Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Sep 2010 19:14 UTC
Internet Explorer After several months and preview releases, Microsoft has finally lifted the curtain for the Windows Explorer 9 beta release. Internet Explorer 9 is Microsoft's attempt at not just catching up to the competition, but at actually surpassing them. Since enough sites will be focusing on just how many nanoseconds faster or slower the beta is compared to the competition, I'll talk a little about the new minimalist interface.
Thread beginning with comment 441247
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

That doesn't account for enterprise users though.

I also know some skilled users who use IE8 simply because it comes with Windows and they don't open a lot of tabs. The other browsers are faster but it isn't like differences between video cards. Bandwidth is still the major bottleneck.

I'm currently using Chrome but I would consider switching to IE9 if they allowed the tabs to be moved in the final version. Chrome is fast but doesn't fit in with Windows very well. It looks great in OSX but in Windows it looks rather alien.

The other issue is that Flash tends to be better optimized for IE. Last time I tested Flash for IE it used about 30% less cpu than Firefox. On a desktop it doesn't matter but on a laptop that translates into longer battery life and less heat.


Also when it comes to speed Microsoft did an interesting benchmark to find out where most of the time was spent when rendering page - Javascript makes up a very small part of the over all equation which makes 'teh javascript is faster in [insert browser here]' wars rather stupid.

Firefox is horrible; I've run it on Mac OS X and its a CPU hogging pig when compared to Safari which bounches between 0-3% on the average website where as Firefox is sitting at around 30% in many cases with it being even worse if there is a Flash applet being used.

I used to use Chrome but on Mac OS X I found it as CPU hoggish as Firefox - but I guess that is the problem given that neither Chrome nor Firefox developers treat Mac OS X as a platform to actually be concerned optimising for and fixing bugs specific to the platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Do you know that most firefox developers work on OSX ? ^^ Learned that some times ago, by reading a blog post from a firefox developer who decided to make the switch from OSX to Windows 7 because of that.

Anyway, when I see my father browsing the web on his mac, it doesn't look like firefox is such terrible software. It seems to do its job...

Edited 2010-09-16 05:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you know that most firefox developers work on OSX ? ^^ Learned that some times ago, by reading a blog post from a firefox developer who decided to make the switch from OSX to Windows 7 because of that.

Anyway, when I see my father browsing the web on his mac, it doesn't look like firefox is such terrible software. It seems to do its job...


I wish they actually treated the Mac related bugs with some seriousness instead of ignoring them; people have noted them here, the failure to sleep bug, the high CPU utilisation when running a plugin (even when there is OOP), the lack of the ability to run 32bit plugins with a 64bit browser, the lack of Mac OS X integration with the features such as dictionary, keychain and so forth.

I too have been told that most developers work on Firefox using a MacBook but all evidence shows that they must be running Windows on this MacBooks because bugs specific to Mac OS X aren't being fixed - heck, I've just been following Firefox development and I see the Windows receive the first class hardware acceleration treatment but nothing on the Mac side of the equation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I used to use Chrome but on Mac OS X I found it as CPU hoggish as Firefox - but I guess that is the problem given that neither Chrome nor Firefox developers treat Mac OS X as a platform to actually be concerned optimising for and fixing bugs specific to the platform.


Well, considering Apple is incapable of delivering ANY Windows software (let alone Linux) that does not stand out like en eyesore and is not a total CPU and memory hog, I'd call this karma.

Edited 2010-09-16 05:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I like how itunes, the worst Windows program in existence always wants to install more software on your computer.

Did you want to install Safari? How about Quicktime?

NO GO AWAY

Reply Parent Score: 4

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, considering Apple is incapable of delivering ANY Windows software (let alone Linux) that does not stand out like en eyesore and is not a total CPU and memory hog, I'd call this karma.


And what does that have to do with the price of fish in Sweden during winter? The issue is Firefox and Mac OS X, the rest of the post is of as much relevance to me ask asking what my favourite ice cream topping is.

Edited 2010-09-16 06:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2