Slashdot Mirror
IE 9 Beta Strips Down For Speed
CWmike writes "Those who have written off IE as being slow and old-looking are in for a surprise. The just-released Internet Explorer 9 beta is dramatically faster than its predecessor, sports an elegant, stripped-down interface and adds some useful new features, writes Preston Gralla. Even more surprising than the stripped-down interface is IE9 beta's speed. Internet Explorer has long been the slowest browser by a wide margin. IE9 has turned that around in dramatic fashion, using hardware acceleration and a new JavaScript engine it calls Chakra, which compiles scripts in the background and uses multiple processor cores. In this beta, my tests show it overtaking Firefox for speed, and putting up a respectable showing against Safari, Opera and Chrome. It's even integrated into Windows 7. One big problem: It will not work on Windows XP. So, forget the performance and security boost, many enterprises and netbook users."
The US DOJ and EU Court will soon be knocking on Microsoft's door. Users are supposed to be able to choose their browser, and never need to use IE.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And it doesn't help that the mozilla team recently identified IE as detecting various benchmarks to make IE look up to twenty times faster than it really is.
Until Microsoft stops purposely misleading people with their completely bogus benchmark results, their stigma of poor quality and low performance is nothing but well deserved.
Wait- I stand corrected- You could be.
Mac and Ubuntu users moving back to Windows because of an updated Blue Screen of Death.
IE9beta probably doesn't have the DRM loaded yet which gives it a speed advantage for now. We saw the same giant jumps in speed with Vista and Win7 betas until the DRM was added.
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
it definitely doesn't accuse Microsoft of cheating. Nor do any of the comments. So I think you're blowing it out of proportion.
Excuse me for drawing the only possible conclusion and stating it here. Silly me for assuming readers of a technology centric website would be able to reach the same, obvious, and sole conclusion.
Basically, if you did not reach said conclusion, slashdot is over your head. And the moderators are fucking insane. Offtopic this for completely on topic posts. And flaimbait that for polite replies.
Fucking troll moderators and showing their stupidity like crazy today - as is the slashdot reading/posting population.
The JS engine's optimizer should see exactly ZERO differences in the generated code. The addition of an explicit "return" vs an implicit "return" is absolutely proof this is not optimization trickery.
Absolute is an extremely strong word. It could simply mean there's a bug in IE's JS parser, so that it produces different results with the return than it does without.
I mean, this is a useless conversation, because obviously you drew your ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION long before you even bothered to think even slightly about the evidence. It's obvious from your posts that you have such a mouth-foaming blind rage towards Microsoft, you'd never give them a fair shake in a million years.
In other words, the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION is exactly as I depicted and exactly as IE troll moderators are working so hard to hide via their false, trollish moderations.
I honestly think you're paranoid, and need help. At the very least, you need to turn off your computer for a few hours. They're not all out to get you, man.
Comment of the year