Beta

Why IE Is So Fast ... Sometimes

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the nip-and-tuck dept.

934

safrit writes "Finally the scoop on how IE "cheats" a little to up its performance! Do RFCs mean nothing anymore? What's next, Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! From the blog story: 'Internet Explorer on Windows always seems either to run impossibly fast (page requests are fulfilled almost before the mouse button has returned to its original unclicked position), or ridiculously slow...' Now read to see why..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IE and Apple both suck!!! (-1, Troll)

ainsoph (2216) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021369)

Thats the troof@!

fp (-1, Troll)

floodo1 (246910) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021371)

fp! or maybe not :(

first post,izzit? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021373)

off ie,awful fast

beavis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021374)

huh huh cool.

I wish I could... (4, Funny)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021375)

...but the site has already been slashdotted! I suppose I'll just read it late tonight after the "mass hysteria" has settled.

Re:I wish I could... (0)

tarzan353 (246515) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021506)

It's OK, you're not alone- the editors didn't read it either.

down before first post? (4, Funny)

stephenisu (580105) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021376)

The same powers that make IE impossibly fast also made this site crash impossibly fast. :)

Umm.. (2, Funny)

fluxrad (125130) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021377)

kind of like how that blog link is coming up incredibly slow?

;-)

Re:Umm.. (1, Offtopic)

sweetooth (21075) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021395)

Or not at all:

500 Internal Server Error

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@lionking.org, and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

Here's the last few lines of the error_log:

Is it me? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021381)

Or does slashdot regurgitate the same tired repudiated themes Lunatix like to listen to between prescriptions?

repeat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021383)

um hasnt this already been covered?
oh yeah and that was the quickest slashing of a site ive seen in a awhile

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021385)

and slashdotted already!!

/.'d already (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021388)

oh well, wait till tomorrow, after they rebuild their smoking pile of a webserver

Post this Blog (0, Redundant)

1stflight (48795) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021390)

Can anyone post this blog, it's either down or Slashdotted

Cut n Paste (3, Informative)

dogbowl (75870) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021391)

Straight from the site.......

Internet Explorer on Windows always seems either to run impossibly fast (page requests are fulfilled almost before the mouse button has returned to its original unclicked position), or ridiculously slow (as with the weird stalling-on-connect problem that many people, including myself, have noticed).

One possible explanation is something that my team and I noticed a couple of years ago, in analyzing packet traces of IE's connection setup procedure. Microsoft might have fixed this since then; I'm not sure. But it's a possible culprit.

First of all, for those rusty on their TCP/IP-- here's how a normal HTTP request over TCP should work:

Client Server
1. SYN ->
2.
4. Request ->

This is how the client and server synchronize their sequence numbers, which is how a connection gets established. The client sends a synchronization request, the server acknowledges it and sends a synchronization request of its own, and the client acknowledges that. Only then can the HTTP request proceed reliably.

The server's SYN (synchronize) and ACK (acknowledgement) packets are combined for speed; there's no reason to send two separate packets, when you're trying to get a connection established as quickly as possible. Another speed enhancement that Mac OS 9's stack uses, by the way, is to combine the client's ACK and the HTTP request into a single packet; this is legal, but not frequently done. The idea is that within the structure of TCP/IP, you want to minimize the number of transactions that need to take place in setting up the two-way handshake necessary before you can send the HTTP request.

When tearing down a connection, it looks like this:

Client Server
1.
3. FIN ->
4.
Uh... what? Dunno what the hell this is. I'll ignore it, or RST.
2. Oh, you're a standard server. Okay: SYN ->
3.
5. Request ->

In other words, instead of sending a SYN packet like every other TCP/IP application in the world, IE would send out the request packet first of all. Just to check. Just in case the HTTP server was, oh, say, a Microsoft IIS server. Because IIS' HTTP teardown sequence looked like this:

Client Server
1. ...And that's it. The client doesn't FIN, and the server doesn't ACK. In other words, the connection is kept "half-open" on the server end. The reason for this? Why, to make subsequent connections from IE clients faster. If the connection isn't torn down all the way, all IE has to do is send an HTTP request, with no preamble-- and the server will immediately respond. Ingenious!

They probably called it "Microsoft Active Web AccelerationX(TM)®" or something.

(I may be remembering this incorrectly; it might be that the client does FIN, and the server simply keeps the connection around after it ACKs it. Instead of shutting down the connection entirely, it just waits to see if that client will come back, so it can open the connection back up immediately instead of having to go through that whole onerous SYN-SYN/ACK procedure. Damn rules!)

Now, what does this mean for non-IIS servers? It means that if you use IE to connect to them, it first tries to send that initial request packet, without any SYNs-- and then it only proceeds with the standard TCP connection setup procedure if the request packet gets a RST or no response (either of which is a valid way for a legal stack to deal with an unsynchronized packet). But IIS, playing by its own rules, would respond to that packet with an HTTP response right away, without bothering to complete the handshake. So IE to IIS servers will be nice and snappy, especially on subsequent connections after the first one. But IE to non-IIS servers waste a packet at the beginning of each request-- and depending on how the server handles that illegal request, it might immediately RST it, or it might just time out... which would make the browser seem infuriatingly slow to connect to new websites.

This is only marginally less stupid than RunTCP's "solution"-- and I say "marginally" only because in the grand scheme of things, this probably makes sense to Microsoft's network engineers. After all, eventually all clients will be Windows platforms running IE, and all servers will be Windows platforms running IIS. And then we can break all kinds of rules! Rules are only there to hold us back and force us to play nice with other vendors. Well, once the other vendors are all gone, who cares about some stupid RFC?

I have to admire their arrogance and their confidence. But it'll be some time before I can bring myself to admire their technical integrity.

Couldn't resist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021428)

Client Server
1. SYN ->
2.
4. Request ->


5. Profit!!

Re:Cut n Paste (5, Funny)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021438)

One thing looked familiar to me:

" Client Server
1. SYN ->
2.
4. Request ->"

That's very similar to the working of the infamous underpants gnomes.

1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Profit!

Re:Cut n Paste (5, Funny)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021491)

So that would be:

1) Rewrite TCP
2) ???
3) Speed boost!

They gave up (2, Funny)

Rui del-Negro (531098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021524)

They couldn't determine the ? for the underpants, so now they're trying it with socks.

RMN
~~~

Re:Cut n Paste (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021443)

I think what we're seeing is the use of the HTTP Keep-Alive which is part of the HTTP 1.1 standard. Am I wrong?

keepalive protocol? (3, Interesting)

ItalianScallion (145653) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021467)

i wonder about the relationship between this and the standard keepalive protocol, which basically is a standard that keeps a connection open for a certain amount of time so the browser doesn't have to keep opening new tcp connections for each image or whatever.
i would assume that the keepalive protocol reduces the ill effects of this system, since once a connection is made it doesn't have to be torn down and reestablished, or at least not for each request.

Re:Cut n Paste (4, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021475)

If this is what I think, namely that IE doesn't close the connection after getting the response, the author may want to look into HTTP 1.1 and this thing called "persistent connections". If a browser expects to make multiple requests from a server, the browser is allowed to leave the connection open and make further requests over it. If the server doesn't support persistent connections, it's free to close it's end of the connection. The browser is supposed to see this, close it's end and open a new connection for the next request, but it's possible IE is simply assuming persistent connections and only doing the close-and-reopen when it sees an error sending the additional requests. My guess is that they combined error-recovery ("the connection died, close it, open a new one and retry the request") with handling servers that don't support persistent connections ("server closed the connection, close our half and open a new one for this request").

IE and IIS probably coded with MFC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021527)

And therefore use that pernicious turd, the CSocket class.

As much as it pains me, this probably isn't anything intentionally evil in the M$ implementation here - it's just more of the useless bloat and cruftiness that's standard M$ fare. The developers who wrote MFC's CSocket class probably didn't even try to communicate with a non-M$ product, and the IE and IIS developers are probably the same idiots - the ones who can't spell "security".

Re:Cut n Paste (3, Funny)

StarTux (230379) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021478)

What RFC means to MSFT:

Rules For Cowards.

Maybe this is what they mean by innovation? We all what they really mean by innovation:

"Screw the Open Standards, we will create our own Standard, but make it secret!".

Re:Cut n Paste (5, Insightful)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021525)

What RFC means to MSFT:

"Rules For Competitors." Not for themselves.

Re:Cut n Paste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021559)

They're just mad because they didn't think of it already. Had some Linux setup done this first, every fanboy would have been crowing over how much faster/cooler/etc is was than X$ (where X$ is whatever OS that isn't Linux).

Duh! (1)

thomasn_no (58951) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021392)

This is absurd. The site goes down literally secounds after the slashdot article gets posted? What POS crap web server is that ?

Re:Duh! (1)

The G Man (225948) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021493)

Well it's obviously not an IIS server

Re:Duh! (1)

c1pher (586281) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021550)

it's a FreeBSD box that's been rooted..running 'elite' ports on it now..

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021575)

You just said POS. Are you Patrick Beaver or what?

Cause all it does... (1)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021393)

...is display "HTTP 500 Internal Server Error".
Go Slashdot!

Looking forward to slashbots! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021397)

Can't wait to see how many people talk about how it sucks and because "it's part of the OS"...when it completely isn't.

slashdotted (1, Insightful)

Pave Low (566880) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021401)

Hey editors, maybe you should read this article [kuro5hin.org] next time you link to sites that aren't able to handle the slashdot effect.

It would make things a little easier for them and us.

Just tired of seeing stories that aren't reachable by the time i click them.

Re:slashdotted (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021437)

blah blah kuro5hin this kuro5hin that. who gives a shit? why do you people from kuro5hin constantly try to plug your stupid site on here to get traffic? get a life!

Re:slashdotted (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021457)

hey loser, Kuro5hin is far better than garbage like slashdot. They actually have intelligent articles and posts! Imagine that. Probably too much for your grade four education, but for the rest of us, it's quite good. The link here is hihgly relevent and is an ethical issue that slashdot needs to consiter.

Kuro5hin Abandons Democracy for Censorship (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021480)

It's time to add Rusty Foster to "the list" of people who shouldn't be breathing.

Kuro5hin, "the democratic news site", has abandoned all pretenses of Democracy and has gone into full Fascist/Censorship mode.

These are the recent deeds of Kuro5hin.org:

1. Deleting numerous comments entirely, circumventing the site's established ratings procedure. Many of the comments deleted were highly rated at the time of deletion, indicating that THE PEOPLE wanted them to stay.

2. Disabling numerous user accounts. Many of these accounts were disabled before they even posted anything.

3. Enacting IP bans against several users, and adding additional IP bans as these persecuted people kept changing IPs to avoid censorship.

4. Deleting many diaries, including several that contained no abusive/offensive content, for no reason and with no warning or notice.

5. Keeping all this secret, because Rusty Foster knows he would be lynched by his readership if his Nazi-like practices were evar revealed.

Disabling dozens of accounts... deleting dozens of comments... banning dozens of IPs and several entire subnets... is this Democracy??

And you post this on Slashdot? (2)

CaptainSuperBoy (17170) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021555)

And you post this on Slashdot? As an AC? Talk about irony..

True. (2)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021526)

Where else can you get into 100+ post flame wars because someone used the word American instead of the 'Correct' 'USian'?

Re:slashdotted (1, Offtopic)

lpret (570480) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021490)

What would be great is if Slashdot would give a heads-up to some of these poor sysadmins. I can only imagine what kind of grief these guys get when some random person's quest to build a computer in a banzai tree who happens to have space on their server gets slashdotted.

Actually it's a little like a car race that ends in some poor little town. That town feels the wrath of hundreds of thousands of fans, crew, media, etc. but also gets their name on the map. If only every city wanted to be on the map...

Re:slashdotted (1)

MBoffin (259181) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021539)

Sorry, I couldn't get to that link. The server was slashdotted. You should be more considerate about posting links like that.

Everyone knows: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021568)

Everyone knows that the slashdot effect is a liberal myth.

Used IE to try to look at it (1)

beefstu01 (520880) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021402)

And Internet Exploder, well, exploded the page.

Heh, so now we know that IE is behind the /. effect.

Who cares? (1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021403)

IE is WAY faster than everything else... and for a Windows user, like myself, I don't really care why. I've installed Ad-Aware and Spybot, so as long as it's not installing any of that garbage I don't give a crap.

IE is about 10 times faster than Netscape, that's all that matters to me.

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021470)

You fags are so anti-Microsoft. Who CARES why it is fast!

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021572)

I don't care if those Nazi's kill, rape, murder, pillage, and destroy. They make a mean chocolate pizza.

Mozilla is quick too... (4, Funny)

nother_nix_hacker (596961) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021406)

...but I think thats because during the build process it caches the entire web, hence the build time!

http://grotto11.com/blog/?+1039831658 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021408)

18:07 - What makes IE so fast?

(top) [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] Internet Explorer on Windows always seems either to run impossibly fast (page requests are fulfilled almost before the mouse button has returned to its original unclicked position), or ridiculously slow (as with the weird stalling-on-connect problem that many people, including myself, have noticed).

One possible explanation is something that my team and I noticed a couple of years ago, in analyzing packet traces of IE's connection setup procedure. Microsoft might have fixed this since then; I'm not sure. But it's a possible culprit.

First of all, for those rusty on their TCP/IP-- here's how a normal HTTP request over TCP should work:

Client Server 1. SYN -> 2. <- SYN/ACK 3. ACK -> 4. Request ->

This is how the client and server synchronize their sequence numbers, which is how a connection gets established. The client sends a synchronization request, the server acknowledges it and sends a synchronization request of its own, and the client acknowledges that. Only then can the HTTP request proceed reliably.

The server's SYN (synchronize) and ACK (acknowledgement) packets are combined for speed; there's no reason to send two separate packets, when you're trying to get a connection established as quickly as possible. Another speed enhancement that Mac OS 9's stack uses, by the way, is to combine the client's ACK and the HTTP request into a single packet; this is legal, but not frequently done. The idea is that within the structure of TCP/IP, you want to minimize the number of transactions that need to take place in setting up the two-way handshake necessary before you can send the HTTP request.

When tearing down a connection, it looks like this:

Client Server 1. <- FIN 2. ACK -> 3. FIN -> 4. <- ACK

This generally takes four steps, and the FIN/ACK packets are usually not consolidated because connection teardown is nowhere near as speed-sensitive as startup is. (The FIN sequence can be initiated either by the client or the server.)

Many very stupid companies have tried to come up with overly clever ways to speed up TCP/IP. TCP, by its nature, is a stateful and bidirectional protocol that requires all data packets to be acknowledged; this makes the data flow reliable, by providing a mechanism for dropped packets to be retransmitted; but this also makes for a more strictly regimented flow structure involving more packets transmitted over the wire than in simpler, non-reliable protocols like UDP-- and therefore it's slower. One company that thought itself a lot smarter than it really was, called RunTCP, came up with the idea of "pre-acking" TCP packets; it would send out the acknowledgments for a whole pile of data packets in advance, thus freeing them from the onerous necessity of double-checking that each packet actually got there properly. And it worked great, speeding up TCP flows by a significant margin-- in the lab, under ideal test conditions. The minute you put RunTCP's products out onto the real Internet, everything stopped working. Which stands to reason-- their "solution" was to tear out all the infrastructure that made TCP work reliably, under competing load and in adverse conditions, in the first place. Dumbasses.

So then there's this thing we discovered in the lab. We noticed that when you entered a URL in Internet Explorer 5, its sequence of startup packets didn't look like the one shown above. Instead, it looked like this:

Client Server 1. Request -> Uh... what? Dunno what the hell this is. I'll ignore it, or RST. 2. Oh, you're a standard server. Okay: SYN -> 3. <- SYN/ACK 4. ACK -> 5. Request ->

In other words, instead of sending a SYN packet like every other TCP/IP application in the world, IE would send out the request packet first of all. Just to check. Just in case the HTTP server was, oh, say, a Microsoft IIS server. Because IIS' HTTP teardown sequence looked like this:

Client Server 1. <- FIN 2. ACK ->
...And that's it. The client doesn't FIN, and the server doesn't ACK. In other words, the connection is kept "half-open" on the server end. The reason for this? Why, to make subsequent connections from IE clients faster. If the connection isn't torn down all the way, all IE has to do is send an HTTP request, with no preamble-- and the server will immediately respond. Ingenious!

They probably called it "Microsoft Active Web AccelerationX(TM)®" or something.

(I may be remembering this incorrectly; it might be that the client does FIN, and the server simply keeps the connection around after it ACKs it. Instead of shutting down the connection entirely, it just waits to see if that client will come back, so it can open the connection back up immediately instead of having to go through that whole onerous SYN-SYN/ACK procedure. Damn rules!)

Now, what does this mean for non-IIS servers? It means that if you use IE to connect to them, it first tries to send that initial request packet, without any SYNs-- and then it only proceeds with the standard TCP connection setup procedure if the request packet gets a RST or no response (either of which is a valid way for a legal stack to deal with an unsynchronized packet). But IIS, playing by its own rules, would respond to that packet with an HTTP response right away, without bothering to complete the handshake. So IE to IIS servers will be nice and snappy, especially on subsequent connections after the first one. But IE to non-IIS servers waste a packet at the beginning of each request-- and depending on how the server handles that illegal request, it might immediately RST it, or it might just time out... which would make the browser seem infuriatingly slow to connect to new websites.

This is only marginally less stupid than RunTCP's "solution"-- and I say "marginally" only because in the grand scheme of things, this probably makes sense to Microsoft's network engineers. After all, eventually all clients will be Windows platforms running IE, and all servers will be Windows platforms running IIS. And then we can break all kinds of rules! Rules are only there to hold us back and force us to play nice with other vendors. Well, once the other vendors are all gone, who cares about some stupid RFC?

I have to admire their arrogance and their confidence. But it'll be some time before I can bring myself to admire their technical integrity.

Re:http://grotto11.com/blog/?+1039831658 (-1, Offtopic)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021452)

Dumbass, someone beat you to your karma whoring.

Moderators, you know what to do.

Actually... it's whiners like you (1)

Featureless (599963) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021488)

who cry "karma whore" like 4 year old children, that should be moderated down.

This copy-paste is the only reason anyone can read the article while the source is being slashdotted... and this is the only copy where the author didn't screw up the greater-than and less-than symbols.... so without this... no one would even know what this story was about until hours from now.

Dumbass.

Especially... (3, Offtopic)

Featureless (599963) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021512)

And this is the highest irony...

That the poster did it as an AC... which means they get no karma.

Ooh. Double-dumbass.

Re:Especially... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021556)

Not to mention that he's getting modded down, despite that his Cut and Paste job was much more readable.

Re:http://grotto11.com/blog/?+1039831658 (1)

Concertina (183807) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021519)

Dude, he's an anonymous coward, The original was karma whoring, And this version of the article is formatted better,

Re:http://grotto11.com/blog/?+1039831658 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021534)

It might have been whoring had I not clicked that "Post Anonymously" box.

Smartass!

1 packet???? (2, Interesting)

rollthelosindice (635783) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021459)

So you are trying to tell me that the reason IE is sometimes unbelievably fast is because of 1 packet on a handshake?

I find this hard to believe, and also very un-newsworthy.

Re:http://grotto11.com/blog/?+1039831658 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021487)

How about, this one's formatted correctly, whereas the first one isn't?

Re:http://grotto11.com/blog/?+1039831658 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021547)

I wonder if this is a misrepresentation by whatever sniffer this guy is using. Sending data in a SYN packet (ie, an HTTP Request) is perfectly valid per the RFCs, the problem is sniffers (like Ethereal) will show you two seperate packets. If you look closer though, you will see that the packet id is the same.

This is (was) often used to confuse IDS systems as they wouldn't look for data in a new connection.

Of course (2)

rknop (240417) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021409)

RFCs mean nothing to Microsoft! I mean, hell, they put up with them when they absolutely have to, but they'd much rather be able to define the standard by doing their thing and waiting for everybody else to adapt (or, better, just cease to exist).

RFCs are for small people and groups who want to be able to interoperate with each other on the Internet. Microsoft is one company which not only wants to, but even (with only a little stretch) realistically could be able to just define everything all by itself.

-Rob

Re:Of course (5, Interesting)

miu (626917) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021477)

This sounds like Persistent Connections from section 8.1 of rfc2616.

I think the initial probe may be to detect if there is a still open connection to use - rather than an IIS detector.

I always see slow (3, Funny)

BLiP2 (54296) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021411)

Seeing as I'm stuck using dialup for the next few weeks, all I ever see with IE is slow. What is this 'fast' of which you speak?

Oy (1)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021414)

Quick /.ing again... Personally, the only reason I had used IE for a while is because it launched faster (due to integration) on my older system. Now that I have a descent system, I can run stuff like Mozilla, and truthfully, I see no difference in page rendering time.

Re:Oy (2)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021511)

Absolutely, agreed, hallel.. oops..

I just upp'ed from a 200 mhz that I used to do the recording in my studio, limited video editing.. major graphics.. but I still had to use IE in order to get any kind of desirable surfing. Especially if someone is over my shoulder.

Noooow I have an athlon 2100xp with 1 gig ddr for my MASSIVE dvd video editing, 24 channel recording studio, chat, wi-fi porn war dialing, and MOZZILLA (in the shape of Phex) with an absolute feeling of euphoria every surfing experience. My slashdot time has doubled. Think about my porn hours.

IE has lost the game once mom and pop upgrade to modern machines.

bye bye

pm

fast (1)

chico.gonzalez (240443) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021415)

but not as fast as a speeding 'slashdoting'...

First Post... (5, Funny)

Groganz (552205) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021416)

Ah, damn Mozilla.

Fuck slashdot (-1, Troll)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021419)

Fuck slashdot [kuro5hin.org] .

Re:Fuck slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021503)

what's trolly about the parents post? In my opinion it raises a very good point and could spawn an interesting discussion.

Nothing new really (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021425)

Heck, IE still uses an HTTP Accept line with */* at the end without quality ratings rather than a more complete one, like Mozilla's. Reason? It saves a few bytes.

Example:
IE 6/Win: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*

Mozilla: application/x-shockwave-flash,text/xml,application /xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/pl ain;q=0.8,video/x-mng,image/png,image/jpeg,image/g if;q=0.2,*/*;q=0.1

Opera is Worse (3, Informative)

checkitout (546879) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021429)

For Opera to get it's "Fastest browser on earth" title, it caches EVERYTHING. Even things that aren't supposed to be cached like SSL pages.

No, it's not. (5, Informative)

Rui del-Negro (531098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021508)

No, it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even cache any page that's protected by a password, nor does it add them to the list of recently visited addresses (which is nice both for security and privacy reasons).

They are only kept in the RAM cache (i.e., when you press "back" or "forward", it will usually show you a page's last state (down to the position of the scroll bars), without reloading it. This is quite useful, BTW; it means you can go back and forth between pages without losing what you were writing in a form (unlike MSIE, where forms are reset).

RMN
~~~

Re:No, it's not. (2, Insightful)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021549)

"They are only kept in the RAM cache"

Isn't a "RAM cache" a cache? Did the parent specifically mention disk cache?

Re:Opera is Worse (4, Informative)

doowy (241688) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021516)

For Opera to get it's "Fastest browser on earth" title, it caches EVERYTHING. Even things that aren't supposed to be cached like SSL pages.
Opera also renders super fast. Even going through local pages or cache, the difference is noticeable to me (admittedly, on an outdated machine - but saying I should need a P4 to browse the web is silly).

Opera isn't worse. It's better. Definitley less bloat. It CAN render faster. And if I understand the article correctly (I actually read it) then it means this:
  • IE retrieves faster from IIS servers.
  • IE retrieves SLOWER from all non-IIS servers.


Common slashdot propoganda suggests MOST servers are not IIS. This would mean Opera can retrieve faster on average.. and I'm fairly certain it can render the page for display quite a bit faster.

P.S. You can turn off caching in the options if it really bother you.

security (3, Interesting)

agurkan (523320) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021442)

Does anyone know if this sequence is there for security purposes? It looks like this might lead to a spoofing vulnerability.

Re:security (3, Informative)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021557)

Does anyone know if this sequence is there for security purposes? It looks like this might lead to a spoofing vulnerability.

Indeed, it makes spoofing much easyer: no need to bother with sequence number guessing, just send your data packet right away, and pretend the connection is already open. This, combined with the fact that many IIS servers are often full of SQL-injectionable scripts should provide for great phun! Who needs open proxies when you can spoof so easily?

Summary of Comments (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021446)

Microsoft Innovates - Slashdot Whines

And morons buy Billy G's marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021566)

And total wastes of protoplasm actually take the time to advertise their gullibility.

Unless, of course, they happen to be astroturfing whores....

I though IE was great.... (1)

doubleadesign (638752) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021447)

then I tried Mozilla's Chaimera. I was surprised at how fast it was, when I thought IE was fast. It was like using a top of the line PC then going home to my better, fasater MAC with less problems. I mean this app is still in beta and it beats IE with it's own bloddy arm. I am so looking forward to one day never using anything Microsoft aside from Xbox (only becasue they bought out Bungie!)

Re:I though IE was great.... (1)

ItalianScallion (145653) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021523)

then I tried Mozilla's Chaimera.
if you like mozilla's speed, then you'll love Opera [opera.com] . on pc they just came out with a new version 7 (early beta so still a little bit crashy) that is unbelievably fast and completely configurable so you can fit it to your browsing style. even their previous version, Opera 6, is great!

another nail in the ms coffin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021450)

yet another reason why we must erase microsoft.

Yes it's true (-1, Troll)

LedFinZep (215981) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021471)

This man has no d1ck. Gotta love Ghostbusters!

Sounds pretty decent... (2, Insightful)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021474)

Let the flames commence, because I *do* think it's ingenious.

Essentially Microsoft is rewriting TCP to make it UDP-like by sacrificing TCP's guaranteed delivery for a speed boost. Since HTTP is essentially stateless, this doesn't sound like an overly bad idea.

I do have one question, however; how is it that Internet Explorer is able to rewrite TCP rules? Doesn't it use win32's TCP service? Or does it call a different, special TCP service?

Re:Sounds pretty decent... (2, Interesting)

httpamphibio.us (579491) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021544)

great post, wish i had mod points... i'd love to see this question answered.

Re:Sounds pretty decent... (5, Insightful)

gilroy (155262) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021562)

Blockquoth the poster:

this doesn't sound like an overly bad idea.

Hmmm. Deliberately breaking -- oh, I'm sorry, "rewriting" -- one of the core technologies of the Internet, without telling anyone and in such a way as to pad their speed numbers? Nah, nothing wrong about that...

Re:Sounds pretty decent... (2)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021569)

to pad their numbers? If it gives a verifiable speed increase and makes IE "so fast" as the article says, what's wrong with that?

Slashdotted! Why can't Slash cache the page local (1)

sullrich (78) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021482)

This is becoming more of an issue each day (slashdottting). Not to mention I bet the people that run the Slashdotted servers don't appreciate us taking them down so easily and fast so I propose a really simple fix:

1. Slashdot should take a snapshot of the article moments before posting and leave on file for atleast a day or 2 (or until requests for the article die down a bit).

2. Change out the Cached version of the URL after #1 is satisfied.

Should be easy. Or perhaps Slashdot can just include CACHE'd links from Google instead of the real URL?

Just some ideas from a long time Slashdotter.

-GG

Re:Slashdotted! Why can't Slash cache the page loc (2)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021537)

Easy to do, yes. Practical? No way in hell. Slashdot already sees so much traffic that on heavy days I end up with TCP errors. Caching linked pages locally would only increase Slashdot's traffic woes.

And I haven't even mentioned *storage* yet...

Re:Slashdotted! Why can't Slash cache the page loc (1)

sullrich (78) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021551)

I hear you and those are indeed valid concerns.

So why not just link to the Google Cache'd version? :)

-GG

Re:Slashdotted! Why can't Slash cache the page loc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021558)

I'm curious how long it will take one of the slashbots to hit you with "REaD the SlAshdot FAQ!!1!!".

IE being fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021485)

I thought IE was fast because most of its' code was built in to the kernel (thats why they don't offer a way to un-install IE).

Just like doing quicktime on Mac OSX.2 is fast as hell, because its built with Quartz extreme in the kernel's model.

cut-n-paste (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021499)

Somebody builds the Sears tower in 1/10,000th scale in Legos, puts up a few photos for his buddies to check out, and the next thing that they know their server is flooded or their bandwidth cap is maxed out and they don't have the use of their server. Or, even worse, the provider just tacks on a fee for bandwidth usage and some poor schlub is facing a monster bandwidth bill that they didn't anticipate. I don't belive that people should have to get permission to link to another site, in general. If you put something on the Web without putting a password on it or whatever, you're explicitly allowing others to link to it -- at least in my opinion. Don't put something on the Web that you don't want other people to see. However, the folks who run Slashdot, et al, know that they carry an inordinate amount of influence when it comes to driving people to a website. (Hence the term, "slashdotted.") If they link to a JPEG of a used tissue, at least 1% of their audience -- which is of considerable size -- is going to click on the link just for grins. 1% of a site that probably gets hundreds of thousands of page views per day comes up to quite a few people. They can easily disable a site for a few days until the post is off their front page -- making life miserable for someone who just wanted to put up images for their buddies. (Often these things are not submitted by the owners of the site.) The moderators/owners of these sites should be doing the following: Ask permission if the site isn't a major site that can handle the traffic. Obviously, Met4filter linking to Slashdot isn't going to cause a problem for Slashdot, or Slashdot linking to CNN. Mirror the site. If the site owner is ameniable to having their content exposed to the world, but doesn't have the bandwidth/server resources to handle it, they should ask permission to mirror the site -- at least temporarily -- to handle the load. It hasn't happened yet, but I see a "reckless linking" lawsuit where someone sues Slashdot or another site for causing monetary damages. Drop the link. If the site owner isn't willing to be mirrored, and the site is obviously going to suffer if linked, then the post should be dropped or not put up in the first place. Not because Slashdot and the rest lack the legal right to link -- but out of common courtesy. Not everyone wants to share their Lego picture gallery with the rest of the world, at least not all at once. I was just thinking about this because I ran into another link that was unreachable via Slashdot this morning, and yesterday I went to a link off of Fark where the site owner had replaced the content with a plea for donations to pay for bandwidth because they had been unexpectedly Farked. It's one thing when it was an unexpected side-effect. The first few sites slashdotted were kind of a surprise, I'm sure. However, now that the effect is well-documented, these folks should be a little more careful -- and a lot more courteous -- in the links that they post.

This isn't what I'm seeing (5, Interesting)

beezly (197427) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021502)

Ok, I've only been able to read the copy of the blog from that which has been pasted in these Slashdot replies (i.e. I might have missed some of the story), but I've just tried this out and it's not what I'm seeing at all. Between an IE6/XP machine and my Apache box...
21:54:48.351781 10.0.0.29.4109 > 10.0.0.5.www: S 3610909795:3610909795(0) win 64240 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK> (DF)
21:54:48.352052 10.0.0.5.www > 10.0.0.29.4109: S 4178252606:4178252606(0) ack 3610909796 win 5840 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK> (DF)
21:54:48.352202 10.0.0.29.4109 > 10.0.0.5.www: . ack 1 win 64240 (DF)
21:54:48.352400 10.0.0.29.4109 > 10.0.0.5.www: P 1:243(242) ack 1 win 64240 (DF)
21:54:48.352528 10.0.0.5.www > 10.0.0.29.4109: . ack 243 win 6432 (DF)
...
...
...
Which appears to be a perfectly standard SYN->SYN->ACK handshake at the beginning. Also, do IE5.5/6 support HTTP pipelining? Surely this would explain the web browser not tearing down connections in between HTTP commands. Mozilla supports it! :) ... or maybe I've just not understood the blog entry correctly!

Ummm... HTTP1.1 Anyone (1, Informative)

McAlister (20810) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021529)

HTTP 1.1 allows for this - it's called a persistant connection.... and is exactly what Mozilla, Opera, IE, and every other browser is SUPPOSED to do...

The speed probably comes as a side effect of broadband and a well connected server... as a colleague of mine pointed out, Mozilla is just slow because they wait 1 second before they display the page, in case the layout changes...

Maybe the slashdot editors need to do a little bit of reading about a subject before they post them.

ATTENTION - SLASHDOT IS BANNING USERS NOW (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021533)

Read this journal [slashdot.org] Slashdot does not care about your opinion.

Wow (3, Interesting)

archnerd (450052) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021540)

This almost makes me want to break some other rules and hack my TCP stack to send back some other amusing responses to unsynchronized packets - perhaps a ping of death or an invalid OOB packet (WinNuke)?

who gives a damn? (2)

smd4985 (203677) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021542)

mozilla is a better browser anyways. ;)

Borwser Wars (1, Offtopic)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021563)

I have all four of the (IMO) major browsers on my system. I ditched IE, not because it was slow, but because certain pop-ups would cause it to frequently crash, i got Opera, and have been very happy. My computer also came with Netscape 6, and lord is it slow, nuf said. I'd heard good things about Mozilla, and downloaded it to see how it stacked up against Opera. It didn't, it was almost as slow as Netscape 6. If you dont mind the ad on the free version, Opera 6.01 is definitly the best IMO, tabbed, no pop-ups, loads fast, loads pages fast. Internet explorer is a decent browser, i still use it ocasionally for some e-commerce, and some flash games that dont work with Opera. Moz is decent, but blocked pop-ups and tabbed browsing dont make up for its slowness. Netscape, *shakes head* what happened, it used to be decent. Opera is definitly worth the $29.95 or whatever. I'm thinking a lot of people who use and staunchly defend Mozilla all used to use Netscape just to avoid Microsoft in general and switched for the extra features. Seriously, everyone should give Opera a try.

More Browser speed ups!! (5, Funny)

sweede (563231) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021565)

i've ran Netscape 4.1 on my pentium 133 with a 28.8 kps modem, but web pages load instantly on my box. whats my secret??

Well i'll tell you !!

i upgraded to IE 6.0* and the web pages popped up instantly !! even the pop-ups where there just as quickly

using IE increased the speed of web browsing on the internet for me, it can for you too !

*Note: to run IE 6.0 i also had to upgrade to a more recent AMD XP system running Windows XP and a 1.5mbs Cable Modem service which had a 98% impact on page load and rendering times.

FTP the same? (4, Interesting)

Shelled (81123) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021571)

A custom application we run at work makes use of the IE ftp client to make automated connects to our ftp server. Any other client, Linux or Windows, disconnects from the server on shutdown. IE or the IE-based ftp client don't, even if you exit IE. Because of this we've been forced to set a session idle timeout of 1 minute on the server to avoid hanging connections. Is this another example of the same technique, client-side?

Hey, wait a minute! (1)

afree87 (102803) | more than 11 years ago | (#5021574)

Why doesn't Apache step in and support this? It may be a sucky RFC workaround, but Internet Explorer uses it (and many people use Internet Explorer), so if Apache imitates IIS and replies to Internet Explorer's requests, then Apache servers will appear to run a little faster to IE users!

why did he post old info. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5021576)

without first verifyng if it's still applicable?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?