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!

A Look At Microsoft's 'Mini Internet' For Testing IE

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the a-series-of-tiny-tubes dept.

Internet Explorer 241

MrSeb writes "With the grandiose bluster that only an aging juggernaut can pull off, Microsoft has detailed the Internet Explorer Performance Lab and its extraordinary efforts to ensure IE9 is competitive and IE10 is the fastest browser in the world. Here are a few bullet points: 128 test computers, 20,000 tests per day, over 850 metrics analyzed, 480GB of runtime data per day, and a granularity of just 100 nanoseconds. The data is reported to 11 server-class (16-core, 16GB of RAM) computers, and the data is stored on a 24-core, 64GB SQL server. The 'mini internet' has content servers, DNS servers, and network emulators (to model various different latencies, throughputs, packet loss)."

cancel ×

241 comments

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

In b4 haters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076187)

In b4 haters

Could use the real internet eh! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076193)

Why not just use the real internet?

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (5, Informative)

weszz (710261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076257)

They wanted to account for any kind of lag, so by having it all in house and disconnected from even their internal network, they have control over all variables so everything is equal.

They did this post on their blog yesterday http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/ [msdn.com]

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (3, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076437)

They wanted to account for any kind of lag, so by having it all in house and disconnected from even their internal network, they have control over all variables so everything is equal.

They did this post on their blog yesterday http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/ [msdn.com]

They care about it so they created a genuine imitation of the real thing.

Honestly, I'd go at some of the pages I have to each day, which are ludicrous in their use of content and scripting - web developers just pick up and drop widgets all over the place, never a look toward what impact it has on the page being interpreted or used on the receiving end. I know I've got a bad one when I hear the processor fan kick in for a stinkin' web page!!!

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (3, Informative)

weszz (710261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076493)

they never do say what kind of sites, just that they are sanitized and are real world web pages... but if you are comparing IE to itself or Chrome or FF, whatever site you use should be similar in speeds, except for ones that detect clients and do different things...

"Content servers are web servers that stand in for the millions of web hosts on the Internet. Each content server hosts real world web pages that have been captured locally. The captured pages go through a process we refer to as sanitization, where we tweak portions of the web content to ensure reproducible determinism. For example, JavaScript Date functions or Math.Random() calls will be replaced with a static value. Additionally, the dynamic URLs created by ad frameworks are locked to the URL that was first used by the framework.

After sanitization, content is served similarly to static content through an ISAPI filter that maps a hash of the URL to the content, allowing instantaneous lookup. Each web server is a 16-core machine with 16GB of RAM to minimize variability and ensure that content is in memory (no disk access required).

Content servers can also host dynamic web apps like Outlook Web Access or Office Web Apps. In these cases, the application server and any multi-tier dependencies are hosted on dedicated servers in the lab, just like real world environments."

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (5, Insightful)

greichert (464285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076343)

Because you can not have reproducable results on the real Internet. Only a fake one, where eveyrthing is controlled and reproducable, can be used for testing and making sure some settings do not make the browser slower.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (5, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076745)

You have to figure out what the variables that you have problems with in real world usage, before you can start optimising your product to account for them.
There has to be iterative cycles of real world, then fake internet testing to really make it work well.
It would also help if you were able to test your competition alogn the same lines.

I additionally wonder if they are accouting for all of the different behavious of all of the various webservers out there. If they are only testing agianst iis, well, that's not very good.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39077345)

I would reverse that...

Do the internal testing in a known setting, so changing one function you can test its speed now vs before the change to see if it was a good one under ideal conditions, or if it slowed things down.

Once you have your internal code set you can go against the great unknown winding tube.

They said they do have some things in place to replicate real world conditions, but in the phase they are talking about you need to know what caused the slowdown to address it instead of hoping to replicate the same condition in the wild so you can see if you fixed it against some guy down the hall streaming something...

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (2)

Phlow (2488880) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077473)

If you wonder about that, you must be wondering if their entire team that put this together is chock full of morons. Seriously, I think a little more credit is due here.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076355)

The real internet cannot provide consistent tests. You can't choose your latency on the internet...

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076709)

Okay, but how then will the performance tweaks made to IE result in a better 'real usage' experience for the user? The user won't be in that mininet.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077237)

Hopefully they are able to create scenarios that are similar to the ones that occur in the real Internet.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (2)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077361)

If real world users have a problem when their latency is too high, or too low or too medium, they use the mininet to set up that situation, find the issues, and fix them. They aren't running these tests to get statistics on IE performance in the wild for the average user, they're doing it to get statistics on how it performs in specific situations, and trying to get those stats as good as possible so each user has the best possible experience for their specific circumstances.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (0)

slartibartfastatp (613727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076361)

No one else have a mini internet - so this way, nobody could contest their results.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (4, Funny)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076735)

Yes, there must be some conspiracy! Microsoft couldn't possibly want to make a good browser! They must have ulterior motives!

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076965)

Microsoft, like pretty much any company, doesn't want to make good products. Or useful products. They want to make profitable products. You are lucky if you find a union of "good" and "profitable" that is fit for your purposes.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (4, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077069)

So, what's going to make anyone use a Microsoft browser? They've been losing market share for ages because their browsers suck. How do they get people back? Make a good browser. Your argument might mean something if Microsoft sold IE as a standalone product, but they don't. It costs nothing (in terms of cash coming straight out of your pocket) to switch browsers, and users are notoriously not fond of switching. Since you can't count on your competitors' products to be lousy, you can only compete by making yours better. The browser market is about as Darwinistic as a software market could be.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (2)

cjeze (596987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077381)

IE 9 is actually not bad.I am surprised how well they did it!

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077449)

That's what I hear, but there's also what I said about people not liking to switch. :)

I'll stick with Chrome until I hear something is much, much better, or Chrome gets much, much worse. Same thing happened when I originally used Netscape (turned to shit around version 4.5), then IE (turned to shit around version 6), then Firefox (I forget when it went to hell, but then I jumped to Chrome.)

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (1, Insightful)

liquidsin (398151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076657)

they don't want all those fancy test clients to be picking up the latest in drive-by syphilis; even microsoft knows better than to go on the real internet with explorer.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (3, Insightful)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076753)

Because that would be somewhat unscientific. A lab setting is controllable and you would be able to trigger and know where latency is coming from and how to correct certain behaviors in software. With the real internet, it's anyone's guess where lag is coming from.

Re:Could use the real internet eh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39077229)

It would be a major liability for one, putting an untested web browser out there to go and download everything the internet has to offer. Thanks for infecting our testing center, Urist McIntern.

And still... (4, Insightful)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076203)

Beaten by Chrome and Firefox.

Re:And still... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076227)

The only thing Firefox does fast anymore is update.

Re:And still... (2)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076751)

Oh snap!

Yeah, that's why I ditched Firefox years ago for Chrome. Got sick of FF freezing/crashing all the time, as well as its performance just getting worse and worse over time.

Re:And still... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077187)

And Chrome has built in sycning of *everything*. An natively supports Greasemonkey scripts without an extension. And auto-updates in a cleaner fashion than Firefox. And is blazing fast at rendering.

Re:And still... (2)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077257)

All true. Although I have a friend who uses Opera, and she was aghast at the way Chrome renders a white screen before it starts rendering the full page. She said under Opera, the full page just shows up all at once with no weird white screen first. I'm not sure but I think Opera's renderer might be a little faster than Chrome's.

Re:And still... (3, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076881)

Firefox hasn't become any slower. What's happened is that everything else become so much faster. There used to be a "pregnant pause" when entering a domain, I remember when 30 seconds to load a page was the norm, over 56k.

Now, I expect the results from a google search to appear as I type, interactively. This isn't just an improvement, it's a whole 'nother animal at that level of performance.

Firefox isn't slow at all. (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077385)

While slashdot mocks the computer industry marketing for describing computers using a single metric, you seem to be quite happy with that when it comes to browser performance.

An example: Chrome (v8 engine) has this reputation for amazing speed, but IE9 absolutely grinds Chrome into the dust when it comes to simply repositioning elements on screen; something which today's web apps spend a lot of their time doing. You can feel it too if you know what you're looking for. I don't follow IEs development as closely as Chrome or Firefox, but IE must be hardware accelerating these translations.

I fully expect Google to focus on performance cases which help their specific apps. Again, a conflict of interest, akin to Microsoft pre-caching masses of junk, so that Office can appear to start up much faster than the competition.

Re:And still... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39077227)

The biggest reason I'm not likely to switch away from Firefox right now because of the add-ons I use.

I also like that it can handle animations on pseudo CSS elements, which Chrome can't; and purely a personal opinion, I think Firefox's text shadows look nicer than Chrome's shadows.

Of course Firefox can't correctly draw a box-shadow on a fieldset element, where as Chrome can, so there is clearly room for improvement.

Re:And still... (5, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076315)

And when all we care about is the fastest browser - in nanoseconds! - will we begin to forget the truly important criteria for choosing a browser?

Or better still, by the time IE is on par with Chrome the actual browser will be irrelevant because mobile platforms - in which IE has little share - will do to traditional computers what Cromagnons did to Neanderthals. The next generation will use integrated devices, unaware they were using a browser, and with little or no need for even a choice.

Re:And still... (2)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076909)

The next generation will use integrated devices, unaware they were using a browser, and with little or no need for even a choice.

And little or no understanding of how it works or how to use it as anything other than yet another few-to-many information channel they can listen to or watch, but can't talk back to in any real sense. And you're right that that's the direction it's going, but some of us aren't thrilled about that..

Re:And still... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39077301)

With a combined Windows and Android market device penetration combining both desktops, tablets and smartphones of 70-80% (if not higher), I'd argue that people would choose open platforms even if people didn't know they had the choice.

Re:And still... (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077435)

Milliseconds, (maybe not so much nanoseconds) DO matter inside an animation loop.

Oh, unless you were happy with Flash?

Re:And still... (0)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076333)

Chrome, yes. Firefox, only in usability.

Granularity of 100 nanoseconds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076207)

Granularity of 100 nanoseconds: What does that mean?

1/10,000 of a millisecond (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076311)

It means that each millisecond of ping is divided into over 9000 [youtube.com] parts.

Re:Granularity of 100 nanoseconds (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076317)

Granularity of 100 nanoseconds: What does that mean?

That's as small as they could get the bits, pounding on them with Steve's chair.

Re:Granularity of 100 nanoseconds (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076939)

It means the runtime data they have collected is stored in a 100ns interval.

last words (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076221)

"As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station! "

Was /. been bought or what? (1, Insightful)

miknix (1047580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076233)

What is this now? MSDN blogs? Seriously, gimme old slashdot back please!

Re:Was /. been bought or what? (2, Interesting)

weszz (710261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076369)

the building windows 8 blogs are actually pretty good, as long as you know that it's going to be pumping up how cool windows 8 will be, and question what is in the cool-aid you are drinking, it's worth a read now and then. They give background information on decisions they are making and why some things are the way they are as well as where they plan to take them.

Re:Was /. been bought or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076453)

Yea, I much prefer the iPhone update a day Slashdot.

Re:Was /. been bought or what? (4, Funny)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076771)

What we really need is another Bitcoin story!

Re:Was /. been bought or what? (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076811)

Oh come on... Now that Microsoft has been pushed to #2 with Apple #1 we have to start liking Microsoft and Hating Apple. As the only true measure of intelligence is hating what is popular and mainstream.

Re:Was /. been bought or what? (2)

treeves (963993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077357)

I was just going to comment on the abundance of nuclear-related stories that have been running on /. of late - and I'm a nuclear supporter. I wouldn't be complaining though, just making an observation.

not a true real-world test (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076247)

until they add some zombied computers and malware control servers.

oh, wait.. these are windows test systems. never mind. some kind soul probably already added them

IE Crap (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076255)

And still unable to correctly implement CSS3 and HTML5

Re:IE Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076307)

As if it were convenient for them to do it.

Re:IE Crap (5, Funny)

Krojack (575051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076341)

And still unable to correctly implement CSS2 and HTML4

Fixed that for ya.

Re:IE Crap (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076381)

Correctly according to whom? Neither CSS3 nor HTML5 are completed standards and various portions remain in flux. Of the more mature bits IE9 and IE10 implement quite a bit of it and do so quite comprehensively.

MS is also one of very few organizations that is very actively involved with the W3C Test Suite by submitting test cases for each portion of the standard under various circumstances to demonstrate correct behaviors. What Google and Mozilla do instead is slap together a partial implementation and call it a day. More than once has their implementations been found to be not only incomplete but also incorrect.

Stop relying on scores given by non-authoritative tests demonstrating exceedingly limited and selective interpretations of non-standardized functionality. Oh, and HTML5 Video does NOT specify a codec, in fact it was designed to handle many simultaneous codecs, including h.264, which is explicitly referenced in the draft.

Re:IE Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076523)

Maybe its just lack of skills... On your part..

Its like the novice pool player blaming the stick..

Re:IE Crap (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076793)

Well, sometimes blaming tools is an excuse, other times you have no choice but to speak up and say, this isn't a pool stick, its a baseball bat.

Re:IE Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076869)

Making it even faster!

But will it run Linux? (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076291)

I couldn't resist. But with all the work and effort and resources going into this, how is it that operations a tiny fraction of this can generate fast, reliable and standards complaint browsers better than MSIE?

Microsoft, the problem isn't that you're not spending enough money. It's that you're not doing it right.

Re:But will it run Linux? (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076435)

I couldn't resist. But with all the work and effort and resources going into this, how is it that operations a tiny fraction of this can generate fast, reliable and standards complaint browsers better than MSIE?

Microsoft, the problem isn't that you're not spending enough money. It's that you're not doing it right.

I'm not familiar with IE 8 and 9, but in the past the issue was many years and revisions of code reuse and accumulation of cruft, an insane amount of backwards compatibility and some poor initial design choices combined to make each new version bigger, slower and buggier. I imagine this combines to make developing and especially testing any new release a massive undertaking.

To be fair, I would argue that Firefox is starting that downward spiral now. Each new version is slower and has a bigger footprint. Personally, I've switched to Chrome, but when Chrome inevitably starts lagging, I'll be on the lookout for the next completely new browser. Not merely because it's new, but because it's less likely to have years of bad decisions weighing it down.

The problem in Microsoft's case is that they seem incapable of dumping what they have and doing a complete rewrite. There may be marketing reasons for this, granted, but if they made a clean break it'd be better for them in the long run.

Re:But will it run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076561)

You should become familiar with IE8 and IE9. It is vastly different and infinitely better. You might not prefer it to Firefox or Chrome, but it is much improved and is catching up fairly rapidly.

Re:But will it run Linux? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076601)

"Vastly different" is not the same as "a complete rewrite". If it's like the ribbon in MS Office, being vastly different could actually be a disadvantage.

Re:But will it run Linux? (2)

Mr 44 (180750) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077147)

The problem in Microsoft's case is that they seem incapable of dumping what they have and doing a complete rewrite.

It's really tempting to think that way, but actually doing a clean re-write is usually a complete mistake. I'd say Mac OSX is one of the only successfull examples of this (and that largely because their previous versions were so horribly outdated it was unbelievable).

Joel has a great article on this from a while back:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html [joelonsoftware.com]

Re:But will it run Linux? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076443)

yes
http://bellard.org/jslinux/

Re:But will it run Linux? (1)

Teckla (630646) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076591)

But with all the work and effort and resources going into this, how is it that operations a tiny fraction of this can generate fast, reliable and standards complaint browsers better than MSIE?

And with more features, too!

It's 2012 and IE9 still doesn't have a built-in spellchecker for text areas! Among many other must-have features that are suspiciously absent.

Re:But will it run Linux? (2, Interesting)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076985)

It's 2012 and IE9 still doesn't have a built-in spellchecker for text areas!

If IE had a spell checker you'd call it bloat. When it's still 2012 and browsers running on Windows 8 won't need to worry about it because it'll be built into the OS, would that relieve your frustration?

Re:But will it run Linux? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077297)

To be fair, IE10 includes spell checking (and auto correct), though only preview versions have been released. The final version of IE9 was released in March of last year. I'm curious, what other "must-have features" are absent from IE10 (or IE9, for that matter)?

I'm used to people disliking IE for how it was years ago and not giving it a fair chance today--and of course Microsoft hate is popular here (TFS opens with the "grandiose bluster" of an "aging juggernaut"--thanks so much for excellent and fair reporting of facts, slashdot). I apologize if you're not one of them.

Try it on Slashdot (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076293)

These massive pages are a real benchmark for any browser. Or Google .. they seem to be logging every page I go to now. Or eBay with all that horrible bloat. Or Facebook, which is seriously clunky with to many competing scripts. ...

If it's their own little internet they should be using some of the most bloated, unresponsive web sites on the internet to test on. I don't think when IE10 comes out I'll be surfing their own tiny little internet.

Might try for a smaller footprint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076305)

16-core, 16GB of RAM computers

They might want to try running IE on smaller/less robust computers. If you need all that to run it, some might argue its s-l-o-w.

Re:Might try for a smaller footprint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076377)

Meanwhile, others might argue you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Re:Might try for a smaller footprint (2)

weszz (710261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076433)

no no... those are what COMPILE the results...

They have a wide range of high end to low end PCs running the tests down to a 1.6ghz netbook with a Atom N270 processor.

Ring, ring (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076329)

Microsoft, Howard Hughes is calling. Yes, he's read the MSDN article on IEPL and he'd really like his Spruce Goose [wikipedia.org] back.

Congrats (2)

layabout_guy (2573519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076367)

Whatever the result I hope microsoft do well that in turn will push competitors and we the users should hopefully benefit. Though I feel IE has a long way to go..

HHGttG (3, Funny)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076371)

Wasn't this a plot-point in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series? Having an artificial universe on-site so they could go exploring but still be able to come back for long lunches...

Where's the troll? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076379)

Al Gore is going to be *pissed* when he hears about this.

TFA Forgot (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076405)

To mention the in-house installs of SWEN, TDSS, Melissa, and ILOVEYOU.

What could possibly go wrong? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076463)

"And the Chevy Vega was thoroughly tested for millions of miles before being released to the public." GM has spoken!!

Come on, just admit it (0)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076485)

If Mozilla was doing half this to test their bloated piece of crap, you'd all be shitting your pants with glee.

Re:Come on, just admit it (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077191)

Mozilla's doing it the cheap way: They let users do it.

All that power... (1)

Green Salad (705185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076517)

...and they still can't see why users hate their software.

Missing the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076529)

Nobody question's commitment to software quality and testing methodology. (You have to admit that they're pretty good about that nowadays. This isn't IE3 on NT4)

Microsoft's attitude towards web standards, web technologies, and their even continued ambition to make the internet microsoft-centric are what make IE a significantly less useful tool to your average end user.

Firefox has pretty much unmatched flexibility and extensibility.
Chrome is fast, simple, and very secure, and takes care of itself.
Hell, even opera is more useful (Opera is the most underrated browser ever)

It's also really really hard to shake the idea that microsoft really doesn't care about HTML5 or any other emerging web standards. The problem is, they don't seem to care much about their own techs. Silverlight and company are pretty much only seriously used when microsoft makes some back room deals with other large companies.

Meanwhile firefox and chrome (and apple with safari) are busy trying to build tech and standards that will be used in the next generation of web applications. All microsoft provides is another god damn hurdle in testing your site to make sure it works with the blue E.

On the business software/Enterprise side, IE shines. Why? Because you can publish policies and settings that configure just about every behavior and aspect of everything that IE does and chose weather to enforce or simply make them default. This is a godsend to anyone who has to manage more than a handful of machines. (Oh hey, we need to turn on or of x obscure feature for just this address because X reason.. For 5,000 workstations) Firefox and Chrome claim to have this (Publishing, enforcing settings via AD) but in practice their implementations fall very short of IE.

Mini Internet? (4, Funny)

Smask (665604) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076575)

Does that mean they have only porn sites with midget porn? And a mini 4chan, populated with toddlers?

If it's a mini-Internet (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076603)

Then technically 40% of its traffic is pure Pr0n.

Re:If it's a mini-Internet (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077185)

And 60% is impure.

Now we know ... (1)

lwriemen (763666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076605)

... why we need IPv6. ;-)

All this stuff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076607)

...and Internet Explorer still can't render things right.

Oh the hilarity!

Yea, but look at how FAST it does that! (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076719)

By the way, does the current IE still assume a fixed width per letter when rendering buttons, so that buttons-with-very-long-texts-on-them render with extra space to the left and right?

what we really need to know is (0)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076747)

can it run Crysis?

128 test machines not that many (1)

deciduousness (755695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076779)

That really isn't that many machines for testing. When I was testing PART of the components for the SQL team we had hundreds of physical machines (500+) and thousands of virtual machines (2000+) running daily, weekly and on-demand tests. Of course the main thing that escaped them was that there was no way for the dev team to check all those results, so most were useless.

Re:128 test machines not that many (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39077359)

It sounds like you were probably testing for throughput limits. Absolutely different.

How many times do they need to do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076837)

...to prove how quickly it fails the ACID3 test?

Is this mini Internet IPv6? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076871)

One thing I'm wondering - given how in Windows 7 and beyond, MS seems to be making IPv6 the default home networking protocol, any idea whether this mini internet they are experimenting w/ is an IPv6 internet, or an IPv4 intranet (likely w/ private addresses?)

Seems to me that that's what they should be doing. That way, they don't have to duplicate their efforts later to verify IPv6 compatibility.

A weak test rig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076879)

They aren't seeing all sorts of malware, trijans, Adverts and ISP Throttling on their 'mini internet'.
therefore it is not indicative of what users will experience.

What about all the sites with 20+ hit counters etc? How does it work then? We need to know this.

So, a cluster of 128 test computers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076955)

...is apparently barely enough to run IE10, if I understand it correctly. Now that being Microsoft, could anyone be surprised?

grandiose luster? (1)

halligas (782561) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077003)

Is the editorializing in the lead sentence of the article really necessary? If you have an opinion to share; state the fact and save the editorial for a concluding sentence.

As it is written, my reflex is to discount the entire post as biased crap.

Outlook (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077039)

Forget about this, what are they doing to make email HTML rendering standards-compliant? Seriously, Outlook 2007 is a bigger pain in the a$$ than IE6 was!

Hmmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39077051)

With each version of IE, we're being told that this is it. And after using it for a few seconds, I always end up going back to Firefox

meh (1)

bigbangnet (1108411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077087)

... and IE still sucks ass after all those test, gadgets and hardware. I'll stick with eithe chrome or firefox thank you.

How many ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077217)

... servers do they have popping up "Your PC is infected!" messages offering bogus AV software to download?

html5 (1)

TheSimkin (639033) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077291)

Well, that's all fine and dandy... but shouldn't they make it standards compliant first? What a waste of time!

Will they use this to test Windows too? (1)

ciantic (626550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077321)

I've noticed when connecting my ADSL Router in LAN the Windows is a lot lot lot slower. I mean often seconds slower than my several years older Ubuntu box. The Ubuntu box loads up the pages in Router almost instantly.

It's something in Windows, regardless of the browser it just happens. I've noticed the problem with Windows Vista and Windows 7, can't remember if the problem existed in Windows XP.

24-core, 64GB SQL server licensing..... (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39077437)

that must suck to license that server, especially with the new model coming out......
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>