Anyone else hate IE 8.0? [Archive]

Dr.Khron

7th June 2009, 12:35

OK, I don't hate it (IE is still my primary browser), just the new features in 8.0

I don't think there is a single new feature that I don't hate:
-it resized everything, and the scale looks
-It greys out URLs so you can only see part of the root domain. WHO ASKED FOR THIS?
-"older" websites are made to look funny on purpose (yes this is a feature)
-Old search results keep hauting me, popping up like that crappy google toolbar

Don't know if these are features or bugs:
-On website forums, will NOT snap to last read post.
-Seems slower overall

Anyone else fool with this yet?

Atak_Snajpera

7th June 2009, 13:10

If you hate IE why don't you install FF , Opera , Chrome ... You have so many alternatives! IE is only for downloading real browsers :)

LoRd_MuldeR

7th June 2009, 13:55

There is at least one good thing about IE8: In contrast to its predecessors it finally respects the HTML standards and displays your web-site more similar to all the other browsers ;)

But I agree that it's horribly slow. I have a Q6600 with 4 GB of RAM, but IE8 runs far too slow to be useful. So even if I would like to use IE8, I couldn't.

Furthermore you will only get the correct rendering engine, if you enforce that IE8 won't use the crappy IE7 compatibility view. The latter again messes up everything. So we still need IE-specific code :rolleyes:

(BTW: It grays out everything in the URL, except for the domain name, so that noob users can more easily spot phishing sites. Chrome does the same!)

Midzuki

7th June 2009, 14:32

IE 8 is definitely slower than IE6, period.
Looks like an "updated" version of IE7.
Still unable to open links in maximized new windows
(exactly like IE3, IE4, IE5 and IE6).
Still unable to open a new window that is *not* a copy of the page you were
looking at (exactly like IE3, IE4, IE5 and IE6).

Does not let me get rid of the Bookmark button.

Does not let me move the menu bar to the top of the window.

Does not tell me how to get rid of the "Live Search" bar
(damn it, my Start Page, «file:///C:/START.html»,
already has a huge hyperlink to Google, so why the heck would I
ever need a search bar?)

UPDATE: the status bar still contains the annoying half-dozen of useless separators.

{ source: http://forum.videohelp.com/topic365725.html }

Dr.Khron

8th June 2009, 11:58

If you hate IE why don't you install FF , Opera , Chrome ... You have so many alternatives! IE is only for downloading real browsers :)

Yeah, yeah, use something else, knew I was gonna hear that... I do use FF at home, but I have to use IE for work.

And yeah, I've finally decided that its flat out SLOW. Slow at everything, even once you turn some stuff off.

I did however, finally find a feature that I like: I don't keep bookmarks for sites I regularly visit, instead I just type into the address bar, arrow down and hit enter to jump to a URL. But now, it sorts all of the URLs under what you type in a very useful way.

This is the first feature they've added to IE for "typers" in a long time.

RunningSkittle

8th June 2009, 12:26

How about IE8 finally including inline search?

Guest

8th June 2009, 13:31

I just upgraded from IE6 to IE8 and find it to be just fine, not slow and with no obvious irritants.

Sharktooth

8th June 2009, 14:12

LoRd_MuldeR

8th June 2009, 15:40

I just upgraded from IE6 to IE8 and find it to be just fine, not slow and with no obvious irritants.

Really? Startup time (the time between I double-click on the shortcut until I get to see the start page) is ~20 seconds for IE8 here. Opening a new tab takes ~5 seconds every single time! That's absolutely unacceptable when every other browser (Firefox, Chromium, Opera) starts up in a fraction of that time and opens new tabs instantaneously. Chromium shows us how a modern browser should be: Lightweight, very fast and a striped-down, but thought-out GUI. IE8 is a step forward, compared to its predecessors, indeed, but there is still MUCH work to do to be become competitive...

Guest

8th June 2009, 16:22

Really? Startup time (the time between I double-click on the shortcut until I get to see the start page) is ~20 seconds for IE8 here. It's immediate for me.

Maybe there is a solution here somewhere:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=long+startup+time+for+IE8&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Guest

8th June 2009, 16:30

Could it be this:

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general/browse_frm/thread/3ef37656ce18f036/579478566ac1ee9b

LoRd_MuldeR

8th June 2009, 17:03

Thanks for the links, but my enthusiasm to investigate the reason why IE 8.0 runs so freaking slow on my system is very limited...

sjakke

8th June 2009, 20:22

i usually kill IE from the windows installation disc with nlite (just having it around in my system makes me sick and the OS insecure...) and use http://windizupdate.com/ for updates (obviously XP!!!)

Isn't windizupdate dead? I know the site is there but i don't think it is being updated anymore.

BTW I use Iron http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_news.php

tetsuo55

8th June 2009, 21:45

IE8 is great.

IE8 finally respects W3C standards, meaning websites look the same as on other W3C standard compliant browsers.
However realistically speaking 95% of websites are not W3C compliant, IE8 knows this and "emulates" previous IE versions to display these websites correctly.

If the website is not automatically detected you can manually enable this emulation (it's called compatibility view)

Other than showing 99% of the web like it should be it's a slow piece of crap (which i why i use it purely as a backup for sites that are completely broken in chromium)

Sharktooth

9th June 2009, 01:42

CSS is a w3c standard too and IE8 is not completely compatible with version 3 and later (eventually).
other rendering issues are known too... plus, it's still more vulnerable than many other browsers (firefox, opera, webkit/safari, etc.) and much, much slower.

LoRd_MuldeR

9th June 2009, 09:34

...plus, it's still more vulnerable than many other browsers (firefox, opera, webkit/safari, etc.) and much, much slower.

Slower indeed. But about the vulnerability we must admit that IE also is attacked more frequently than others. That's because still most people use IE (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Browser_Wars.svg) and that's why it's more lucrative to attack IE (from an attacker's point of view). Other browser are more secure, just because they are less popular. Nevertheless in the past M$ missed to fix known exploits in time. And that happened several times. They definitely still have to learn here...

leeperry

9th June 2009, 13:20

well I hate Chrome, w/ its sandbox stuff...using 150MB of RAM for 5 webpages is ridiculous.

Safari constantly makes my soundcard glitch....OTOH Opera9 is great!

tetsuo55

9th June 2009, 13:47

well I hate Chrome, w/ its sandbox stuff...using 150MB of RAM for 5 webpages is ridiculous.

Safari constantly makes my soundcard glitch....OTOH Opera9 is great!that's strange. i use chromium (always the latest build give or take a day)

My pages take about 8-10MB each on average

Sharktooth

9th June 2009, 14:38

im using opera too. sometimes chromium nightly builds.

Dr.Khron

9th June 2009, 15:31

I just upgraded from IE6 to IE8 and find it to be just fine, not slow and with no obvious irritants.

What OS you using? (I've got XP )

Thanks for the link, I'm running SpyBot, so that will give me something to play with.

Guest

9th June 2009, 15:44

WinXP SP3.

Midzuki

9th June 2009, 15:56

However realistically speaking 95% of websites are not W3C compliant,

because IE3, IE4, IE5, IE6 and IE7 have never been fond of widely-accepted standards, I presume. :)

jsquare

9th June 2009, 22:27

Haven't fully used IE for over a year, FF is my primary browser on my XP SP3 main system. But I don't see the slowness on IE8 as others complaint, maybe because I only use Avast A/V and no spy ware stuff. I also relocated my PageFile, IE + Windows temp folders to separate 10GB partition (first partition on my secondary drive), that should make a performance difference if you have 2 or more physical drives on your system.

LoRd_MuldeR

9th June 2009, 22:32

By the way: The Firefox 3.5 Preview is available. Don't be confused, because the download is called Beta-99 ;)

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.5b99/win32/en-US/

tetsuo55

10th June 2009, 08:55

because IE3, IE4, IE5, IE6 and IE7 have never been fond of widely-accepted standards, I presume. :)Correct. (and also because almost all browser traffic comes from IE)

ash925

10th June 2009, 09:18

Never tried IE 8, but IE 7 makes an awful sound every time I open a tab,it was more work than it should have been changing the default search provider.IE 6 was crappy too,iirc it seemed it had a temp file folder everywhere.

mr soft

10th June 2009, 23:12

If you download Internet Explorer 8, Microsoft will donate 8 meals to Feeding America.

http://www.browserforthebetter.com/index-htm.html#getie8:IJ8Onlii4y2

Nothing about having to install it. ;)

mr soft

12th June 2009, 12:04

Anyone else hate IE 8.0?

It seems the E.U, as Internet explorer won't be packaged with the Win 7 European version.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/11/windows-7-e-coming-to-europe-without-internet-explorer/

LoRd_MuldeR

12th June 2009, 13:51

It seems the E.U, as Internet explorer won't be packaged with the Win 7 European version.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/11/windows-7-e-coming-to-europe-without-internet-explorer/

I wonder: How do you download a browser if you don't have any browser installed yet?

Probably you will have to get IE8 through Windows Update, before you can (optionally) get another browser :rolleyes:

Would make MUCH more sense if they added a package manager (like any Linux distro has) where you can get the desired software (and only that software).

Or at least ship Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari along with Windows 7 (in addition to IE8).

Shipping an OS without a browser is pure nonsense in times of 2009. You could have done that in the early 90's, but not nowadays...

Sharktooth

13th June 2009, 12:27

easy, once you install windows 7 you still have the FTP command from the console... or boot with a linux livecd, download a windows browser on a USB memory...
it's just M$ is too much "proud" to include other browsers or just the possibility to install them, so they "force" the average joe to install IE8 from windows update...

LoRd_MuldeR

13th June 2009, 15:31

easy, once you install windows 7 you still have the FTP command from the console...

The average Windows user doesn't know a thing about the console. Most people believe the shell is some kind of "DOS" relict.

Even with heavy and continuous guiding people fail to accomplish simple tasks from the console, like they never used a computer before :rolleyes:

or boot with a linux livecd, download a windows browser on a USB memory...

How do I download the Live-CD ISO Image + ImgBurn without the browser? :D

Probably most OEM vendors will deliver Windows 7 machines with a browser already installed. Wouldn't be surprised if IE 8.0 is their browser of choice ;)

Sharktooth

14th June 2009, 03:10

The average Windows doesn't know a thing about the console. Most people believe the shell is some kind of "DOS" relict.

Even with heavy and continuous guiding people fail to accomplish simple tasks from the console, like they never used a computer before :rolleyes:

How do I download the Live-CD ISO Image + ImgBurn without the browser? :D

Probably most OEM vendors will deliver Windows 7 machines with a browser already installed. Wouldn't be surprised if IE 8.0 is their browser of choice ;)
i know... however getting a copy of a linux distro is not so hard since it's free to distribute and copy.
however, as i said, average joe will stick with IE8...

leeperry

17th June 2009, 09:52

why bother w/ IE8 when Opera9 is pretty much perfect? I'm becoming a fanboy I know :)

tetsuo55

17th June 2009, 11:28

why bother w/ IE8 when Opera9 is pretty much perfect? I'm becoming a fanboy I know :)Many websites do not work in opera. All sites i visit work in IE8 (but many require compatibility mode). i only know of 2 sites that are broken in Chromium dev. (I have about 20-30 that are broken in Opera)

Sharktooth

18th June 2009, 12:51

Help -> Report a site problem
opera 10 also has some improve compatibility with some weird websites...

LoRd_MuldeR

18th June 2009, 12:54

Many websites do not work in opera. All sites i visit work in IE8 (but many require compatibility mode). i only know of 2 sites that are broken in Chromium dev. (I have about 20-30 that are broken in Opera)

Somehow I doubt that this is Opera's fault. Sites that explicitly depend on IE7-only behavior are not even supposed to work in Opera (or any alternative browser).

But it's not the job of browser developers to add workarounds for such sites (although they probably will do for famous sites), it's the web-designer's job to get their sites fixed!

If everybody (browser and web-site developers) would respect the web standards, no compatibility issues would exists.

Unfortunately Microsoft's long tradition of giving a damn about open standards has lead many web-site developers to create improper and IE-specific HTML code...

tetsuo55

18th June 2009, 13:36

That is exactly the reason, and the correct solution.

W3C broken websites will be part of the net for many years to come, even though i have emailed most of the admins for the sites i frequent that the site is broken they often do not fix their site.

Having a 100% spec compliant browser is cool in theory but i actually want to browse the web...

LoRd_MuldeR

18th June 2009, 14:48

Sharktooth

18th June 2009, 15:59

LOL... and here comes the "workaraound"...

Inventive Software

18th June 2009, 16:07

IE 8.0 will ship with Windows 7 in the EU, but on a separate install media!

German article:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer-fuer-Windows-7-in-Europa-auf-separatem-Datentraeger-Update--/meldung/140639

LOL... and here comes the "workaraound"...

Don't forget the financial incentives for companies shipping those OEM discs with WMP and IE. ;)

Gokumon

18th June 2009, 16:54

I wonder: How do you download a browser if you don't have any browser installed yet?

Most people buy their computers through an OEM so the OEM would be able to install whatever browser they or the user wanted.

Sharktooth

18th June 2009, 16:57

yeah... that's exactly what i was thinking...
ok, let's see it from the microsoft side. they dont want to include 3rd party browsers or softwares, that's perfectly understandable. then why not just add those softwares to their windows update service or, if they dont want to waste money/bandwidth for others softwares, just "open" the windows update software so 3rd parties could "include" their softwares in the windows update service using their own servers to push the updates? it's not so hard...

Dr.Khron

19th June 2009, 17:19

Eh, for all the crappy things Microsoft has done, I generally can't fault them for "bundling" IE... Even though its replaceable, its still a key part of the operating system.

Sharktooth

19th June 2009, 17:51

not a key part... it's a web browser. they let users think it's a key part but you can nuke it before installing the windows OS and the OS will still work.

Ajax_Undone

20th June 2009, 23:34

I agree with Sharktooth Just use nlite nuke IE and keep a working copy of FF Chrome opera or what ever you choose on a disk. You can install a web browser afterwards.

4Dude

22nd June 2009, 13:14

I just upgraded from IE6 to IE8 and find it to be just fine, not slow and with no obvious irritants.I dispise 8 :D

I have heard many users have many issues with 8.. LONG open times due to all the crap loaded with it,etc....

IE6 is my best friend!! (I use MyIE2 as my browser though)

Sharktooth

23rd June 2009, 03:05

you should not use IE6... it's a pile of bugs. atleast, if you still want to use IE, move to IE7 (not that it's much better but atleast is a bit more secure...).

Guest

23rd June 2009, 03:09

I used IE6 for many years quite successfully, so I think you grossly exaggerate. I only recently upgraded to IE8.

avivahl

23rd June 2009, 03:21

IE8 works wonderfully here. I also have Chrome's trunk and Firefox 3.5 RC2 installed.

scharfis_brain

23rd June 2009, 06:20

IE6 is a big pain for web developers as it interprets things differently...

ash925

23rd June 2009, 07:58

I used IE6 for many years quite successfully
You sir, are an exception to a rule, and keeping in with the theme of the thread http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ie-is-like-malaria-says-mozilla-vp-609930 :) .

smok3

23rd June 2009, 08:25

should i install it, or can i hate it even without trying?

LoRd_MuldeR

25th June 2009, 00:18

should i install it, or can i hate it even without trying?

The fact that IE8 is the first version of IE that has the capability to interpret HTML code in a correct way (still optional though) is enough reason to install IE8.

Remember: Many Windows applications embed IE frames. So even if you won't use IE8 explicitly, it's still worth updating...

IE6 is a big pain for web developers as it interprets things differently...

Very true :rolleyes:

Mark_A_W

3rd July 2009, 10:16

I use Orca browser.

It's a shell that sits on top of Mozilla...and makes it usable.

- online storage of settings and favourites

- usable tab browsing

- mouse and key shortcuts

- fast

- Autofills

- clear records

- BRILLIANT

I used to use Avant browser, which is similar except it sits over IE (same writer). Orca is better.

4Dude

20th February 2011, 08:26

you should not use IE6... it's a pile of bugs.Any browser can be bad news and any browser CAN BE SECURE!! (It depends on the end user)

LoRd_MuldeR

20th February 2011, 15:27

Any browser can be bad news and any browser CAN BE SECURE!! (It depends on the end user)

No it can't ;)

If the browser contains security vulnerabilities, then an attacker might exploit these vulnerabilities to infect the system with malware without any user interaction required.

Using outdated/vulnerable web-browsers or outdated/vulnerable browser plug-ins is the most common reason for malware infection nowadays!

The one and only thing that a user can do to make an outdated/vulnerable browser more "secure" is not using it at all. That or updating to an less outdated/vulnerable version :p

yetanotherid

20th February 2011, 17:05

You only have to think about the history of IE to never want to use it.

Why did Microsoft embed it into Win85/98 and cause it to crash my PC every 10 minutes? Not for my benefit, but because they wanted to own the internet.
Why did Microsoft introduce one of the biggest sources of infection into IE, ActiveX? Not for my benefit, but because they wanted to own the internet.
Once Microsoft killed off the competition by embedding their junk browser in the OS, what did they do to improve my browsing experience? Nothing, zero, zip. They sat on their hands for five years leaving users with a tabless, featureless, browser with no intention of updating it until a new version of Windows was released, and no intention of releasing a standalone version for older operating systems. Had browsers like Firefox not come along we'd probably be still right clicking and selecting "open in new window" or using taskbar grouping while trying to pretend it's a good substitute for tabs.

Aside from the fact that I've no idea how anyone could continue to use IE6 while there were alternatives available with tabs, I think anyone using IE, and especially anyone willing to continue to defend it, must have a very, very, short memory.

yetanotherid

20th February 2011, 17:16

I used to use Avant browser, which is similar except it sits over IE (same writer). Orca is better.

Wasn't Avant a MyIE clone? I remember trying a few different IE shells years ago and wondering if they weren't all based on the same code.
MyIE2 was by far the best. At least for a while until it started becoming buggy. Then it morphed into Maxthon which was also buggy, but fortunately by that stage Firefox had come along with some great tab extensions to make it usable.

These days if I have to use a PC with IE7 or IE8 as the browser it's not long before I want to bang my head against the desk to release the frustration, but I guess I'm used to having extensions installed which allow the browser to work just the way I want it to. I have 54 Firefox extensions installed, but TabMixPlus is a really good place to start.

Sharktooth

21st February 2011, 14:29

I was wondering if anyone here tried Internet Explorer 9 beta or RC

LoRd_MuldeR

21st February 2011, 15:53

I was wondering if anyone here tried Internet Explorer 9 beta or RC

I did. And what should I say? It works :p

Experienced one severe problem with one of the Beta's though, not sure if that got fixed:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1443640#post1443640

(BTW: I don't like the tabs being located on the same line as the URL bar, but fortunately there's an option to have them on separate lines)

Sharktooth

21st February 2011, 16:04

well, visually it's not a beauty. it's all "square" except the ugly back and forth button... but im really surprised by how much it's fast and "compatible". the download manager addition is very welcome. html5 hardware acceleration is excellent. etc. i would have never expected that from microsoft...
ill wait for FF4 and Opera 10.10 to be final before drawing any conclusions.
however that proves once again microsoft has the resources and possibilities to create and provide best class and competitive softwares but when it eradicates the competitors it lays down doing nothing for years... until someone rises from the abyss...

Midzuki

21st February 2011, 20:31

ill wait for FF4 and Opera 10.10 to be final before drawing any conclusions.

The latest Opera is 11.01.

AnonCrow

21st February 2011, 21:51

In the context of Firefox 4 , the latest Opera is actually 11.10

On the topic, can't really give a subjective answer on my feelings toward IE 8.0 as I've never directly used it,
but the many alternate Trident-shells have become a lot better (or depending on ones perspective, slightly less bad) after IE8, compared to IE7.
Still nowhere near the speed and usability of using webkit or gecko on those browsers instead.

Sharktooth

22nd February 2011, 17:44

Midzuki: i know as the latest firefox is 3.6.13. im talking of upcoming versions. btw, im actually on opera 11.10 alpha ;)

@AnonCrow: Try IE9. It's really freaking FAST.

IgorC

25th February 2011, 05:06

IE9 is pretty fast but it takes too long to get a new version. IE8 was released on march 2009 (2 years ago).
In a few months IE9 will be nowhere with newer version of other browsers.

Some results.
http://s2.ipicture.ru/uploads/20110226/gYVrLBSO.png

Sharktooth

25th February 2011, 14:59

image doesnt show up

IgorC

25th February 2011, 23:17

God damn this imageupload.org

Midzuki

26th February 2011, 00:25

Thanks for the image, IgorC.
So, Opera is fast, and doesn't suck,
whereas Chrome is very fast, but keeps sucking. :p
Now I have a Vista notebook,
but I don't intend to infect it with a still-in-beta browser. :)

yetanotherid

26th February 2011, 02:43

I've never really understood the "need for speed" thing when it comes to browsers. Especially when you're talking differences of milliseconds between rendering times.
For me how "usable" a browser might be is far more important. For instance what does it matter if a browser takes longer to open a single tab if it's not able to save a group of tabs as a session and forces me to open them one at a time. Or of I've got to click through a save menu to save an image instead of using a mouse gesture.

IE has always seriously lacked features which make it "usable" for me. Same with Chrome and Opera. Mind you Firefox is exceedingly dull "out of the box" too, but fortunately if there's a function you'd like to add to the browser there's probably an extension which will let you do it. Other browsers may be catching up.... I don't really know.

So far in this thread I don't think anyone has said which features IE9 has which makes it a usable browser, aside from the speed thing. Wouldn't it be relevant as to whether someone would like it or recommend it?

IgorC

26th February 2011, 04:06

I've never really understood the "need for speed" thing when it comes to browsers. Especially when you're talking differences of milliseconds between rendering times.
Nowdays websites contain a lot of heavy javascripts. And it make sense to have fast browser. Other advantage of extra fast browsers is smooth run on netbooks and phones.

For instance what does it matter if a browser takes longer to open a single tab if it's not able to save a group of tabs as a session and forces me to open them one at a time.
IE has always seriously lacked features which make it "usable" for me. Same with Chrome and Opera. Mind you Firefox is exceedingly dull "out of the box" too, but fortunately if there's a function you'd like to add to the browser there's probably an extension which will let you do it. Other browsers may be catching up.... I don't really know.

Chrome opens tabs very fast and it has all kind of the extensions/plugins as well. It works well.

As for Firefox, the future isn't shine for it. Mike Beltzner has gone "not without help". During last year Firefox was loosing users.

yetanotherid

26th February 2011, 07:48

Nowdays websites contain a lot of heavy javascripts. And it make sense to have fast browser. Other advantage of extra fast browsers is smooth run on netbooks and phones.

Yeah but how much faster is fast? 10 milliseconds less to render a page? A tenth of a second? Plus I've got a quad core PC and I wouldn't be running the same browser on my phone.

Chrome opens tabs very fast and it has all kind of the extensions/plugins as well. It works well.

I should try it myself again one day. Not long after it first came out I gave it a spin and it completely underwhelmed me, but it seems all the popular Firefox extensions now have Chrome clones or equivalents so maybe it'll be usable now.

As for Firefox, the future isn't shine for it. Mike Beltzner has gone "not without help". During last year Firefox was loosing users.

Maybe by about 1%, but definitely not enough to forecast it's demise.

AnonCrow

26th February 2011, 11:46

Yeah but how much faster is fast? 10 milliseconds less to render a page? A tenth of a second? Plus I've got a quad core PC

It's not just about how fast the page renders , as long as simple pages display in under 2 seconds [1], but how fast the page is to actually to use. Sure, if you're on a fast quad-core machine, you wouldn't notice minor slowdowns even if your browser was made in Basic , Python, or non-JIT Java. People with more mainstream computers, netbooks or slower tablets not wanting to limit how they browse - not having to turn off javascript, flash and images in background tabs (although some browsers suspend them) when they have dozens [2] of tabs open would notice if their browser forced them to more than 100ms for it to respond to some action.

I wouldn't be running the same browser on my phone.
On a normal phone, true, but on a smartphone the browser would use the same engine as the desktop browser.

[1] Simple page: from google search frontpage to slashdot. With more complex pages (eg Google Reader with 1000+ subscriptions), or pages that are fancy-schmancy or badly or simply not optimized at all , the initial rendering can be an order of magnitude faster , depending on browser, even if all the data is in local cache.

[2] or often hundreds in my case, it was early last decade since I last recall having a four digit number of tabs open a single browser - in which case everything was turned off and
images were only enabled for the active tab.

Disclaimer: about half of the browsers used last decade:
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/5544/clipboard02do8.gif (~8 KB)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_xeh8BbzS0EU/Rtg95rBcz_I/AAAAAAAAAKY/7zCcOKxd0Nk/clipboard013py.jpg (~380 KB)
, now in daily use from usb flash disk: Firefox (stable+nightly) + several profiles /w or w/o the vital 12-20 extensions, QtWeb, Chrome (+nightly Chromium),
Maxthon 1/2/3 (Trident+Gecko / Trident / Webkit+Trident), a couple versions of Opera.

Seriously getting or already is off-topic. Fork this , or just stop browser wars and let everyone use all the browsers they want - just ridicule everyone who still thinks they can use only one browser.

yetanotherid

26th February 2011, 14:34

It's not just about how fast the page renders , as long as simple pages display in under 2 seconds [1], but how fast the page is to actually to use.

I don't understand the distinction.

Sure, if you're on a fast quad-core machine, you wouldn't notice minor slowdowns even if your browser was made in Basic , Python, or non-JIT Java. People with more mainstream computers, netbooks or slower tablets not wanting to limit how they browse....

I'd like to use a tablet or netbook and still convert video at a lightning speed, but it pays to be realistic.
That aside though, I'm still not sure what the definition of "faster" actually is. So far it's a generalisation which consists of a pretty graph displaying a performance score which doesn't mean anything to me.

Simple page: from google search frontpage to slashdot. With more complex pages (eg Google Reader with 1000+ subscriptions), or pages that are fancy-schmancy or badly or simply not optimized at all , the initial rendering can be an order of magnitude faster , depending on browser, even if all the data is in local cache.

"Magnitude" sounds like another generalisation, but I still stand by my original comment. I don't care so much if I do notice a massive 1/10th of a second delay with multiple tabs open if the browser has the features I want it to have. Relatively speaking, that 1/10th of a second is completely irrelevant to me. For instance I'll get it back 100 times every time I save an image or execute a search via a mouse gesture instead of via lots of clicking and/or typing.

Seriously getting or already is off-topic. Fork this , or just stop browser wars and let everyone use all the browsers they want - just ridicule everyone who still thinks they can use only one browser.

I'm not trying to start a browser war, just make a point. In fact I said in a previous post I was due to give Chrome another spin. If I prefer it to Firefox, I'll switch.
My point was regarding rendering speed v usability because usability equals speed and they're not necessarily mutually inclusive. In my case I happen to use Firefox and I happen to have about 50 extensions installed, many of which improve it's usability greatly. Would I give them up in return for Firefox being able to render a page at twice the speed? No, because I could write an essay on the ways they save me even more time and frustration than increased rendering speed would.

Midzuki

26th February 2011, 15:40

...
Fork this
...

IMO this thread should be split, since Sharktooth started to talk about IE 9.
I pm-ed Blue_MiSfit, but it seems he didn't like my idea.

Sharktooth

26th February 2011, 16:20

IE9 is still on topic. i mean, it's a suggestion more than an OT. it's the direct successor of IE8. if ppl hate it, the newer version may be better.

StainlessS

27th February 2011, 03:24

For anyone that likes Chrome, might I suggest taking a look at
Comodo Dragon, it is Chrome with some of the more insecure
parts taken out by Comodo, (makers of Comodo Internet
Security, and one of the largest Certifcate issuers in the
world), a main concern with Comodo is security.

Does anyone happen to know if IE8/9 are now compatible
with IE7 bookmarks, they used in IE8 (early ver$) a different
characters set (or something like that) and so IE8 bookmarks
could not be imported to an IE6/7 machine. Are IE8/9 bookmarks
now importable into an IE7 system? (if they are, I might then
retry IE8/9).
EDIT: I dont know if the character set change was a change in
policy, or a mistake which may have since been corrected.

RNiK

2nd March 2011, 16:37

I'm not trying to start a browser war, just make a point. In fact I said in a previous post I was due to give Chrome another spin. If I prefer it to Firefox, I'll switch.
My point was regarding rendering speed v usability because usability equals speed and they're not necessarily mutually inclusive. In my case I happen to use Firefox and I happen to have about 50 extensions installed, many of which improve it's usability greatly. Would I give them up in return for Firefox being able to render a page at twice the speed? No, because I could write an essay on the ways they save me even more time and frustration than increased rendering speed would.
I'm with you. :goodpost:

Sharktooth

2nd March 2011, 17:44

Wantangobi

3rd March 2011, 21:43

-It greys out URLs so you can only see part of the root domain. WHO ASKED FOR THIS?This wonderful feature has been added to Opera 11 as well.
Considering no one other than people who know what they're doing mess with the address bar, I have no idea what the thinking here.

Overall I would consider IE8 to be better than 7. 7 Is dead slow even on my computer that's nearly 4 years newer than the browser.

yetanotherid

3rd March 2011, 23:08

sometimes it's not about the speed. or better... not just some milliseconds.
new gen web apps and games needs performance. look at this page (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/) and try to run those demos in a browser that's not IE9... then install IE9 RC and try again. you can see the HUGE difference by yourself.

Maybe, but as I generally don't use my browser for running demos of new gen web applications, it's nothing which effects me at the moment.

in IE9 everything runs smooth, in other browsers most of the demos are not "useable" or ridiculously slow (for example this one: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/SpeedReading/Default.html).that's thanks to hardware acceleration. Some other browsers are catching up but for now there is no contest.

Chances are then, by the time I have a need to run a new gen web application as part of my browsing experience other browsers will have caught up. I'm more interested in how usable my browser is when it comes to the way I surf today.
Would I give much of my current browser's "usability" for it being able to render a new gen web application I'm not going to currently use at twice the speed? The answer's still no.

Does IE even let you close the last open tab yet? Can you individually choose how a tab opens depending how you click on links and where you're opening them from (link, bookmark, history etc)? When you open a new tab from a link can you safely close the parent tab knowing the child tab retained the parent tab's history? Can you copy link text without having to highlight it first? Does you browser have a good ad-blocker? Can you open searches at different sites by highlighting a word and dragging it using mouse gestures? Does IE have decent extensions which allow you to add almost any functionality yet, no matter how great or how minor, or can you just run demos of new gen web applications really fast? Sometimes, the simple things are more important.

So far, the only positive thing I've read in this thread regarding IE9 is about it's speed. I don't recall anyone saying "this function is great" or "check out this new feature". Not unless they're complaining about it.