FireFox 3.1 Leaves IE in the Dust

Anonymous writes "Granted, FireFox 3.1 is just a beta and IE 8 is also in beta, but it looks like Microsoft has some ground to make up when it comes to browser performance. Given that Mozilla appears to be on a much faster cycle than Microsoft with this stuff, it's also possible that it could increase the gap even more before IE 8 is GA, no?"

Comments

Re:Simple Really

[plague3106]

This destroys Microsoft's claim that their intimate knowledge of the OS that runs IE will increase performance.

Really? Where was this claimed?

This proves that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of their OS actually inhibits performance of IE and therefore all other Microsoft products.

That's quite the leap there. Where's your evidence to bridge those thoughts?

The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.

I don't think anyone said using libraries increased performance. What it does do is allow you to build an application faster, because you don't need to re-invent the wheel. You're also acting like speed is the only important factor here. I've been using IE8 beta more because of the built in developer tools, and being able to switch between IE8 standards mode and IE7 mode... which means I don't have to check FF's rendering as much. Besides, IE8 is so fast, that it hardly seems worth if it FF is faster.. either will be great for browsing, because both are now really really fast. It's not like the ridiculously slow IE7.

Add with that experience, superior plugins like NoScript, and you also save bandwidth because Flash files don't load by default and scripts don't tie up resources unless you approve them to do so. NoScript was designed for security, but with the added benefit that you get faster performance with it.

Performance is not the end-all be-all of browsing. I'm sure someone so included could whip up an add-in like NoScript in IE as well.

Even when you look at Google Chrome, which is also a valid attempt at increasing performance (they flaunt security as a pillar of their design, but their cheerleading is unwarranted), the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.

I'm not sure most users care as much as you about controling scripts. For example, I'm looking forward to see what features FF comes up with, because I think there are other new features in IE8 that look pretty compelling, like WebSlices and Extenders.

Re:Simple Really

[MojoRilla]

I've done some research into this, and it seems that primary justification given by Microsoft to commingle IE and the OS is increased functionality.

Microsoft did tout the benefits of integrating IE into the operating system including reduced memory usage and increased functionality (for the OS as well as third parties). See this artcile for a summary of testimony and cross examination of Glenn Weadock.

For users of IE, Mr. Pepperman successfully showed that integration does provide some technical benefits. The sharing of code between IE and Windows 98 will result the saving of memory for those who wish to use IE. Furthermore, over 100 ISVs depend on IE-related code to function. (Even a competing browser requires IE DLLs to operate.)

The appeals court said:

Microsoft proffers no justification for two of the three challenged actions that it took in integrating IE into Windows -- excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and commingling browser and operating system code. Although Microsoft does make some general claims regarding the benefits of integrating the browser and the operating system, it neither specifies nor substantiates those claims.

Re:Java != Javascript

[PCM2]

When is the press going to realize that Java != Javascript? (Or Java !== Javascript, even!)

Heh heh heh. Believe it or not, when I first interviewed for a Senior Editor position at Web Techniques magazine, back around 2000, I had never been any kind of Junior Editor before. I just assumed I could do the job. In the course of several interviews, the editorial staff asked me a number of questions about Web technologies, including one from the editor-in-chief: "What's the relationship between Java and JavaScript?"

I got really nervous for a second. I wasn't sure what to say. My interviewer raised an eyebrow. Finally I stammered out, "Well... I'm not sure I really know how to answer that. The truth is there really isn't much of a relationship." I then talked about Sun's release of Java 1.0, and how Netscape had been working on a language called LiveScript that they planned to include in their browser, and that they changed the name to JavaScript as a favor to Sun. But, I emphasized, the languages were really not very closely related, and I felt a little awkward comparing them without maybe a more specific question. My interviewer jotted down a couple of notes and suggested we move on to another topic.

I later found out that a big part of the reason they hired me, despite my lack of publishing experience at the time, was because of all the candidates they interviewed -- some with years of experience in the trade press -- not one but me had a satisfactory answer to the Java/JavaScript question. Most said something along the lines of "JavaScript is a stripped-down version of Java for Web browsers."

So in answer to your question -- when will the press get a clue -- I'm not sure. But I can testify from firsthand experience that they're working on it! ;-)