IE 8 lacks speed, community
As CNET's Ina Fried reports, Microsoft is trying to downplay Internet Explorer 8's performance deficiencies, arguing that "in most cases, the difference could literally be measured by a blink of an eye."
I guess that it depends on who's blinking. Walt Mossberg, the noted personal-technology columnist for The Wall Street Journal, rebuked IE 8's performance in an All Things Digital post, noting that in his tests, the new version of the Microsoft browser was slower than Mozilla's Firefox, Apple's Safari, and Google's Chrome. All of them. Considerably slower, in many cases.
Microsoft claims IE 8 is very fast, but in my tests, speed and performance were its worst attributes. Using two computers, one running Windows XP and one running Windows Vista, I timed the loading of a half-dozen popular Web sites, plus two folders containing numerous news and sports sites. I repeated the test in IE 8, and in Firefox, Safari 4, and Chrome. In every case, IE 8 loaded the pages and folders more slowly than most of the other browsers, and in most cases, it came in dead last.
In some instances, the differences were tolerable--a few seconds. In others, primarily the folders containing 9 or 21 sites, respectively, IE 8 took two or three times as long as one or more of the other browsers to complete the task.
Speed, of course, isn't everything, and some, including the Practical Technology blog, tip their hat to Microsoft's other innovations in IE 8, such as its management of tabs.
But these are all somewhat secondary to the biggest reason to use an alternative browser, and specifically Firefox: community.
Ironically, it is community that has made Microsoft so dominant on the desktop, but which is arguably its greatest failing in mobile. Microsoft keeps trying to do IE by itself, while Mozilla gets the help of a global, diverse development crew, one that creates exceptional add-ons like AdBlock Plus and more.
Microsoft will almost certainly fix its performance problem in IE 8. The real question is whether it can fix its community problem.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
However, I would also argue that if a browser can pull of simplicity and speed it will take the cake (has to be stable of course). For instance, Google and Apple are both streamlining their browsers to make them quick in rendering pages, and very easy to use. I honestly think that if every computer shipped with Chrome, Safari, IE, and Firefox most people would use either Chrome or Safari (beta) due to the speed and simplicity.
All of that being said, the option for Add-ons and more customization would be nice. Who ever said we couldn't have both? Chrome and Safari need to take advantage of their community just as much as IE and Firefox needs to streamline it's features to take advantage of some of the success of Chrome and Safari (beta). IE needs to do both. I like the new features, colored tabs, improved security, etc. but allow the community to help you out and improve your speed before you're my default Microsoft.
when it comes to speed based on install wit no add-ons then who has the best experience?
As for add-ons, I fully agree that a lot of users won't ever mess with them, but it could increase the feature set of a browser and be a nice addition for those not-so-average users, as well as a few who dabble into the unknown.
As far as speed and features without add-ons, I have to go with Google Chrome. Chrome has fantastic speed simple yet useful features, and easy to get design. Safari (when I talk about safari I'm talking about the 4.0 beta)does fall in a close second only because it isn't very stable at the moment when it gets out of beta it'll probably move to my default browser. Safari really capatalized on alot of the features that made Chrome popular such as the most visited thumbnail page, tabs on top, streamlined design, etc. In alot of cases they actually improved these features by adding in customization and some Apple brand prettyness. So, in my mind Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome are the ones to beat right now, the other browsers would do well to take a close look at their success.
Is everyone comparing the newest version of IE8 and betas of Safari/Chrome to the relatively old Firefox 3.0? Or maybe FF3.1b3 *has* been benchmarked against Safari 4.0 and Chrome and I missed it? Please provide the URL.
Now, if I could just say the same for BO...
Yes, I had/have the same experience and don't recommend ie8 based upon what I have seen or didn't see. Firefox and Chrome are better, faster, better, faster.
this is cliton, not clinton
Never would have seen that coming.
Now, unlike when MS (http://tinyurl.com/b7gfmb) did a speed comparison and gave the sites as well as the results, how many sites do you think Mossberg had to visit before basing his results on the worst 3 or 4? Does he even give them?
Personally, I think IE 8 is an 'eh' release. Nothing to make me move from FF. But lets be real here.
The only FAST part of IE is the almost flicker-free Back action. i.e. when the Back button is clicked, your prior spot is restored so you can continue on the list, be that a shopping list or news articles. Chrome is the worst offender in that it restores to the top of page and then jump to the prior spot. FF is the same but a little bit faster. IE6 or IE7 is almost instantaneous. IE8 is still faster than FF but much slower than IE6 or IE7.
Like in the old days, some users are perfectly ok with a screen refresh rate of 60. But once you experienced a flicker free display, you will be forever bothered by it.
Are you guys perfectly ok with this annoying flicker? After all, almost everything on the web requires scrolling, click, and going back. It?s this FAST going back action that I am still sticking with IE.
So you're saying that, because the average user doesn't know any better, the browser shouldn't have to compete with the others?
Most average users will call and complain to their ISPs when they have slow rendering times. The ISP will continue to send out tech crews to find the problems and will continue to not find anything that will give the unhappy customer the ability to load pages quickly.
Now, suppose that unhappy customer gets so fed up that he switches from one ISP to another. He finds the same situation and goes through the same process. He will continue to do this over and over again until he just gets fed up and sticks with whatever ISP is his current choice. Since IE is to blame for all of this and since IE is developed and created by MS, should the ISPs then sue Microsoft for their loss of business and excess service calls due to the slowness of IE8?
Just because they have no point of reference does not mean they won't notice slow rendering times. Before I switched to Linux, I still noticed that XP was slowing down. Before I started using Firefox and then Flock, I still noticed that IE was slower on some pages than others. Sometimes it was slower by a considerable amount. Before I started driving a newer car, I still noticed that my 1974 Olds wasn't exactly a speedy machine.
Just because a person doesn't have a point of reference doesn't mean he won't notice that the browser isn't as good as it's supposed to be.
Well, if the ISP determines that IE8 REALLY is to blame, then it's prudent on their part to recommend FireFox as the user signs-up for new service. Wouldn't that solve the problem? So, ISPs still have some control over the situation. It's not as if ISPs are being forced to use IE and only IE.
You're attributing IE's success to MS outproducing everyone else? I attribute it to unlawful bundling and predatory pricing with a monopoly product (the operating system). And both the US and European courts have agreed with that assessment. [Unfortunately, the US court didn't have the balls to make Microsoft stop its illegal bundling]. Anyway, that's the reason IE is so "successful" - it gives away its browser and it's "good enough" for Joe Schmoe who buys a PC and who doesn't care as long as he can surf the web.
I agree completely with your comment. I just wish I could find this Joe Shmoe who keeps MS in business so I could show him what a browser as well as an OS should really be able to do with his computer.
Seriously, MS software has been losing its small edge since they released Vista. I don't hold out too much hope for Windows 7 either. It's a shame OS2 tanked so badly. That OS had the best potential to take the throne out from under MS, but as usual at IBM, they muffed it...
As a contrast, I found IE improving with recent versions.
My opinion as a user of Firefox, Chrome and IE and Opera; I now use IE 95% of the time.
That's really funny, I found the opposite to be true. Question, did you have any add-ons for Firefox? What were they? I've switched to Flock (uses the Gecko core at the heart of Firefox 3.0.x) which does a lot more processing behind the scenes than other browsers and am still finding it to be faster than IE, normally on par with Firefox, sometimes faster though it uses the same core.
I switched from IE to Firefox, used Firefox 98% of the time with IE 2% of the time. Then I switched to Flock, used Flock 98% of the time, Firefox 1.9% of the time, IE only when a program decided that only IE was allowed to open links. Switched to Linux, no more IE.
I do use IEPro on IE which is fantastic. Love the Easy HomePage (rip off of Opera's but works well)
As a side note, I'd put Google Chrome squarely in the "beta" bucket along with Safari and Opera for now. I don't like Safari's "chrome" (buttons and toolbars) I'm not too keen on Google's penchant for spying on me and Opera isn't even made in America (yeah, that actually matters to me).
Made in America doesn't exist anymore (unless you're talking about low-complexity parts). Firefox, too, is made by a community that includes - dare I say it - foreigners. So is IE, Chrome, or Safari.
For example: if you look @ the Gadget offered to the Vista sidebar by Microsoft vs. Firefox addons. The so called Microsoft version of addons are PATHETIC! The Community that Firefox has is unbelievable! And neither IE nor Chrome has yet even TRIED to challenge Firefox in that front - which is Firefox's strongest weapon.
Though I agree, that many individuals who couldn't care as much will stick to IE (Maybe use Chrome if Google makes it come preinstalled) but the Firefox community will only continue to grow - at an extraordinary rate I might add.
I used to use IE, but now I hate it, and I really dont care much about a few millisecond difference in speed, its all about the addons + customizability of Firefox that make me love it. (Just too bad there is no such "practical" alternative to Windows)
- by dwalltheone March 22, 2009 8:14 AM PDT
- I still prefer IE's tabs and features and rendering of pages. There, I said it. I even like Vista. How uncool am I *snicker*
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by t8 March 22, 2009 3:58 PM PDT
- Interesting comment about being uncool. It seems that this is the reaction to Microsoft these days.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (52 Comments)I have 5 browsers installed to play with, so I do fire them up and suppose I go to Safari slightly more than the others, but hate the tabs on top (without hacking) and lack of tab option and other preferences. Chrome is dull and boring, and I will never understand why anyone prefers the awkward and stiff Firefox. It has always seemed to me just its fans were just those who want to be different and be able to claim they don't use the market share holder, IE, so they can feel they just aren't slapped with "the dreaded" label of regular user.
Says something doesn't it. I guess Apple really did make Microsoft uncool.