×

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!

Microsoft Says IE Faster Than Chrome and Firefox

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the well-we-all-have-to-design-for-the-broken-thing dept.

Internet Explorer 532

An anonymous reader writes "According to its own speed tests, Microsoft's Internet Explorer loads most websites faster than both Chrome and Firefox when looking at the top 25 websites on the Internet. 'As you can see, IE8 outperforms Firefox 3.05 and Chrome 1.0 in loading 12 websites, Chrome 1.0 places second by loading nine sites first, and Firefox brings up the rear by loading four sites faster than the other two browsers. Also, in case you missed it, IE loads mozilla.com faster than Firefox, and Firefox loads microsoft.com faster than IE, just for kicks.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

532 comments

Really (1, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165239)

I'll believe it when I see it for myself.

Re:you are not looking (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165307)

IE always has been faster. And I'm a firefox fanboy. Even with the bulk of add-ons stripped out, FF is still sluggish. IE is practically part of the OS, and that's a competitive advantage that FF can't beat. It just beats IE in every category other than speed.

Re:you are not looking (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165445)

IE always has been faster. And I'm a firefox fanboy. Even with the bulk of add-ons stripped out, FF is still sluggish. IE is practically part of the OS, and that's a competitive advantage that FF can't beat. It just beats IE in every category other than speed.

No. On Windows, IE starts faster than Firefox, much the same way Safari starts faster on Mac OS X (big surprise). However, even on Windows, the latest versions of Firefox beat IE in rendering and Javascript performance benchmarks.

Sounds like Microsoft has been taking lessons from the NVidia and ATI/AMD School of Benchmarking. Lesson one at that school: pick some subset of data and "optimize" your benchmarks until they make your product look faster.

Re:you are not looking (3, Informative)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165507)

I can't agree. The startup time of IE on my work Windows PC is atrocious. Firefox beats it every time. And I use IE extensively every day.

Re:you are not looking (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165569)

Well, I'd have to access what version of IE you're using on what version of Windows and what's the rest of your config look like. Because in my experience, with no plugins or other addons installed on either browser and starting from a clean start, with the default configs for each browser, IE6 starts faster on Windows XP. IE8 seems atrociously slow to start on XP, although I've not measured its performance on a tuned Vista configuration.

IE6? (5, Insightful)

Bedemus (63252) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165805)

The load time of IE6 is irrelevant. It's a nearly 8-year old browser, service packs notwithstanding. Lynx starts up faster than just about anything, but you don't see people bringing it up, because it doesn't belong in this discussion.

Re:you are not looking (4, Insightful)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165813)

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

Scientific? (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165521)

MS said "any list of websites to be used for benchmarking must contain a variety of websites, including international websites, to help ensure a complete picture of performance as users would experience on the Internet."

I wonder: did their test machine also include all the DRM, WGA, etc. that is bundled with Win/IE platform?

Re:Really (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165683)

Why are you so stubborn?
It's not difficult to believe that according to the company that makes a product, such product is the best around...

mozilla.com (5, Funny)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165245)

Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...

Re:mozilla.com (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165329)

Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...

Someone's tripping ballmers if they think IE is faster than FFox.

Re:mozilla.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165547)

Haha tripping ballmers was funny, too bad you're a joke killer.

Re:mozilla.com (4, Interesting)

rvw (755107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165369)

Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...

Strangely enough FF opens microsoft.com faster, and they publicly admit this.

Re:mozilla.com (1)

drmitch (1065012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165631)

Ofcourse IE loads mozilla.com faster, that's the only site you'd ever need to open with IE...

HAHAHA, how true!

Morning dump (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165765)

Hi guys, I just got in the office. I'm gonna go for my morning shit (on the company's dime) and we can talk about Chrome and Mozilla after I get back :)

speed is everything? (4, Insightful)

hatchet (528688) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165251)

I don't care if page loads faster if it doesn' show correctly. I bet lynx can load it faster than IE, but that doesn't make it the best browser.

IE8 doesn't even have full CSS3 support. No corner-radius? What the heck is MS thinking?

Re:speed is everything? (4, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165313)

Speed is everything, which is why I don't use it. Maybe if it didn't take more than 2 seconds to open a new tab (CTRL+T), I would be able to give IE7 some credit.

Guess how long it takes on Firefox? Instant! No "Connecting..." or locking up!

Re:speed is everything? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165389)

>> Speed is everything,

ORLY? http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/

Re:speed is everything? (1, Informative)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165541)

My experience with Firefox somehow differs a bit from yours. I used to see Firefox spend a lot of time in DNS queries for *everything*. Even if it's a host I just visited about a minute before. As a result I set up dnsmasq [thekelleys.org.uk] running on my computer and modified /etc/hosts so that every query goes through the local DNS cache. It's been working pretty well since. The wait time is dramatically reduced.

Of course Firefox is not all to blame for the slow DNS but it shouldn't be making queries *that* often either, IMHO.

I guess it's possible to modify some key/value pair in about:config to tell Firefox how long it should keep the entries in its hostname cache. But I'm too lazy to search for that ;)

Firefox loads a page up pretty fast after the DNS query is made, though. I don't think the speed is astonishingly fast but it's enough for me.

Re:speed is everything? (2, Insightful)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165797)

I wouldn't think firefox should be caching hostnames, your OS should be. Otherwise, if you wanted to flush your DNS hostname cache, you'd have to flush the OS cache, and then the firefox cache.

Re:speed is everything? (5, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165873)

My experience with Firefox somehow differs a bit from yours. I used to see Firefox spend a lot of time in DNS queries for *everything*. Even if it's a host I just visited about a minute before. As a result I set up dnsmasq running on my computer and modified /etc/hosts so that every query goes through the local DNS cache. It's been working pretty well since. The wait time is dramatically reduced.
Of course Firefox is not all to blame for the slow DNS but it shouldn't be making queries *that* often either, IMHO.

BR>Actually it probably doing exactly what it should be doing. It's the job of the OS to manage the details of DNS resolution. Having applications do things like caching DNS lookups adds complexity to the application and causes all sorts of problems when they application writer dosn't know exactly what they are doing.

Re:speed is everything? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165795)

As a long time firefox user, who is now forced to Use IE (at least they JUST upgraded to 7) at the office for certain webapps, like recording my time, I especially love opening a new tab, then clicking on a bookmark on the tool bar, only to find that the tab was not quite done getting created, so the bookmarked page appears in the original window.

Re:speed is everything? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165811)

Speed is everything only if you ignore cpmatibility, stability and security.

Example: You can overclock some computers to 6Ghz if you don't mind having uptimes measured in minutes/hours, and bugs crawling all over the place, and you'll certainly have speed! Do you do that?

Even then, what has the speed advantage is often task dependent.

That being said, for the most part, Firefox has all of those over IE. Only occasionally does IE load a site faster.

Re:speed is everything? (5, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165405)

IE8 doesn't even have full CSS3 support. No corner-radius? What the heck is MS thinking?

And you Sir, are clueless as to the current state of CSS3.

Huge parts of the standard are still in the working draft stage.
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work [w3.org]

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

Re:speed is everything? (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165481)

Much as I loathe it (as a small web designer myself), the reality is that MS *IS* the standard right now. Anyone using markup not supported by IE is basically doing a disservice to their clients (unless they can find a way to at least mask it for IE). I know a lot of you would respond with some noble "Screw MS! If they're not going to adhere to the standards, we should ignore them!" sentiment. But the reality is that, until they can be driven to under 50% of the browser market share, they pretty much get to set the standard.

Re:speed is everything? (0, Redundant)

NetSerf2000 (557252) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165679)

MS isnt the "standard" at all... MS breaks the standards constantly and if you cannot manage to write browser independant code, then maybe you should get out of the business.

Re:speed is everything? (3, Informative)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165755)

But the reality is that, until they can be driven to under 50% of the browser market share, they pretty much get to set the standard.

They, Microsoft, get to set the lowest common denominator, the truth is though that most designers will be using progressive enhancement meaning that Saf, FF, Op, Konq are getting a nicer overall look with slicker running features whilst MSIE is getting either a "degraded" view or a separately developed page (I'm considering MS targetted CSS to be separately developed).

Basically, as a web designer since 1996-ish (and commercially for the last 5 years or so) I consider that MSIE has been holding things back all along. Less so now, but they're still not leading the way.

As for CSS3. If MS had included some basics, like rounded corners and columns, then we could have started making some headway with a less hacked together internet. Moz and Webkit have these things already waiting for the spec to be finished.

http://www.quirksmode.org/css/multicolumn.html [quirksmode.org]

"Marketshare sets the standard" (2, Interesting)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165859)

Hmm, so GM, Ford and Chrysler set the standard for cars in North America?

Preponderance alone does not set the standard. If it did, what exactly would that standard be today?

MS IE 5 or 6?

Re:speed is everything? (4, Interesting)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165735)

You bring up an interesting point. It seems that we're approaching territory where the marginal increase in speed really isn't that significant. At this point the need for the greater marginal increase in accuracy would be much more appreciated than speed.

That's why I have a hard time taking *any* of these software companies seriously when the only thing they can brag about is how incremental their speed increases are.

Re:speed is everything? (5, Funny)

EatHam (597465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165803)

It's just like I say with sex...

I may not be good, but at least I'm fast.

Re:speed is everything? (2, Informative)

kae_verens (523642) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165847)

/nothing/ has full CSS3 support.

even those browsers that do have corner-radius support don't do it the way the W3C described (with separate x and y radii).

Oh well (5, Interesting)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165253)

A more useful test would perhaps be testing firefox 3.5 vs ie8 and chrome 2.0? Firefox 3 is already getting "old".

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165617)

Firefox 3 is already getting "old".

So is IE8.
I don't see your point.

Re:Oh well (4, Informative)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165817)

IE8 is still in beta, like FF3.5 and Chrome 2.0. By comparing the latest build of IE vs. old builds of Chrome and FF they're comparing apples* and pears.

*No jokes about Safari.

So half the time they are better? (4, Interesting)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165255)

How is this "good" they test 25 sites (who only views 25 sites?) and IE is faster 12/25. This doesn't seem very compelling at all. They don't even have a simple majority on their side.

Re:So half the time they are better? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165363)

(who only views 25 sites?)

Your typical user, maybe. Off the top of my head I can guess: Online banking, ebay, e-mail, Reuters, and a search engine. I don't think my mother or father use more than 25 websites on a regular basis. Not even I do on a daily basis unless if I am looking into a specific topic.

Re:So half the time they are better? (1)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165451)

Let me rephrase: Who only views THOSE 25 sites?

Re:So half the time they are better? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165527)

the people who made them top 25.

Re:So half the time they are better? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165503)

If you are old enough to remember families having a set of encyclopedias, try to remember anyone using the X volume. I never did, after finding out XXX wasn't in there. There is probably a lot of people that don't use more than 25 sites.

Besides, if they tested on 2500 they would lose. PR is PR dude.

Riiight, sure. (3, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165257)

To Microsoft:

I believe you.

Honest! I do!

Yea, right

Re:Riiight, sure. (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165343)

Now all they need to do is patent "being the fastest" and collect royalties from anyone who beets them.

Re:Riiight, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165491)

dont give them ideas
they just might do it

actually, im surprised they havent patented "application for looking at web sites"

Re:Riiight, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165655)

Might be because they're pending patent on "Application for usage by human", and the above mentioned kind of falls under this patent.

Fair comparison... (4, Insightful)

master_p (608214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165261)

...Microsoft tests its own release candidate software on its release candidate operating system and finds it faster than existing tried-and-tested software.

Very fair.

Speed not equal to good (4, Informative)

christurkel (520220) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165267)

This doesn't mean a thing because while IE7 is fast; I use it at work everyday, it also breaks many web standards and does things in non standard ways. Speed isn't the issue here.

Re:Speed not equal to good (2)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165669)

The article is talking about IE8, which is much more compliant.

Besides, I don't see how your comment can apply to an end user. IE7 is the standard that the web is coded to. Sure, I complain about it, but only when I'm doing web development. For surfing the web, IE7 is fine because everything is made to work with it.

So... (4, Insightful)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165269)

...it's faster than the soon-to-be-old version of Firefox, and the soon-to-be-old version of Chrome. Way to stay ahead of the pack, there.

Though, to be honest, that's actually not to bad for IE.

What about rendering ? (5, Funny)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165277)

Sure it loads up sites faster, that's because microsoft left out all the code that renders the web pages properly . . .

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165283)

Now, how much more standards compliant is it?

How many websites does it load more correctly than the other browsers? How much more secure is it too?

Let me fix this... (4, Funny)

Maxim Kovalenko (764126) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165289)

"Loads most malware faster?" See, corrected it. It is IE after all ;)

Re:Let me fix this... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165387)

And first to crash, no doubt. I'll take the one that's more stable and standards compliant, even if it is slightly slower (not that I'm taking MS's word on this).

Dog bites man (4, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165301)

Upcoming version of browser outperforms current version of competitors is not remarkable. A most relevant comparison would include Firefox 3.1 (already in Beta) and Safari 4 (also in Beta).

But IE8 doesn't work with Slashdot correctly. (2, Interesting)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165327)

I use IE 8. And it really is much better and right on par with Firefox ... EXCEPT I can't do online banking with Wachovia, and SLASHDOT corrcetly. I have to open a new tab to reply, or read a hidden comment.

And to comment I have to use Firefox. Which is what I am using now.

Re:But IE8 doesn't work with Slashdot correctly. (2, Insightful)

montyzooooma (853414) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165399)

I don't know if it's because I'm using Adblock and Noscript but Slashdot loads really slowly on my Firefox and locks it up while it's doing it.

Re:But IE8 doesn't work with Slashdot correctly. (2, Informative)

JSmooth (325583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165687)

I doubt it. Many people (including myself) run the same config and \. loads almost instantly for me every time.

Re:But IE8 doesn't work with Slashdot correctly. (3, Funny)

Vornzog (409419) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165741)

I can't do online banking with Wachovia, and SLASHDOT corrcetly (sic)

Banking with Slashdot? Forget which browser you use - there's your problem!

If Slashdot were a bank, we'd have all sorts of problems with easily detectable duplication of small bills, and none other than Cowboy Neal for security. Also, instead of those little suckers you get at most banks, you'd probably end up being offered hot grits...

My money will be staying under the mattress, thanks!

Next time.. (0, Offtopic)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165341)

Next time I'll write up an article claiming I run faster than Usian Bolt [wikipedia.org] in 100 meters and submit it to /. I guess CmdrTaco would post it to the front page ;)

What it shows (5, Interesting)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165347)

that..Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox, and has to come up with some such FUD. A healthy sign about status of Firefox.

Yeah? Well... (2, Funny)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165349)

My [unreleased Microsoft software] runs [x] faster than your [available and fully released software].

What B$ from M$.

statistics... (1)

RasendeRutje (829555) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165351)

If enough data is collected, anything may be proven by statistical methods.

Re:statistics... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165417)

No, anything may be shown when asking the appropriate question of the data, and this has to be very carefully crafted when you're trying to make the loser appear on top in something. Collecting masses of data doesn't change anything, it's all down to how you filter then collate it.

Yup, pwn3d inunder 30 seconds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165361)

Yup, IE sure is as fast as you like. It can download, install and start running 90% of known internet malware in under 30 seconds.

As another bonus feature it does this mostly without requiring user interaction !

Rendering isn't the only issue (0, Offtopic)

Azzmodan (96691) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165377)

Open internet explorer, type address. Address get's removed and replaced with about:blank and I get some sort of weird error about the site not being available.

Open a new tab get a "Connecting..." message and my browser locking up for a few seconds.

Even if it were faster at rendering the actual page, if it takes that much more time and effort to begin typing the url they already lost.

No Opera? (5, Informative)

krou (1027572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165393)

I prefer Firefox, but even I know Opera is amazingly quick.

Regardless, since when is the speed of loading a website the measure of a good browser?

Also, it's worth pointing out that this test shows IE is faster at loading cached pages, not uncached websites. From their paper [microsoft.com]:

In the Internet Explorer lab: We visit each site prior to starting any site test. âoePreloadingâ the cache prior to a test helps ensure systems are at a known base before starting.

Re:No Opera? (4, Informative)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165601)

That is actually a good idea.

By loading cached pages they test the speed of the renderer and not the speed of the server or internet connection.

Re:No Opera? (2, Insightful)

beebware (149208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165761)

Yes, but then they could just have a local cache server running on the test machine... It could just be the case that IE is more aggresively cacheing (or even incorrectly cachine) content. IIRC the default install for IE is "Always use the cache" whereas Firefox et al, it's "Check with server". Internet Explorer users could be being served outdated content faster, but Firefox users be served newer content slightly slower.

More details.. (5, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165411)

It would be interesting to know what exactly those sites send to the browsers (many sites check your user agent and serve up different files depending on your browser, mainly because of ie behaving differently to every other browser out there)...

It would also make more sense to load local caches of the sites, or network conditions could affect things (especially things like dns caching etc)...

IE is massively behind other browsers when it comes to things like CSS, so i would imagine it has a lot less processing to do (Seeing as it ignores big parts of the spec), lynx also ignores big parts of the html/css specs and it subsequently loads sites very quickly.

Also, comparing IE8 (in beta) Chrome (in beta) against firefox 3.05 (production and fairly old) seems a rather unfair and pointless test... And where were Opera and Safari in these tests?

.02 seconds faster! (0, Flamebait)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165427)

Just added up all the columns and found the following: Chrome: 88.32 s Firefox: 95.62 s IE: 88.30 s So if you visit those sites equally then you save 0.02% of your time by using IE over Chrome. But then you also have to be using a windows machine so you are wasting 100% more time dealing with a crashing OS.

Re:.02 seconds faster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165807)

1998 called and they want their joke about crashing OS's back

This epeen waving is getting stupid (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165447)

Seriously, these speed comparisons are getting stupid and pointless. The major delay in loading websites is waiting for the server to send it, and waiting for the thing to download. There aren't very many websites where the browser actually creates noticable delays on its own.

Can we please have a browser vendor focus on usability and security over "hey I can display this page 0.1 seconds faster then you!"

Javascript ? (4, Interesting)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165449)

And what about Javascript ?
Frankly, GMail is super slow on IE7, not because of page loading, but because any Javascript in IE is super slow.
In TFA, there is no site with Javascript !

Visual correcteness matters! (4, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165497)

It's true that IE8 loads pages blindingly fast.

What MS is missing, however, is that not all pages are supposed to be all blue background + some white text at the top.

irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165501)

Kudos on the improvement MS. I only care which browser loads /. the fastest.

On what platform did they test? (3, Funny)

MoreDruid (584251) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165505)

are the benchmarks done on OS X, linux & Windows?
I didn't RTFA, but it would be fair to run all applications on different platforms and see if it makes a difference. I bet they didn't do that.

Re:On what platform did they test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165693)

This was a test of browsers on the windows platform. nothing more nothing less.

Re:On what platform did they test? (1)

jeffbax (905041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165731)

Last time I checked, IE is long dead on the Mac, non-existent on Linux, and Chrome isn't available for either yet so I'm not sure how you expect them to benchmark OS X and Linux too.

Re:On what platform did they test? (1)

drmitch (1065012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165821)

I just skimmed the article and didn't see anything about the OS they used. I'm betting that if they ran on Vista, they primarily use IE8 on that system. And last I heard Vista actually improves performance of applications based on how often they are used. Would this speed up overall performance or only start-up performance? I wonder if this was taken into consideration.

Well, that's a relief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165529)

Well, it's a darn good thing that IE left it's standards at the curb and decided to make a faster browser. With all the hundredths of a second I am saving by switching to IE, I can afford to stop web designing (aka 'getting standards to work in a browser that doesn't care) and focus more on curing cancer.

Averages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165557)

Chromes Average load time of the top 25 sites was 3.5328.

Firefoxes Average load time of the top 25 sites was 3.8248.

IE8 average load time of the top 25 sites was 3.532.

Not a big different between Chrome and IE8 using Averages. I bet that difference is covered in the error margin of the test they concluded also. I wonder what ways we can come up with to prove that Firefox is faster or chrome is faster by just using numbers we want to.

You know why... (1, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165627)

...IE loads some sites quicker?

Because it does not even understand half of the features of the site (some CSS stuff, much DOM stuff), and just ignores them. ;)

Oh, and of course... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165685)

... it has not a single add-in running too...

I stay with my AdBlock Plus, Firebug, BetterSearch,DownloadHelper, FireGestures, Greasmonkey/Greasefire, Venkman, Resurrect Pages, SmoothWheel, TabMix Plus, TagSifter, Web Developer bar, and clean interpretation of the standards. TYVM.

Realworld IE Benchmark... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165629)

How long does it take using IE 8 to connect to www.mozilla.org and download firefox ?

Totals Totals and Totals (1)

thegermanpolice (1194811) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165665)

Having whacked the figures into excel and totalled them up.

The results are...
IE8 88.3 Secs
Chrome 88.32 Secs
Firefox 95.62 Secs

Way to go IE8 you are 2 hundredths of a second faster than Chrome overall...

Nothing to see here move along...

Stupidy, stupidy, stupidy... (2, Insightful)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165675)

This is a stupid thing for Microsoft to do, because:

(a) if an independent source verifies the test, then nothing will be reported (because there is nothing to report)
(b) if an independent source refutes the test, then Microsoft are liars.
(c) if no independent source tests the test, then no one will believe Microsoft, except those that want justify their existing use of IE.

The smart thing to do would have been to get a completely independent and respected source to run the original test - or to destroy the reputations of IE6 and IE7 by comparing them with a vastly improved IE8 (which would have been trusted results from Microsoft).

Websites (1)

schildt06 (1497101) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165713)

Take a closer look and you will see that a lot of the tested websites are mostly used as search engines and few are Chinese. Others like mozilla.com, adobe.com, microsoft.com are not exactly sites that normal users visit very often.
For searches there is a search box in Mozilla Firefox and chrome which is a lot easier to use and change at will than IE8's.
BTW a lot of sites don't load well on IE8 no such problem with chrome or firefox.
Plus I can't install IE8, no windows.

Nice but... (1)

JSmooth (325583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165751)

I don't use IE or Chrome or Opera or any other browser because Firefox is the only one that works the way I want to work. Remember the days when software worked for you instead of you working for it? FF lets me customize every last bit and piece and as long as it is comparable (ie 3 seconds instead of 1) then I am more than happy and will be unlikely to switch.

I am sure there are plenty of users who take all the defaults and learn to work within the constraints of IE or etc. but I betcha a majority of \. readers like to set things just so.

-Joe

Micro$oft and it's test (0, Redundant)

grodzix (1235802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165753)

It's basically one of those when they prove that Windows is more ${YourMostImportantFeatureOfOs} than ${SomeOtherOsUsuallyGnuLinux}. News -1 redundant.

Not testing Opera is very misleading.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27165775)

as most of us would admit, it's usually the fastest in real world useage...

How about if I did a supercar test, and only included Fords and GM, but missed out Lambos, Ferarris and Maseraris...

Exploits abound (2, Interesting)

networkconsultant (1224452) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165779)

Since IE is the "Default" browser it is the most exploited, as such it costs any organization the most money to secure. (if you have 10K workstations and new IE bugs pop up all the time, your patch cycle becomes hell even if it's automated). If you want to save your company tons of money; switch to Fire Fox with NoScript and AdBlock+ Opera is still wikked fast; and chrome is pretty neat but I "Like" firefox because of the module, Stumble Upon alleviate soo much bordem that it's worth it's weight in gold.

Cannot reproduce results (5, Informative)

rhdv (748688) | more than 5 years ago | (#27165879)

After reading the original report I tried to reproduce a simple test for the adobe home page. I used Firefox 3.0.7 and pre-loaded the adobe home page (as suggested in the report), I closed the tab and opened a new one and reloaded the adobe home page. It loaded in 2 or 3 seconds instead of the 9 seconds in the report. I am not sure what to make of this report if a simple experiment to reproduce the measurements fails on the first try. I ran the test on Windows XP Professional SP3.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...