Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IE8 Beta 2 Fatter Than Firefox and XP

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the other-than-that-how-was-the-parade dept.

Internet Explorer 597

snydeq writes "Consuming twice as much RAM as Firefox and saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads, Microsoft's latest beta release of Internet Explorer 8 is in fact more demanding on your PC than Windows XP itself, research firm Devil Mountain Software found in performance tests. According to the firm, which operates a community-based testing network, IE8 Beta 2 consumed 380MB of RAM and spawned 171 concurrent threads during a multi-tab browsing test of popular Web destinations. InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy speculates that Microsoft may be designing IE8 for the multicore future. But until your machine sports four or eight discrete processing cores, IE8 will remain 'porcine,' Devil Mountain's Craig Barth says."

cancel ×

597 comments

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

Firefox is a pig (-1, Troll)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843639)

Firefox is a bloated pig. Why not compare it to Opera?

Did not take too long... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843819)

Ah, it did not take too long before fanbois invaded the discussion.

It is difficult to determine who are more annoying fanbois. Apple's or Opera's?

May be a possible poll suggestion?

Re:Did not take too long... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844359)

It is difficult to determine who are more annoying fanbois. Apple's or Opera's?

They both have a while to go before they defeat Gentoo circa 2004.

"y'know, if you compiled that from source like Gentoo does, it would be a lot faster..."

Gentoo, schmentoo. (3, Funny)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844449)

"y'know, if you compiled that from source like Gentoo does, it would be a lot faster..."

Gentoo's worthless and weak. You should have compiled it on Source Mage [sourcemage.org] . :)

Check the current poll, man. (5, Funny)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844413)

Ah, it did not take too long before fanbois invaded the discussion. It is difficult to determine who are more annoying fanbois. Apple's or Opera's? May be a possible poll suggestion?

I think that the current poll is "Which Fanboys Make You Cringe the Most?"

As for IE8, I guess somebody saw all the bitching people do about how Firefox is a resource hog and decided, "I'll give 'em something to cry about."

Re:Firefox is a pig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843833)

*sigh* Because they didn't want to take the name of the LORD Almighty Opera in vain, obviously.

(psst, everyone else, do you think that'll get the Opera fanboys off our backs for a few minutes so we can get some on-topic discussions going?)

Re:Firefox is a pig (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843949)

Fatter than a bloated pig means a lot more than lean and snappy Opera.

The "fatter than XP" metric doesn't make much sense to me though. Since you buy a computer to run applications, not operating systems, shouldn't you expect that most of your resources are going to the applications?

Re:Firefox is a pig (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844111)

Which will be interesting when you count in Vista then?

Re:Firefox is a pig (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844123)

I know what it is! This new version of IE has TWO idle threads.

Re:Firefox is a pig (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844149)

Yes you would. That is why if IE8 takes up *more* resources than the underlying OS, it would be "fatter than XP".

Though, I must say - what's that nonsense about threads and multicores? If your code is inefficient, then with threads and multicores, it just means you are inefficient faster. You can have hundreds of threads that are superefficient, like say, BeOS.

Re:Firefox is a pig (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844385)

Paralell code is almost always superior to a single-threaded solution. The memory footprint is inexcusable but the number of threads is impressive, not damning.

Re:Firefox is a pig (4, Funny)

EricTheMad (603880) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844211)

Since you buy a computer to run applications, not operating systems, shouldn't you expect that most of your resources are going to the applications?

Yes, but hopefully not a single application.

Re:Firefox is a pig (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844339)

My fault--I misread the headline. By one letter. Thought it said "faster", not "fatter".

Re:Firefox is a pig (5, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843995)

Because everyone already knows that Firefox is a bloated pig, and that Opera is much leaner. Showing that IE is more bloated that Opera isn't saying all that much; most things are more bloated than Opera. To claim that IE is more bloated than even Firefox, however, really takes the cake. When you're not rolling your own runtime envionment and yet you still consume more than Firefox does, that's when you know you've really screwed up.

Note that I say this as a Firefox user.

Re:Firefox is a pig (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844245)

To be fair, I completely misread the headline. I thought it said "faster" instead of "fatter".

Fatter but not Faster (2, Informative)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843641)

Its fatter and more bulky, but definitely not faster than Firefox, Opera or Safari.

I'm sticking with Firefox, sirs.

Re:Fatter but not Faster (1)

somegeekynick (1011759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844255)

Funny you should mention that. I was quite shocked when I read "IE8 Beta 2 Faster Than Firefox and XP." Now, that would be 2012 coming too soon. ;)

It's also _BETA_ (5, Insightful)

_bug_ (112702) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843679)

I hate being turned into a Microsoft apologist on this one, but give them a break. IE8 is still beta. Comparing release quality software to beta quality software is simply unfair.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843729)

Sometimes I disagree, like when we're talking about features.

Here? Yes, you're right. Beta software is often compiled with less optimization and extra debugging information. I was using VMWare Server 2 beta, and it ran painfully slow, well under the speed of Server 1. Because it was a beta.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (5, Insightful)

spectre_240sx (720999) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843765)

OK. We can compare it to FF3 beta, then. That was fast as hell.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844369)

Betas were shit.
RCs were good.
IE8 has not had an RC yet.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (1)

monsul (1342167) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843797)

I agree it's unfair, but on the other hand, it looks like this time the guys at Redmond totally overdid it. What are the chances of the final version of IE8 going back to "normal"?

Re:It's also _BETA_ (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843965)

I agree, and we may see another beta "drop" soon that will use a lot less resources because there will be a lot less testing code built into the browser code. I expect IE 8.0 when it's finally released to use more or less the same resources at IE 7.0, and only needs a dual-core CPU for faster performance.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (5, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844269)

Blame Google.

I know too many people that think "beta" means Gold (or at least Release Candidate). I wouldn't be surprised if they now think "beta" is synonymous with freeware.

Anything beta should be given a lot leeway in terms of stability and performance.

On the other hand, if the difference is DRASTICALLY different from past versions then maybe it brings some pause. While it could simply be the package isn't optimized and there are debug lines in there, it is also possible that it is a sign that the end-product might be a hog.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (-1, Troll)

Spokehedz (599285) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844461)

Yeah, because, you know--testing In-House is sooo last century, and making sure that your code is lean and efficient from the start is hard.

Moran.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (1)

geordie_loz (624942) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844279)

I agree. I am not a fan of IE (being a web developer by profession, IE is a pet hate), however the reason is clear.

Beta means not for mass release, so it's going to need some polish to speed up and remove debugging symbols or whatever

Also all this sand-boxing tabs is going to have a memory and process overhead. However this is the security model.. seperated process for tabs is more secure, but it's going to use more processes.. duh..

Re:It's also _BETA_ (2, Insightful)

TristanGrimaux (841255) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844463)

On version 8 of any software, this is alarming. Considering that IE8 is not rewriten from scrach, they will have to work hard to convince.

Re:It's also _BETA_ (2, Funny)

pohl (872) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844367)

I hate being turned into a Microsoft apologist on this one, but give them a break. IE8 is still beta. Comparing release quality software to beta quality software is simply unfair.

I couldn't agree more. We could easily see Microsoft slipping in major architectural changes in beta 3. After all, that's what betas are for!

Re:It's also _BETA_ (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844381)

I hate being turned into a Microsoft apologist on this one, but give them a break. IE8 is still beta. Comparing release quality software to beta quality software is simply unfair.

Microsoft is a lot like Google in that their software never makes it out of beta; unlike Google, they don't admit it.

At Least Some Features Are a Step Forward (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843681)

Well, I know this is asking for it, but I'll try to focus on the positives of IE8 from a web developer viewpoint [microsoft.com] .

First off, I deal a lot with AJAX and I think a lot of people feel my pain when we have to write two different Javascript methods to achieve the same functionality between IE6, IE7 & everybody else. And I don't want to hear anybody saying that IE keeps me employed by creating more work. That's bullshit, all it does is hinder my productivity. But now we have:

The getElementById method is now case-sensitive, and it no longer incorrectly performs searches using the NAME attribute.

My god, you mean it's actually going to behave like--you know--the name implies?!

Sanitize HTML -- Easily remove event properties and script from HTML fragments with window.toStaticHTML.

I am intrigued by this and think that this is a great innovative idea from a developer's perspective.

CSS Compliance

I don't think I would be the first person to say compliance to standards are currently lacking in IE. I'm glad to see them acknowledging this area of improvement!

At least it's a step in the correction direction! And on top of that, they are slowly catching up with Firefox plugins like Firebug or a their profiling tools:

  • CSS Tool -- Display various rules defined by style sheets loaded by your Web page.
  • Script Debugging -- The built-in lightweight debugger enables you to set breakpoints and to step through client-side script without leaving Internet Explorer.
  • Script Profiler -- Visually determine where your script is taking most of its time.
  • Version Mode Switching -- Switch into different browser modes to test content for standards compliance.

I dream of a future where I have means other than javascript popups to check objects in javascript in IE. Yes, yes, I know they have a script debugger today ... if you have some form of .NET studio installed. Which is just peachy if you run Linux and IE4Linux.

I am both curious of the new AJAX functionality they promise and fearful that they are simply another venue for security risks (let's all hope their cross-domain & cross-document functionalities are sound).

I do not think all is lost on this browser, however ... even if it assumes RAM is cheap and your CPU has over 171 cores to spare.

Re:At Least Some Features Are a Step Forward (2, Funny)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844363)

I was tickled pink when I discovered that my latest page displays correctly in IE8b2 with absolutely no tweaks. It's a strange feeling having the page display the same (with the same code!) in all major browsers.

Re:At Least Some Features Are a Step Forward (4, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844431)

You make a lot of good points. I think I'm pretty fair to MS; I bash them when I think they deserve it, I praise them when I think they deserve it.

Frankly, I've stayed away from a lot of "fancy" javascript just to avoid having duplicate code; and I've also abandoned some pretty cool CSS just to avoid IE problems (although they may be compliant, I actually think in some cases MSs implementation of CSS was better than the standard, especially their box model... there's more but I don't want to get into it.

In this case, not only do we have to allow that this is a beta, but I think we need to point out that most people will not be browsing with a bunch of tabs. I know I do, and I'm sure a lot of slashdotter's do, but I also think we're the exception and most of us probably have more than capable machines to handle it.

That's not an excuse... the requirements should go down, I agree... but on the other hand, the browser IS becoming the platform, so you have to expect it to increase in requirements.

I'm happy for IE8; I hope it becomes widely adopted... and I think competition is good, but if IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome... if they can all just act the same compliant way, I'll be happy guy. I certainly won't berate MS for it.

Re:At Least Some Features Are a Step Forward (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844439)

I do not think all is lost on this browser, however ... even if it assumes RAM is cheap and your CPU has over 171 cores to spare.

I currently have 191 processes on my dual-core processor. I also have an OS that knows how to run more than one program at a time. Basically, I'd rather have an interactive program that splits its load over 171 threads or processes and let the OS handle scheduling than one that tries to do everything in one thread or process. After all, the OS has a few decades of optimizations for exactly this under its belt.

Microsoft bashing? (5, Insightful)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843683)

Multi threaded browsing is a plus. One of my pet hates of Firefox is the one-bad-tab-crashes-the-browser problem.

I've not used IE for donkey's years, but one thread per tab strikes me as an excellent idea.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (5, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843787)

Also, 380 MB for a multi-tab session would be about what I expect.

Firefox will happily use that much RAM.

Currently 4 tabs RSIZE 129M VSIZE 412M on OSX

Re:Microsoft bashing? (2, Informative)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844099)

    PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
  250 firefox-bi 21.1% 87:01:17 37 824 6082 472M 24M 525M 1433M

Re:Microsoft bashing? (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844307)

Also, 380 MB for a multi-tab session would be about what I expect. Firefox will happily use that much RAM.

Y'know, I hear that a lot, but have just never seen any version of FireFox use all that much memory.

Right now, I have about 8 tabs open (after many hours of browsing without restarting FF), including a flash game, a GIS on about the 20th page, and a Fark photoshopping contest, and have 70MB working set (RSize), 125MB Virtual (VSize). And that looks pretty much typical on my system for FireFox.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844487)

I don't know what it is, but Firefox memory use seems to vary dramatically between people.

This is a fun screenshot [evanparity.com] of my task manager back in the days of either Firefox 1 or 1.5, of me closing Firefox and my virtual memory use dropping about a gigabyte. (This was a time when I only had 512 MB of RAM.) At the time, I regularly had to restart Firefox (maybe once a day, maybe once every couple days, it's been a while) because its absurd memory demands would slow it to a crawl.

Things have improved dramatically, but I would still say FF uses 300 MB+ typically for me.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (4, Interesting)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843903)

Multi threaded browsing is a plus. One of my pet hates of Firefox is the one-bad-tab-crashes-the-browser problem.

I've not used IE for donkey's years, but one thread per tab strikes me as an excellent idea.

It seems Google thinks the same. Chrome will have this as a feature supposedly.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (4, Informative)

Peter Cooper (660482) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844023)

I've not used IE for donkey's years, but one thread per tab strikes me as an excellent idea.

It seems Google thinks the same. Chrome will have this as a feature supposedly.

Chrome will have one process per tab as a feature. See here. [gamesforthebrain.com]

Re:Microsoft bashing? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844271)

This is actually the feature IE8 has too. The poster just confused processes and threads.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843919)

Actually, IE uses one process per tab. This means that each tab has a different address space, and this is what makes it so that one bad tab crashes only itself and not the entire browser. If they were only doing threads, it'd be what Mozilla does.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (1)

eagee (1308589) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843993)

Just my $0.02 but the one-bad-tab-crashes-the-browser problem has more to do with error handling than number of threads. 171 threads seems like a ridiculous waste of resources for just one app - multi-tabbed or not.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844071)

You're confusing IE8 with Chrome. A bad thread can still take down the whole browser process. Chrome puts every tab in a different *process*. Processes are larger divisions than threads.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (4, Insightful)

Idaho (12907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844097)

Multi threaded browsing is a plus. One of my pet hates of Firefox is the one-bad-tab-crashes-the-browser problem.

What is interesting, is that people seem to completely miss how multithreading works - because it will not solve that problem, at all. If, in a multithreaded application, one thread violates some memory restriction (e.g. stack overflow or accessing already released memory), the entire application will crash just like any other (single-threaded) application.

What multithreading *can* help solve though, is the random "freezing up" of Firefox whenever another tab decides to reload itself, or when a wayward Flash plugin causes the entire browser to freeze for indefinite amounts of time, etc.

The programmers of Firefox are very obviously aware of these problems, but it's incredibly hard to change the event-handling system once you have a complete application. Especially since these days, Javascript is used to do large-scale manipulations of the document, it becomes really hard to decide what data to share between threads, prevent race conditions and the inadvertent introduction new security risks, etc. etc.

So I'm sure we'll see quite a few problems with these new "multi-threaded" browsers, before the technology matures.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844103)

I get what you're saying, but in practice I very rarely have input I care about in multiple tabs from crash-prone sites. The "restore previous session" option is plenty for my needs and I rarely even use that. Multiple threading in exchange for a much larger footprint doesn't seem like a win to me.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (1)

in4mation (652196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844197)

Let's see how the Google's Chrome browser [google.com] ) does with it's multi-process approach.

Re:Microsoft bashing? (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844259)

Exactly. And with Google's Chrome where tabs are actually isolated across processes, Firefox's crash-one-tab-crash-all is looking a little old-fashioned.

Also, I'm currently running IE8 Beta 2 with 10 tabs across 3 windows -- task manager** reports 25840K Mem usage and 16 threads (peak mem 25952K, VM 16948K). So I'm not sure I buy this IE8-is-a-hog argument, if anything IE8 Beta 2 has been a pleasure to use.

**I know task manager's reports should be taken with a grain of salt, but it usually over (not under) estimates.

Still only a beta (1)

smilinggoat (443212) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843719)

It's only a beta! Don't jump to conclusions about memory and CPU usage just yet. Although it certainly is an indicator of the way development is coming along, there are plenty of opportunities for the developers to optimize and trim it down before a general release.

Re:Still only a beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843863)

It's only a beta!

Microsoft doesn't have betas. It has pigs^H^H^H^H alphas. Beta comes at the release date.

Re:Still only a beta (3, Interesting)

Slothy (17409) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843979)

What do you guys think beta means? In my industry, alpha = feature complete, beta = release candidate 1. Improvements after beta would be high priority bug fixes, crash fixes, etc. Not optimizing the whole app and hoping it ships shortly thereafter :)

It sounds like you guys are treating this like an early preview to see what people think. That would be a prototype build, not a beta build. Prototype is pre-alpha and normally doesn't get released.

If this thing is beta and uses a lot of ram and threads, that isn't going to change more than a few percent before it ships.

Re:Still only a beta (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844479)

Where have you been for the last 20 years? In the Microsoft world, the dot oh version is the first beta, if that.

Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843739)

Surprise! IT'S A BETA! Not a release candidate, not a final release. Stupid sensationalist headlines.

Re:Surprise! (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844049)

Surprise! IT'S A BETA! Not a release candidate, not a final release. Stupid sensationalist headlines.

Which puts me to think: Does Microsoft release Beta so that the public will catch bugs that they didn't, or to indicate them which bugs THEY KNEW ABOUT get discovered by the public?

Please, spawning a 100 threads is NOT a bug. It's a FLAWED DESIGN. Perhaps this is why we came to the joke "it's not a bug (as in 'unexpected'), it's a feature (as in 'designed that way')".

only 380MB RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843745)

Only uses

Wow.... (4, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843757)

We finally found something that sucks more CPU power than Crysis.

Re:Wow.... (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844403)

No, that would be Supreme Commander. If you had an 8Ghz Core 2 Quad it would barely be enough for a six-player game to run at normal speed on a large map. Maybe.

Divide and conquer? (0)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843803)

I'm a fan of divide and conquer techniques for a lot of things - but requiring the resources of a freaking fullscale army to do so kind of defeats the point. The whole technique is supposed to be used to accomplish bigger things with fewer resources intelligently, not to shuffle work around (divide) while ostensibly maintaining a product you intent to dominate the market (conquer).

Sounds like they used recursive subdivision of work into threads designed for more generic work.

Ryan Fenton

Not apples-to-Apple (0)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843815)

The comparison is a bit biased -

>> "By greatly increasing the number of concurrent execution threads, and then spreading them out across multiple, discrete processes (in our case, 6 separate instances of iexplore.exe), "

So, they're comparing a single instance of a multi-tabbed browser to 6 separate instances of a single-tabbed browser. You can account for this by the lack of tabs in IE (a fundamental flaw in today's world), but it's still not a fair comparison.

MadCow.

Re:Not apples-to-Apple (0)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843977)

So, they're comparing a single instance of a multi-tabbed browser to 6 separate instances of a single-tabbed browser. You can account for this by the lack of tabs in IE (a fundamental flaw in today's world), but it's still not a fair comparison.

IE has had tabs for years.

Re:Not apples-to-Apple (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844013)

IE has had tabs since IE 7.

Re:Not apples-to-Apple (2, Informative)

collinstocks (1295204) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844085)

I don't think you have this exactly right. This is not a comparison. It is saying that IE created the six processes, not the testers.

It's beta! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843821)

I'm sure that it will be on par with other Microsoft products once it's finished.

Re:It's beta! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844089)

That is the most damning thing I've read about IE8. Let's hope you're wrong.

Real geeks... (4, Funny)

Deathdonut (604275) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843823)

...still use Lynx.

Re:Real geeks... (4, Funny)

lastchance_000 (847415) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843985)

Real geeks parse the HTTP responses in their head.

beta, premature optimization is the root of evil (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843827)

Combine those two and you would expect performance to suck.

Beta... (4, Insightful)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843841)

I'm guessing they have full debugging options turned on, unstripped binaries with debug symbols intact that take up way more space, and very conservative compile time options. Let's wait until they actually release it before we judge it.

Well, duhh.. (2, Informative)

Idaho (12907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843859)

From the article:

saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads

Well duhhh, it uses multithreading - a thread per tab/window, or actually I believe it uses a threadpool to limit the total amount somewhat. So obviously it will use more execution threads. This can be perfectly fine and is in itself not an indication of any problem.

The memory usage could be more of a problem I'm sure. Javascript performance is probably even more interesting to look at...

Optimize a Beta? (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843865)

This seems to be a focus on premature optimization IMO. I understand this issue is important, but isn't making sure it's feature correct first more important? Think about it from Microsoft's perspective, what is more important to the typical end-user? Keyword being "typical" and not "geek" like most of us here.

If it was up to me the focus would be on sandboxing, Javascript performance improvements, privacy, and my favorite - standards compliance. Then when all of that is out the door let's focus on getting it slimmed down. This would be the rational way. The tried and true development way.

FATTER not FASTER (2, Funny)

PsyberS (1356021) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843875)

I completely misread that title.... I guess I expected it to be some sort of news, not something completely expected.

I also misread the summary... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844155)

I also misread the summary...

Consuming twice as much RAM as Firefox and saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads, Microsoft's lamest beta...

and found it quite insightful :P

Re:FATTER not FASTER (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844189)

Yeah, I also misread it. Damn sensationalist Slashdot editors!

Yes but... (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843877)

Not having the rat^H^H^H awesome bar makes it score big.

Beta and debug code (4, Informative)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843887)

Well as others have pointed out, it's still in beta.

As such, it'll have debug code in it, which tend to bump up the number of execution threads considerably.

You can try the same thing by running an IE7 beta against the release version and looking at the processes. The beta version is much more of a resource hog. It sounds a bit like someone hasn't considered the full picture in this 'comparison'...

Re:Beta and debug code (2, Informative)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844157)

Why bother considering the "full picture" when there's bashing to be done?

That's like imagining the personality of the girl in the pictures you're using to jerk off.

Re:Beta and debug code (1)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844395)

Thank you for the joke. It made my day!

bullshit (5, Informative)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 5 years ago | (#24843901)

"Consuming twice as much RAM as Firefox and saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads"

Unless those threads are actually processing anything, they represent basically zero overhead.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844321)

Unless those threads are actually processing anything, they represent basically zero overhead.

Try explaining that to some people here who think that sleeping and zombie processes are bogging down their machine.

Re:bullshit (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844435)

Even if they're not processing anything, they consume memory (kernel and userspace stack, primarily). The overhead is nonzero.

Most enthusiast systems are not memory-constrained, but the same cannot be said for everyone.

Re:bullshit (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844481)

Unless those threads are actually processing anything, they represent basically zero overhead.

That's true if all but one (or two on dual-core CPUs) of those threads are blocking. But I'd wager that some of those threads are processing something. More threads to process one thing mean more context switches.

Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843927)

Hey Windows Internet Explorer 8, have you called Jenny yet?

LOL

IE8 is made for the Mac Pro! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843941)

Got 8 cores? Why waste them on video rendering when you can browse the web using IE 8 on Vista?

One more reason to run Xandros on my EEE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24843983)

It's the reason for which I won't go for XP on my EEE. I'll install Chrome tomorrow and keep using FX3.

Note: IE8b2 - it's still in beta, so. I'll await for IE8 finale review to be posted on /.

Porcine? Of course... (4, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844011)

Things, not just MS, have been getting more porcine as computer capacity has increased. This is just a continuation. All that happens is more things are patched onto old programs, they get relabeled as "new", and they use more memory, hard drive space and cpu power. I doubt it will get better, it would seem that all developers do is look at the increased capacity and speed of machines as lebenstraum. There certainly doesn't seem to be any impetus to make more compact, efficient programs

As many have pointed out it's in Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844017)

Microsoft is hoping to have the bloat up to 4X Firefox for the final release.

New word of the day: Accroding (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844069)

"Accroding to the firm, which operates a community-based testing network,.."

I guess the editors do not use Firefox to spell check before posting.

171 threads may actually be a good sign! (4, Interesting)

rpp3po (641313) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844075)

380 MB RAM is a lot, but don't forget about debugging code which may decrease this substantailly.

Why should 171 threads be a problem? Threads are pretty cheap today. Creation is fast and while asleep they use up almost no resources. It's a good sign that MS may be able to utilize current and future multicore CPUs.

Ok, thread pools and runnable objects might have been better style. 171 threads indicate that software engineering could not agree on a single Grand Central and every team is allowed to spawn as many threads as they want. But hey, threads are cheap - stil way better than Firefox' single process model.

Fatter or Faster? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844139)

My heart stopped for a moment as I thought i'd read 'faster'...

Craig Barth is a retard (1, Redundant)

melted (227442) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844163)

This is a BETA. There are all kinds of things turned on that will be turned off in the final version. Make your RAM measurements once the final version comes out. And the number of threads doesn't mean anything, since most of them are asleep at any given time.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844199)

Microsoft's stuff is MEANT TO BE SLOW AND RESOURCES DEMANDING. Nothing new here. Besides, makes me happy to see they keep making SLOW SOFTWARE. Just proves me why I should stick to OpenSource apps. Vista is slow, IE is slow, everything from Microsoft are slow applications. Linux stuff is lean. Ubuntu + Firefox + Compiz = very lean compared to Vista + IE.

More "demanding" than XP (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844213)

Internet Explorer 8 is in fact more demanding on your PC than Windows XP itself

Uh, shouldn't it be? The whole point of an OS is to be a platform for applications which do the actual final work for the end user. I would hope the browser would use more CPU and RAM than the OS core processes, otherwise that would be an incredibly inefficient OS.

New IE Resources (1)

McFly69 (603543) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844265)

Honestly are we surprised with all the resources it is using? We already can expect/assume that each consecutive newer version will take additional resources. Since it is still in beta, I am going to assume it will be much more lean once it is officially released. While in beta, MS usually does not place a large emphasis on its optimization and wishes for the general public to start providing feedback on its functionality.

Just my 2 cents.

About time! (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844317)

I'd much rather have 200 mostly-idle threads than 1 core-burning monster. The real news here is that MSIE will probably run better on modern CPUs. I'm kind of glad in a way to see Firefox getting some real competition and incentive for improvement.

Posted via Konqueror. I don't have a dog in this hunt, although I'd be much happier with Firefox dominance than with IE.

Where is Opera in the benchmarks? (-1, Offtopic)

Bazouel (105242) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844319)

Why is Opera almost always ignored? Yeah, its market share is slim, but how do you expect it to get bigger if we cannot see how good it is.

Just like Porky Pig says (1)

vistahator (1330955) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844327)

for Microshaft, its "budee budee budee, That's all Folks!"

In an ideal world... (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844375)

Microsoft would use firefox as their browser, and contribute back to the community so they could focus on making their other products more secure, usable, and flexible.

have we forgotten chrome already? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24844379)

I could have sworn that yesterday there was a link to a comic book on this very site that was extoling the VIRTUES of having a browser that uses many processes (which are the heavy hitters, threads are cheap) with a logical minimum of 1 thread per process. Oh, right, M$ == automatically teh wrong, I forgot, forgive me.

Software grows, hardware grows, weeds grow. These things are inevitable, get over them. Don't believe me? Compare the memory footprint of firefox to that of IE4. Oh, features you say? Guess what, that's growth.

Signed,
A future Chrome user temporarily stuck advocating Opera

Porcine (5, Funny)

javilon (99157) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844387)

Vista's performance is "porcine" enough by itself, but combined with the new and "improved" IE, you will start thinking about yourself as a swineherd [wikipedia.org]

this story is rather humorous for me (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#24844485)

as i just downloaded ie8 this morning, and slashdot was the first page i navigated to (partly to see if the rendering artifacts of slashdot in ie7 were still an issue). this front page article was the first thing i saw in ie8 ;-)

the compatibility button made me laugh to. i understand ie8 is more compliant to standards, but a big stinking button reminding everyone of the legacy of incompatible cross-browser rendering and dom manipulations is rather unfortunate

a lot of people better get busy making sure their sites still work in ie8. there's a lot who will never hit that button to bring up legacy mode if your site doesn't work, they'll just go away

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>