your traffic uses it, you can't ignore it. All you can do is spitefully send out an "X-IE6-Detected: You suck, upgrade you bum" header and an extra stylesheet to feed them your alpha-blended PNG's as shitty GIF's. Well, that and pull your hair out trying to get some JavaScript stuff working.

                What really irks me is when I see *NBC news shows using screenshots where the browser is IE6. Hey Microsoft IE Team, go bug your subsidiary's and get them to upgrade! Some hot shot CEO from $BANK is probably watching and will make their IT staff "upgrade" from IE7 to IE6--after all, CNBC is using it so it can't be bad, right? Then $BANK=>$FED.Bailout($BANK.FileBankruptcy());

                On that note, has anybody seen a webpage screen shot on TV were the browser was not IE? And does it make one an official nerd when you date TV shows by the style of monitor they use and the OS they are running?

                  • by twistedsymphony (956982) on Thursday March 12 2009, @11:03AM (#27168195) Homepage

                    Yes a local Fox station clearly shows Firefox. The OS is not shown.

                    oh no! don't say that! slashdot's readship will be more than halved as all those who hate Fox News but love Firefox will suffer from exploding head syndrome.

            • by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Thursday March 12 2009, @09:30AM (#27166547) Homepage Journal

              And the emulation is so good, that accessing a floppy drive freezes all activity on the entire machine, simply because the original circa 1980 IBM PC power supply was only capable of supplying 87.5 Watts.

              There's a limit to how far you should go with backwards compatibility.

      • by whereiswaldo (459052) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:39AM (#27165813) Journal

        Good point, and Firefox can't touch IE in terms of damage caused by becoming infected with a trojan.

    • by Vornzog (409419) on Thursday March 12 2009, @08:34AM (#27165741)

      I can't do online banking with Wachovia, and SLASHDOT corrcetly (sic)

      Banking with Slashdot? Forget which browser you use - there's your problem!

      If Slashdot were a bank, we'd have all sorts of problems with easily detectable duplication of small bills, and none other than Cowboy Neal for security. Also, instead of those little suckers you get at most banks, you'd probably end up being offered hot grits...

      My money will be staying under the mattress, thanks!