Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Says IE Faster Than Chrome and Firefox

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.'"

12 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. speed is everything? by hatchet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:speed is everything? by Spazztastic · · Score: 4, 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!

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    2. Re:speed is everything? by Max+Romantschuk · · 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

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

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    3. Re:speed is everything? by mpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Fair comparison... by master_p · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. So... by mdm-adph · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  4. Dog bites man by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  5. Re:you are not looking by morgan_greywolf · · 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.

  6. IE6? by Bedemus · · 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.

  7. Re:you are not looking by whereiswaldo · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  8. Re:you are not looking by Opportunist · · 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...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:"Marketshare sets the standard" by elrous0 · · Score: 4, 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'?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.