Microsoft Says IE Faster Than Chrome and Firefox 532
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.'"
mozilla.com (Score:5, Funny)
Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...
Someone's tripping ballmers if they think IE is faster than FFox.
Re:mozilla.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...
Strangely enough FF opens microsoft.com faster, and they publicly admit this.
Re:mozilla.com (Score:5, Funny)
I would say IE is faster too if I had a fully loaded chair pointed at my head.
speed is everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
IE8 doesn't even have full CSS3 support. No corner-radius? What the heck is MS thinking?
Re:speed is everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>> Speed is everything,
ORLY? http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/
Re: (Score:2)
>> Speed is everything,
ORLY? http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/ [gnu.org]
If you want multiple connections, try axel [freshmeat.net].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't think firefox should be caching hostnames, your OS should be. Otherwise, if you wanted to flush your DNS hostname cache, you'd have to flush the OS cache, and then the firefox cache.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But you *DO* have to restart your browser after flushing the OS cache. Firefox and IE both cache DNS results. Try it.
Re:speed is everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:speed is everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No IE has handled CSS1 fine since IE4. Microsoft pioneered the standard back when they were the underdog. They just never accepted the Mozilla-based correction to it (border-box vs content-box, root vs body). And by the time of CSS2 they had 90% marketshare and had no interest in standards anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You may want to keep up with the stats IE is fast becoming irrelevant for some segment of the Web and is down to 67% globally.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 [hitslink.com]
Re:speed is everything? (Score:4, Informative)
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]
"Marketshare sets the standard" (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, so GM, Ford and Chrysler set the standard for cars in North America?
Preponderance alone does not set the standard. If it did, what exactly would that standard be today?
MS IE 5 or 6?
Re:"Marketshare sets the standard" (Score:5, Insightful)
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'?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Car analogies are rarely accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that everybody is still using the IE.
Because they CAN
It's always the lame excuse of "But we lose clients!".
Then a leading company comes along, and changes the game.
Now everybody else jumps to that train too. Suddenly it's OK.
So the client is forced to update.
And if you were not the leading company, that's why you will always be playing catch-up, until you're bankrupt.
I worked for too long in that business to have any doubt about how this works.
You always get the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Losing clients is hardly just a "lame excuse." I've seen it actually happen. I have, in fact, taken over website projects in the past for clients whose previous developer got canned after delivering a bland site that didn't look particularly professional in IE (because the developer focused so much on making the site's CSS bulletproof). These sites passed W3C validation with flying colors, but they looked like weak tea and cost the developer a client.
But you are right about the possibility of a major comp
Re:speed is everything? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:speed is everything? (Score:5, Funny)
I may not be good, but at least I'm fast.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
/nothing/ has full CSS3 support.
even those browsers that do have corner-radius support don't do it the way the W3C described (with separate x and y radii).
Oh well (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Informative)
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.
So half the time they are better? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
(who only views 25 sites?)
Your typical user, maybe. Off the top of my head I can guess: Online banking, ebay, e-mail, Reuters, and a search engine. I don't think my mother or father use more than 25 websites on a regular basis. Not even I do on a daily basis unless if I am looking into a specific topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are old enough to remember families having a set of encyclopedias, try to remember anyone using the X volume. I never did, after finding out XXX wasn't in there. There is probably a lot of people that don't use more than 25 sites.
Besides, if they tested on 2500 they would lose. PR is PR dude.
Riiight, sure. (Score:4, Funny)
I believe you.
Honest! I do!
Yea, right
Re:Riiight, sure. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd patent covering yourself in purple dye instead, that seems more likely to address the situation when someone beets them.
Re:Riiight, sure. (Score:4, Informative)
Fair comparison... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IE not being portable doesn't keep them from testing it on XP or Vista, nor from testing IE * which isn't released against Firefox 3.1 beta 2 (or beta 3 now). Instead they're announcing results for IE 8, which hasn't been released, against Firefox 3.0.5, which has already been superseded by two more point releases. Chrome, BTW, is up to 1.0.1.154.48 right now. 1.0.0 isn't exactly a fair test against IE 8, either.
How about they test their released software against the competition's released software and thei
Speed not equal to good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I don't see how your comment can apply to an end user. IE7 is the standard that the web is coded to. Sure, I complain about it, but only when I'm doing web development. For surfing the web, IE7 is fine because everything is made to work with it.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, your argument doesn't mean anything to me, since you're apparently forgetting that the version of Internet Explorer that Microsoft's testing isn't released yet.
Let's try comparing IE7 vs Firefox 3, shall we?
What about rendering ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about rendering ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Let me fix this... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Dog bites man (Score:5, Insightful)
But IE8 doesn't work with Slashdot correctly. (Score:2, Interesting)
And to comment I have to use Firefox. Which is what I am using now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt it. Many people (including myself) run the same config and \. loads almost instantly for me every time.
Re:But IE8 doesn't work with Slashdot correctly. (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re:But IE8 doesn't work with Slashdot correctly. (Score:5, Funny)
Umm... considering how safe, secure and (since recently) stable banks are, I dunno if /. is the worse choice for your money.
What it shows (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah? Well... (Score:3, Funny)
My [unreleased Microsoft software] runs [x] faster than your [available and fully released software].
What B$ from M$.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More like:
"My [unreleased Microsoft software] is [theoretically superior] to your [available and fully released software]."
This covers all MS marketing from the dawn of time.
"Don't buy our competitor, we're working on a product which will blow theirs away!"
Every time, in every market, this is their script. When will people learn?
In the case of IE8 performance, what they don't mention is that page render time is mostly irrelevant. The difference between the most performant and least performant browsers are n
No Opera? (Score:5, Informative)
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]:
Re:No Opera? (Score:5, Informative)
That is actually a good idea.
By loading cached pages they test the speed of the renderer and not the speed of the server or internet connection.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone running a site which takes 8 s or even 15 s just to render, should have a hard look at their site design, though. Particularly Adobe at 9 s for a simple static page, seems really wi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those guys writing Opera have done an amazing job over the years. There is a lot of Opera features now copied into the other browsers.
Another thing I like about Opera, they have been busy innovating, instead of threatening firefox and the others with lawsuits.
On my machines, Opera seems the fastest at most things and takes a LOT less memory.
More details.. (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
This epeen waving is getting stupid (Score:2)
Seriously, these speed comparisons are getting stupid and pointless. The major delay in loading websites is waiting for the server to send it, and waiting for the thing to download. There aren't very many websites where the browser actually creates noticable delays on its own.
Can we please have a browser vendor focus on usability and security over "hey I can display this page 0.1 seconds faster then you!"
Javascript ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, every site uses Javascript, but only to track users or fix browsers bugs.
Instead, take a site like GMail, which relies heavily on Javascript, and just open it with IE.
IE is very slow on large pages, when you use JS to manipulate the DOM.
Visual correcteness matters! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
On what platform did they test? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
You know why... (Score:2, Informative)
...IE loads some sites quicker?
Because it does not even understand half of the features of the site (some CSS stuff, much DOM stuff), and just ignores them. ;)
Oh, and of course... (Score:2)
... it has not a single add-in running too...
I stay with my AdBlock Plus, Firebug, BetterSearch,DownloadHelper, FireGestures, Greasmonkey/Greasefire, Venkman, Resurrect Pages, SmoothWheel, TabMix Plus, TagSifter, Web Developer bar, and clean interpretation of the standards. TYVM.
Stupidy, stupidy, stupidy... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a stupid thing for Microsoft to do, because:
(a) if an independent source verifies the test, then nothing will be reported (because there is nothing to report)
(b) if an independent source refutes the test, then Microsoft are liars.
(c) if no independent source tests the test, then no one will believe Microsoft, except those that want justify their existing use of IE.
The smart thing to do would have been to get a completely independent and respected source to run the original test - or to destroy the reputations of IE6 and IE7 by comparing them with a vastly improved IE8 (which would have been trusted results from Microsoft).
Nice but... (Score:2)
I don't use IE or Chrome or Opera or any other browser because Firefox is the only one that works the way I want to work. Remember the days when software worked for you instead of you working for it? FF lets me customize every last bit and piece and as long as it is comparable (ie 3 seconds instead of 1) then I am more than happy and will be unlikely to switch.
I am sure there are plenty of users who take all the defaults and learn to work within the constraints of IE or etc. but I betcha a majority of \.
Exploits abound (Score:2, Interesting)
Cannot reproduce results (Score:5, Informative)
Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
Google.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice that the number one website, Google.com, requires only about 0.2-0.3 of a second to load, which is significantly faster than most of the rest of the sites on the list. Seems reasonable that has something to do with it being number one.
Live.com, on the other hand, takes about 3.4 seconds to load. According to those numbers, I could pull up Google.com, enter a query, and get results before I could even load Live.com's home page.
MS also says that .... (Score:5, Funny)
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...
At this point, that is really low on my list... (Score:3, Informative)
Instead, if IE developers really wants my attention, they'll surpass Mozilla and Safari in proper CSS rendering. How fast browsers render pages is secondary to that standards support, especially when no one browser clearly and consistently blows away the competition in speed (as shown in this 25 browser test).
Well, Duh! (Score:3, Funny)
Fast, Good and Cheap: Pick any Two
MS certainly didn't pick Good !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_triangle [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh. wrong story.
Scientific? (Score:2)
MS said "any list of websites to be used for benchmarking must contain a variety of websites, including international websites, to help ensure a complete picture of performance as users would experience on the Internet."
I wonder: did their test machine also include all the DRM, WGA, etc. that is bundled with Win/IE platform?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The browser wars are almost at that point already, you know,
like when it became irrelevant just how fast your CPU was?
Most of the browsers are "good enough" for the average Joe, so
bragging about the loading times for a particular set of web
sites is falling upon deaf ears.
IE has always been a bug laiden, mish-mashed piece of software
and it became popular only because it came as part of the
windows operating system.
A lot of people use it at least once, to download a copy of their
favourite browser, which then r
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why are you so stubborn?
It's not difficult to believe that according to the company that makes a product, such product is the best around...
Yes, but what they forgot to say (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but what they forgot to say is that IE is faster than Chrome and Firefox, combined!
Re:Really (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:you are not looking (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:you are not looking (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, I'd have to access what version of IE you're using on what version of Windows and what's the rest of your config look like. Because in my experience, with no plugins or other addons installed on either browser and starting from a clean start, with the default configs for each browser, IE6 starts faster on Windows XP. IE8 seems atrociously slow to start on XP, although I've not measured its performance on a tuned Vista configuration.
IE6? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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?
Re:You can dream (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:you are not looking (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:you are not looking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:you are not looking (Score:5, Funny)
Games? Here's a dollar, kid. Go buy yourself a nice candy bar while the adults talk.
Re:you are not looking (Score:5, Funny)
"Fun"? Unix terminals are "fun". Now get the fuck off my lawn!
Reboot your desktop please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes I leave my browser on all day.
However I also reboot my system every day when I wake up to save energy and incidentally $$$$. Unless we are talking about a server why should a computer be on when you are asleep*? That is just irrationally wasteful and when aggregated over millions of users probably to the tune of wasting a who power plants worth of electricity a year, ie hundreds of thousand of tons of carbon. Your uptime bragging rights are NOT worth making global warming worse.
*Admittedly some people
Re:you are not looking (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It also helps to benchmark your beta or release candidate against two point releases back of your most feared competitor who also has a beta available. Why is this IE8 vs. Firefox 3.0.5 rather than IE 7 vs. FF 3.0.x and IE8 vs. Firefox 3.1beta? I think we know. FF 3.1 beta must eat IE8's lunch.
Re:you are not looking (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:you are not looking (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point, and Firefox can't touch IE in terms of damage caused by becoming infected with a trojan.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's more than one way to analyse that table, and the one MS have chosen is not the most obvious one. On a simple total of the time to render all 25, it's a tie: IE at 88.30 seconds and Chrome at 88.32 seconds have a difference well within measurement error, so clearly the competitive advantage isn't as great as you think. Firefox definitely trails, but at 95.62 seconds it's only 8% behind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)