Print 85 comment(s) - last by gunzac21.. on Mar 18 at 5:37 PM

However, IE9 isn't quite up to par with other consumer internet browsers on the market

Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Corp.'s latest and greatest browser released today in finalized form.  So why should we care?

Well two stories dominated when it comes to IE9.  The first the media will be sure to talk about; the other you'll probably hear little talk of.

I. IE9 as a Consumer Browser -- Not Worth It

First the more obvious story -- Microsoft is improving, but arguably not fast enough.  IE9 looks and feels like a modern browser.  

It also looks and feels noticeably slower than ChromeOpera, or even Firefox.  While the gap is not as wide as in past versions (e.g. IE8, or esp. IE 7) it is visibly apparent.  Open a page on DailyTech in Chrome, and you see text literally seconds a second or two later.  Open the same page in IE 9 and you get a distinct pause as several seconds pass, before article text loads.

This qualitative example is indicative of our test drives of IE9 as a whole.  While the speed isn't horrible, if you've been using a modern browser like Chrome or Opera, you'll definitely get frustrated at the ever-present delay.

Standards support is a remarkably similar story. Microsoft has gained ground by implementing parts of the HTML5 and CSS3 standards, but the percentage of support for these standards is far lower than rival browsers.

We're still in the process of testing the beast, but it looks to support only about a quarter of the HTML5 standard, according to the test The HTML5 Test.  Microsoft would argue that's because the standard isn't fully defined.  But that seems a weak excuse -- that hasn't stopped Opera, Google, and Mozilla from not only taking an active part in the standard, but also support it more fully.

Microsoft finds itself in a familiar role of publicly arguing why it shouldn't have to fully standards -- but in an interesting twist it's now committing itself to a bipolar effort of quietly trying to catch up in these same standards, as well.  The results, as one might imagine, are mixed.

Aside from speed and standards, Microsoft's browser has a clean look to it.  Its sharp defined lines bring to mind Microsoft's Metro GUI style, which the company used extensively on the defunct Zune and the active Windows Phone 7.

The browser lacks, though, cutting edge features being implemented elsewhere like tab stacking/grouping.  And while ostensibly it offers "add-ons"/"extensions", its catalog is anemic to say the least.  Firefox, Opera, and Chrome users will wince at the lack of ad/JavaScript blocking. 

Yet another place where Microsoft falls behind is in the installation process.  IE 9 requires a number of Windows Updates in order be able to install.  For us, one of these updates had been failing several times in Windows Update, so this was a rather painful process.  If Google, Mozilla, and Opera can make stand-alone installers, it's inexcusable that Microsoft, the world's largest software company, can't.

II. IE9 as a Work Browser -- Not so Shabby

So, the other story here is how IE 9 fares in the business setting.  While it languished in the world of home users, Microsoft remains strong in the workplace.  

Overall Firefox and Chrome can be managed, but require a lot more IT effort than IE 9.  Internet Explorer remains the king of business browsers in terms of manageability, security, and reliability.  When you factor in that many business have built their portals' web code to run optimally in Internet Explorer, IE 9 gains yet more of an advantage -- though perhaps a bit unfair one.

At the end of the day, IE 9's improvements will really start to shine for business users.  While IE 9 may seem dated and tardy as a consumer browser, in an IT setting we're used to getting less.  If you were stuck with IE 8 before, IT department willing, you'll get a huge boost with IE 9.

Most in the media, in their rush to note IE 9's insufficiencies from a home user perspective, won't stop to recognize that it is an excellent browser from a business perspective.  We feel this is an equally compelling story and definitely worth noting.

III. Conclusions

Microsoft has two key strengths when it comes to browsers -- its strong business reputation and the fact that, for better or worse, in the U.S. it can still bundle its browser as the exclusive pre-installed browser in Windows.

The company currently owns between 55 and 65 percent of the browser market, depending on whose numbers you trust.  This dominant positions in underpinned by those aforementioned strengths.  

Are people really to lazy to go out and download a third party browser?  In many cases the answer is "yes" (though obviously not for most of our readers).  Thus IE 9 will eventually roll out to these users through the Windows Update process and Microsoft will hang on to its lead.

On the other hand, Microsoft likely recognizes the writing on the wall.  Home users are becoming increasingly educated with each passing decade, and it can't hope to keep relying on its pre-packaged approach to be able to push a sub-par product indefinitely.

In that regard IE 9 is perhaps a sign that Microsoft is getting serious about performance and standards.  And while it’s still far behind in these categories, its large market share arguably buys it the time it needs to catch up.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By kilkennycat on 3/15/2011 11:44:44 AM , Rating: 3
However, IE9 isn't quite up to par with other consumer internet browsers on the market

Sure, indeed. It does not have any version that runs on XP, unlike all of its competitors. Sorry, MAJOR world-wide fail at this point in time..... Meanwhile, IE8 is a bloated, slow and buggy mess, regardless of OS, -- compared with its fleet-footed competitors. Now that IE9 is released, MS will no doubt leave IE8 in its neglected unfinished state.

By Pirks on 3/15/2011 12:00:57 PM , Rating: 5
XP users don't care about new software anyway so why bother with releasing new IE for them? XP users care about legacy software only, this is why they run XP in the first place. MS move is 100% logical and justified here, got to admit

By Nutzo on 3/15/2011 12:09:39 PM , Rating: 1
Or maybe they don't want to spend the money replacing hardware, or buying OS upgrades?

By Pirks on 3/15/2011 12:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe they want to get free eternal support from MS for their museum software/hardware?

By themaster08 on 3/15/2011 12:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with Pirks on this one. Windows XP is now 10 years old, and people are complaining that Microsoft's latest browser isn't compatible with it? Then people complain of the bloat in Microsoft's products that is caused by legacy code.

Is 10 years not long enough?

By bug77 on 3/15/2011 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
people are complaining that Microsoft's latest browser isn't compatible with it?

That would be a legitimate complain, since all other producer's browsers are compatible with Win XP.

By themaster08 on 3/15/2011 12:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
TheWorld browser is compatible with Windows 98. Does that mean IE9 should be compatible with Windows 98 too?

By bug77 on 3/15/2011 12:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
No, it still means IE9 is the only major browser that doesn't run on WinXP.

By themaster08 on 3/15/2011 1:09:29 PM , Rating: 1
To reiterate the point that Pirks made, how many XP users are actually up-to-scratch with their updates anyway? Who uses an XP machine to run the latest and greatest applications and DX11 games? Oh, wait....

By PrinceGaz on 3/15/2011 2:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
My XP box is fully up-to-date and is still my main machine (built Aug 2005, though with a more recent graphics card and hard-drive). It will run pretty much anything satisfactorily, and as for DX11 games, I do use it for games but the only recent one I'm especially interested in is Civ V, for which it meets or exceeds all the minimum requirements.

I used to build a new box every two or three years but it just doesn't seem necessary these days when my five year old one is still working fine. Perhaps when Civ V is fully released (all the expansion packs), I might take the plunge then, but for now I'll stick with XP and my browser of choice, Opera.

By heffeque on 3/15/2011 3:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
This article says that IE9 is slower than the rest of the browsers but... just tested this:

I get +60fps on IE9.
I get 14 fps on Chrome.
I get 4 fps on Firefox 3.6.

Not everything on IE9 is slow.

Either way, I still use Firefox as my main browser and Chrome and Safari occasionally.

By bug77 on 3/15/2011 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nice, but I bet you have acceleration off for Chrome. With acceleration on, it gets 60+. And so does FF4.

By EricMartello on 3/15/2011 6:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
I got 23 FPS on FF3.6 and 60+ with the FF4 RC4. I think anything that bypasses GDI for graphics is going to do well, and if it can make use of GPU acceleration that's even better.

By kmmatney on 3/15/2011 7:08:16 PM , Rating: 3
Plenty of people use XP with the latest and greatest software. I have yet to ever play a game (or run any app for that matter) that didn't run on XP.

Some of us also have several computers at our house (seven at mine), and its just not practical to upgrade all of them. Its easier for me to just put chrome on all of them, and forget about IE. Both my wife and I are still using XP at out workplaces as well.

By Silver2k7 on 3/17/2011 7:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
"No, it still means IE9 is the only major browser that doesn't run on WinXP."

If people with XP wanted new software they would not be using XP ;)

By mikeyD95125 on 3/15/2011 4:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
I have read your posts on this topic and I am still confused as to why you support Microsoft on this. As consumer it would be in your best interest to support longer product support cycles.

Have you been tricked by the marketing world to believe that newer is always better?

Remember that while XP debuted ten years ago, Microsoft did not replace the OS until 2006. If you built a machine with decent specs 5-6 years ago XP wold have been your only Microsoft OS option. Machines built around that time still have plenty of processing power for internet and application usage. All those users with XP want (and there are hundreds of millions left) is to use a broswer that will support the latest standards so they can view things on the internet. Since Microsoft said sorry they are forced to turn to alternative browsers.

Expect to see an accelerated decline in IE usage as all the XP diehards move over (if they haven't already) to other browsers.

By kaosstar on 3/16/2011 11:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the people still using XP are the same kinds of people who are going to use the built in IE no matter what.

By gunzac21 on 3/18/2011 5:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
It is common knowledge that all the "new" browsers ff4 chrome that are gonna be compatible on xp are going to be completely different with little to no improvement. No acceleration or any of that other stuff, so what the point of even making it for xp in the first place??? MS is doing the right thing it's trying to push things forward and give more incentive to move to 7 chrome and ff4 have no reason to do the same.

By ipay on 3/15/2011 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 3
Yes (tricky negative...)

By Shadowmaster625 on 3/15/2011 12:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
Bloat isnt caused by legacy code. Win 98 is 100MB. Win XP is about 1GB. The core components of each are less than half of that (the system32 folder, etc). Yet the WinSXS folder on windows 7 is many many gigabytes. It has nothing to do with supporting legacy code or legacy hardware.

By themaster08 on 3/15/2011 1:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing else in my house forces me to do that!
Sure. Ask the manufacturer of your old '80's TV for a replacement switch, or a radiator for you old 80's refridgerator.

IE 8 also works, I do not need more. But if there became some virus that made IE8 not work, then I'm screwed. No supported from MS anymore.
You're getting confused. Support for IE 8 won't suddenly disappear because IE 9 is not supported.

By Dr of crap on 3/15/2011 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I know IE8 support will continue, I was making a point about XP.

If the old TV were to break, then I'd have to get another one. Or likewise if the old refridge broke, I might have to get a new one. And if the PC took a dump, I'd have to get a new PC.
But if the PC is working why do I need to get a new one? And why can't I get support for the XP system? That is the problem.

By Silver2k7 on 3/17/2011 7:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
You have support (working browsers) for XP use IE8/Chrome/Netscape/Seamonky/FioreFox or whatever lol.. you can't ask old stuff to be supported forever.

By NobleKain on 3/15/2011 6:32:36 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, using your car example: It's more like the new model coming out with anti-lock breaks, and you complaining that you are being forced to get a new model car in order to get the newest feature (a security feature even at that).

Additionally with your car: Newer vehicles are much more difficult to hotwire, but old vehicles still suffer from the security flaws that make hotwiring possible. Can you simply go to your 1980 car manufacturer and have them change the wiring, and add electronic safety system because you're entitled to not have "flaws"?

Or how about the chassis flaws when it comes to crashes? Are you entitled to a free chassis upgrade on your 1980 vehicle because your current chassis has the flaws that it doesn't have effective "crush zones"?

The engineering required to implement these features USUALLY come with the necessity of a brand new model.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold. And MOST of the household items you have follow this same pattern. Sure, all of the items have different "lifespan" timelines, but such is the nature of each individual item type. Comparing them based on equivalent timelines is asinine.

Don't take my comments to mean that I don't think IE9 incompatible with XP is a huge mistake... because I DO think it's a huge mistake. But your argument is a weak one.

It's a mistake because many businesses still support XP for important reasons... not the least of which is legacy software compatibility. Security is often a second thought to the large issue of financial investment.

In my office, we still use Visual Studio 2005. Have you ever used 2005 on Vista or Win7? Heck, have you ever even used 2008 on either? Talk about counter-productive. Ultimately, to even make life half as efficient as on XP we have to turn off UAC... but we're still only talking HALF as efficient.

That's just Visual Studio (and its cost can be mitigated with a MSDN subscription), but it still illustrates the point... like it or not, XP still has its place. Win7/Vista was too significant of a platform change to justify attempting to keep the same OS lifecycles.

XP needs a few more years while business-class software gains refinement on Win7. As a consumer platform, Win7 is fine, but given that most IE users are still businesses - not supporting XP is a huge mistake.

By Solandri on 3/15/2011 1:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Windows XP is now 10 years old, and people are complaining that Microsoft's latest browser isn't compatible with it?

Well Jason's write-up says that it's best for business use. Most businesses are still on XP. If Microsoft wants businesses to adopt IE9, they're gonna have to make it compatible with XP. I'm not sure the strategy of "encouraging" companies to upgrade to Win 7 by making IE9 not work with XP is gonna work. It's kind of a moot point right now though, since practically no business is going to install a .0 release if their work portal depends on it.

Is 10 years not long enough?

I think this is the new reality of software. It used to be that computers and software progressed so quickly that it was worth upgrading every few years. But since about the mid-2000s, computers have been "fast enough" for all but a few specialized applications. XP on a 1.6-2 GHz Core or even P4 is more than enough for 90% of business use. They're not gonna upgrade from that just because Intel wants to sell an i5 processor or Microsoft wants to sell a copy of Windows 7.

Most hardware that companies buy is expected to last 5-20 years. Computers and software used to be the exception, typically a 3 year cycle. But looking ahead I think they will normalize to the 5-20 year timeframe of other hardware. If a software vendor isn't willing to accommodate companies in their desire for a slower upgrade cycle, they'll go out of business as companies give their money to software vendors who will accommodate them.

By themaster08 on 3/15/2011 1:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
If a software vendor isn't willing to accommodate companies in their desire for a slower upgrade cycle, they'll go out of business as companies give their money to software vendors who will accommodate them.
Which in turn further delays the advances in technology until you hit (what feels like) stagnation.

By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 2:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
Most hardware that companies buy is expected to last 5-20 years.
I hope you are joking, this is not 1995. From my experience refreshes have become smaller and smaller over the years, to the point where for front line worker machines 5+ years would be pushing it.

Nobody in their right mind would expect these kind of machines to work for 20 years. In fact it can be even less cost effective. You now have to hire more workers to test software and such across various lines, let alone the support issues across a vast array of OS/software that can compile during that time.

I think MS went the correct route here. IE9 now boasts probably the best security on the market, and that was just not possible with the underpinnings of Windows XP.

GPU acceleration is a similar issue, they could have gone back and made a half backed solution ala Firefox for XP , or they could focus on a full scale solution using newer and better API's from Vista/7. (and so far it has shown, GPU acceleration seems the most stable on IE9 so far)

Many of the things that has made IE9 so great are either not possible in XP, or would be taking a step back in favor of backwards compatibility.

You can't stay on XP forever, and as time goes on and support diminishes, businesses are not going to have a choice. At some point its going to become more expensive to maintain current systems.

By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/15/2011 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
I work with the latest and arguably the best graphic software on the market from "Corel" like "painter" "draw" etc. still on XP machine because frankly I never interact with operating system in any meaningful way at all. For me the process is very simple, turn on the PC; launch a program; work for six hours; save the project; shut down PC; profit.

By FITCamaro on 3/15/2011 6:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah by the end of the year the company I work for is going to Windows 7. Windows XP is holding back what I can do on my work PC. I have a quad core CPU, 4GB of RAM, and a 1GB graphics card. With a 32-bit OS I can't see all my memory and any task larger than 2GB of memory crashes. This directly effects my work.

I know I'm the exception, not the rule though. For Excel, Word, and Powerpoint, Windows XP 32-bit is plenty. But still, its old. There comes a point that its time to upgrade. And that time has come.

By adiposity on 3/15/2011 4:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with Pirks on this one. Windows XP is now 10 years old, and people are complaining that Microsoft's latest browser isn't compatible with it? Then people complain of the bloat in Microsoft's products that is caused by legacy code. Is 10 years not long enough?

"Windows XP" is not 10 years old. Although RTM was released in August 2001, making it technically less than 10 years old, this is not what I mean.

The operating system that is called "Windows XP" today typically refers to Windows XP SP2/SP3. Windows XP SP2 was arguably as big a refresh as Windows Vista to Windows 7 was.

No one is running this 10-year-old OS that is being used to justify the non-support of anything pre-Vista. SP3 was released in 2008, and until last year, you could still get it pre-installed on computers from Dell, HP, and Lenovo. So, not supporting those users is simply unwise.

Personally, I welcome the death of XP, and use 7 64bit. But over half of all computers are still using XP (last year, MS said 74% of all work computers were still on XP). So can we stop pretending XP is dead already?

By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 5:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Its 9 1/2 years old.. Was released to the public in October of 2001.

Technicalities aside, it is a 10 year old OS, and everything released after that was merely building on top of that 10 year old base.

The fact that many typically refer to XP as SP2/SP3 (whoever those people may be), is completely irrelevant. Thats not how OS design works.. The basis of Windows XP has remained relatively unchanged since 2001 (driver model, kernel/user levels etc etc), almost 10 years ago. (older if you consider its relation to Windows 2000)

FYI They are supporting the users, all the way up to Internet Explorer 8, the last version MS specifically supports(and will continue to do so). Considering it was released with IE6, I think support promises have been more than met.

By lecanard on 3/15/2011 8:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft might be trying to kill XP deliberately. They've been trying to convince people to move on for a while now. Remember: in terms of age, using XP now is like using Windows 98 in 2007. Nobody did that. People just became very attached to it because Vista took so long and had a (only fractionally deserved) bad reputation.

By Aloonatic on 3/15/2011 3:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you need to replace all of your 32bit software if you moved to Win7?

Isn't it just 16 bit software that you might struggle with? And then there's the XP Mode/virtual PC thing.

By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 5:16:10 PM , Rating: 3
He doesn't..

He is just flat out pretending to be knowing what he is talking about when he clearly does not.

Perhaps he means some sofware designed for XP will not work on Vista/7.

Every single version of Windows still supports 32bit code and will continue to do so for years to come. (whether its done natively or not)

Windows 8 could very well be the end of 32bit Windows (i.e 64 bit processors / drivers/ etc etc will be required), but 32 bit applications will live on in some kind of compatibility mode for some time.

By syphon on 3/16/2011 10:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
However business customers are still mostly on Windows XP. Our organization has over 600 machines. We only recently started getting Windows 7 because most specialty business software did not work on anything above Windows XP. Only after we were no longer allowed to purchase XP licenses did we start to upgrade and only then did some of our software vendors start to upgrade their software. We are now at about 5% of Windows 7 machines. Remember, for you at home it may cost you around 1200 bucks to upgrade but for a business who has MANY machines, it costs a lot more to purchase new machines. We are slowly phasing out older XP machines with Windows 7.

I will say, my FF4 works in both XP and Windows 7...this is just another step for MS to try and force business that are being hit by the bad economy to purchase newer software.

By Da W on 3/15/2011 4:39:00 PM , Rating: 1
Everybody like to bitch about Micosoft.

By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 11:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
While I would tend to agree with your consumer usage standpoint, care to give some benchmarks to backup these slow statements?

As real life usage does not seem to backup this theory.

Acid and one dimensional JS benchmarks are hardly a good reflection of real life performance.

RE: Slow
By bug77 on 3/15/2011 12:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe IE9 is just bad in benchmarks and awesome in real life then.

Seriously, benchmarks is as good as it gets. Real-life depends on too many variables. From hardware to the reliability of the connection. So different users will have different stories.

RE: Slow
By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 1:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Pick 4 setups (netbook/nettop to a full fledged desktop)

Pick 10 major websites, and show us some load time results.

I've seen this done with a single desktop and it showed that while Chrome/FF are still faster, IE9 is very close, and certainly not 'noticeably slower'.

Benchmarks are becoming increasingly more useless as dev's continue to optimize their browsers to better handle the tests. This is a terrible reflection of real life usage, and it shows.

RE: Slow
By semiconshawn on 3/18/2011 3:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed on my system. 6core, 8 gig, ssd , blah blah, a switch from browser to browser offers no perceivalble speed change (FF and Chrome). Ill take the security, stability and anonymous browsing over a millisecond difference in a page coming up.

RE: Slow
By Aloonatic on 3/15/2011 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
I've been using IE9, FF4 and Chrome9/10 (in all their beta forms) for a while now, and it's pretty clear that Chrome is a lot faster than the others, but that's on the sub notebook (Celeron 743, Intel 4 series) that I use.

On desktops, however, there's not so much difference, but I'd still say that chrome was faster.

I know that benchmarks aren't great, but I thought you might find these interesting.

(Benchmarks all carried out on my lil notebook using peacekeeper. They are ranked in descending order, and the "---" are just there for spacing, to make the numbers easier to compare. It's not a horizontal bar chart or anything)

Chrome 10.0.648.119 - 3923
Chrome 9.0.597.83 ---- 3820
Opera 11.01 ------------ 3569
Chrome 9.0.597.19 ---- 3539
Opera 11.00 ------------- 3380
Firefox 4.0 --------------- 2089
Firefox 4.0b12 -----------2051
Safari 5.0.3 -------------- 2018
Firefox 4.0b10 ---------- 1973
Firefox 4.0b8 ------------ 1899
Firefox 4.0b7 ------------ 1600
Internet Explorer 9.0 -- 1543
Firefox 3.6.13 ----------- 1268

Yeah, OK, so maybe not that interesting, but you can see how the betas have progressed. The IE9 beta did too (although it only ever reported as IE9, no matter which version it was, so it never retained individual scores) apart from the release just before it was finalised, which was slower than its predecessor, but the final release got its highest score so all's well.

One other point of note is that when looking at the individual scores for each test for each browser, it seems that Chrome scores really well in some tests, but not as highly in others. The chart has a couple of very high peaks in complex graphics and text parsing.

Rendering - 2109
Social networking - 2182
Complex graphics - 6787
Data1 - 1498
DOM operations - 2509
Text parsing - 7003

As does IE9, which never beats Chrome in any area.

Rendering - 565
Social networking - 690
Complex graphics - 1875
Data - 3871
DOM operations - 1232
Text parsing - 4714

Opera and Fire Fox (listed bellow respectively) achieve a more evenly spread set of results however.

Rendering - 3004
Social networking - 2761
Complex graphics - 6741
Data - 3130
DOM operations - 3440
Text parsing - 6488

Rendering - 1291
Social networking - 2052
Complex graphics - 3934
Data - 3102
DOM operations - 1784
Text parsing - 2714

Safari had the most even scoring across the tests.

Rendering - 939
Social networking - 2059
Complex graphics - 2340
Data - 2570
DOM operations - 2291
Text parsing - 2942

So I guess what you use a browser for might affect how it feels to you, or whether it "feels" fast or not.

Anyway, all I knows is that Chrome is the only browser that I can use, performance wise, on my lil note book, most of the time. However,it still fails to work on some websites, and I have to go use Fire Fox or IE. So then it's speed is a moot point :o)

RE: Slow
By Aloonatic on 3/15/2011 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, to be able to edit :o) There's a few mistakes in what I wrote there, like the data score for Chrome, putting the " - " in the wrong place, so losing the "1" at the start of the score and labeling it Data1.

My eyes are just starting to uncross again after writing that, so pleas forgive me. XD

RE: Slow
By arthur449 on 3/15/2011 1:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that comparison. It helps illustrate the performance delta between the various browsers.

RE: Slow
By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 1:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Can't disagree, with most of your statements.

That said, the author is making it out as though IE9 is dramatically slower in real life usage and from my limited desktop experience, that does not seem to be the case.

I'm a Chrome user, and have been since it was released, but I am quite impressed by this release of IE..

I just don't think people understand that MS is targeting two markets, while for better or worse, Chrome's/FF's increasingly busy release schedule is hardly pushing them outside of the consumer market.

Its much easier to constantly push updates when you don't have a large portion of the business market relying on your browser.

RE: Slow
By Aloonatic on 3/15/2011 1:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you're right, and it's all good I suppose. We live in the "horses for courses" era of browsers.

I think that your choice of browser, in terms of pure speed, is probably only ever really an issue when using a rather low powered CPU and integrated GPU as I am with my notebook. If you have plenty of horsepower in your case (or on your lap) then the other factors like extension and add-ons are probably far more important anyway, unless you really are super impatient and a few milliseconds to open a tab really matters to you.

It's good to see IE9 go with a much more low-profile interface too. One of the other reasons why I use Chrome on my notebook is that it has a rather small 11.6" 1336x768 screen, so the less space taken up with buttons and tabs etc, the better.

RE: Slow
By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 2:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
++ on the minimalist approach..

Its the reason that I too use Chrome.

RE: Slow
By Shadowmaster625 on 3/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Slow
By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 2:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
Opening tabs is pretty much instant for me, so not too sure what you are seeing. (and I'm doing it over RDP)

Almost on par with Chrome in my opinion (which is a better comparison considering each tab on both browsers are sandboxed, which does not occur with FF/Opera)

RE: Slow
By Dr of crap on 3/15/2011 3:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're joking right?

Remember Windows 95? Or Windows 3.1? Now that's slow.

If I have to wait 3 seconds - man, think what I could do with the extra seconds during the day I would have saved!!!

And by the way if you've not had anything faster, I have nothing to compare to so I don't know there is a wait!

RE: Slow
By spread on 3/15/2011 5:19:12 PM , Rating: 3
It takes about 3 seconds to open a new, empty tab on IE9, with a 3.3GHz cpu, and a OCZ vertex SSD.

I've used IE9 on an old crappy laptop. It opens a new tab instantly. It's not IE9 that's the problem.

FYI it doesn't matter how many GHz a processor has. A 1Ghz Core 2 Duo will destroy a 4Ghz Pentium 4.

Dailytech readers browser usage?
By banvetor on 3/15/2011 12:20:37 PM , Rating: 3
In many cases the answer is "yes" (though obviously not for most of our readers).

It would be nice to know the browser usage distribution of DailyTech readers... would you care to make it available somewhere? :)

By therealnickdanger on 3/15/2011 12:33:21 PM , Rating: 2

Clearly, DT readers are the most intelligent. ;-)

RE: Dailytech readers browser usage?
By tng on 3/15/2011 4:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
I used to have IE as it came with Windows and it was just easier in that respect. Can't say that it was ever a issue.

I have a laptop that is from work and we operate off of laptops, there is no server, even in our main office. My last laptop upgrade left me with MS Outlook and I found that unlike Outlook Express, the standard version was so bloated with features that I would never use, that I had issues finding and configuring features that I did want to use.

On a whim I installed Thunderbird and was quite pleased, so I continued on and installed FireFox. Eventually both Outlook and IE were removed and I have never looked back. I love the fact that I can put in Adblock add-on on FF.

I'm impressed
By formulav8 on 3/15/2011 11:40:20 AM , Rating: 3
Is ie9 really as bad as the article says? I have actually been using IE9 ever since the beta. I am quite pleased with it. The speed is good and I really like that it uses at least some of the gfx card to render webpages. No, its not perfect by any means. But it should definitely be considered among the other browser greats. Just my experience of course. Others may have a completely different experience.

RE: I'm impressed
By kmmatney on 3/15/2011 7:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
IE9 is not bad, until you use (and get used to ) Chrome. I was a happy IE user for many years, and never saw anything wrong with it, until I started using Chrome.

Did you even test it??
By alefsin on 3/15/2011 12:28:50 PM , Rating: 3
While the speed isn't horrible, if you've been using a modern browser like Chrome or Opera, you'll definitely get frustrated at the ever-present delay.

I wonder how you tested it. On my computer, IE9 loads the first page of visibly faster than Chrome 10.0.648.133. It is funny considering that I have just installed IE9 so its cache is empty and I have looked on on Chrome before. So what is it? Opinion bias or lack of thorough benchmarking?

RE: Did you even test it??
By 2bdetermine on 3/15/2011 1:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
This thing is roaring!

One exception visual annoying tab select -> select. A visible DEV borderline.

By kleinma on 3/15/2011 1:30:40 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe you guys over at dailytech are running slower machines, but I see 0 difference opening your site in IE9 versus Chrome. They both come up near instant for me, no pause.

Proof that IE9 RTM launches faster than Chrome 10
By Warp9 on 3/16/2011 2:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
Take a look at this video I created that tests launch speed of IE9 vs. Chrome 10. IE9 is noticeably faster.

By shortylickens on 3/16/2011 10:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm, you are doing something wrong or something shady, cuz on my system Chrome is loading up all sites faster than IE9.
On my XP computer I installed IE8 but I never use it. Chrome is always faster there.

By p05esto on 3/16/2011 10:29:10 AM , Rating: 3
hmmm, I just did a personal test here:

And in IE9 I get 60fps, Chrome, 44 and FF 14. IE9 is by FAR the smoothest and fastest experience. Just saying, and in general I've found IE9 the best of the current generation of browsers. The author of this articale is clearly biased - not cool DT, not cool.

Perfectly fine
By Da W on 3/15/2011 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't get theses critics. It feels just as fast as chrome, is hardware accelerated by my amd gpu and is compatible with most web pages. It just works, i don't need chrome or opera, i just don't NEED them.

By therealnickdanger on 3/15/2011 11:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I've tried other browsers and don't really notice any difference. IE is just fine. All ads, malware, and malicious sites are blocked via a modified HOSTS file, PeerBlock, and Security Essentials... doesn't matter which browser I use. Maybe my computer is so fast that it negates any of the failings of the different browsers?

By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 3/15/2011 12:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
My biggest gripe has always been the lack of competitive extensions. They need to develop a community the way WP7 apps are being developed in order to truly compete with the add ins of firefox and to a lesser extent chrome. Having a WP7 and IE app store in the same place (site) would also draw users to know more about the other product.

HTML5 tests on Ubuntu
By drycrust3 on 3/15/2011 4:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
but it looks to support only about a quarter of the HTML5 standard, according to the test The HTML5 Test.

Since the test is out of 400, I guess that means IE9 scored around 100. By comparison, and note that I am using Ubuntu 10.10 as my OS, Google Chrome 10.0.648.127 scored 273, Opera 11.01 (Linux version) = 234, Dooble 0.07 (Javascript activated) and rekong 0.6.1 and Arora 0.10.2 = 212 (all appear to have same passes and fails), the Epiphany Web Browser 2.30.2 and Midori 0.2.4 = 198 (the passes and fails appear to be the same), and Firefox 3.6.15 = 155.

I'm sure this doesn't mean a lot really, but I thought someone might find it interesting.

By adiposity on 3/15/2011 5:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another place where Microsoft falls behind is in the installation process. IE 9 requires a number of Windows Updates in order be able to install. For us, one of these updates had been failing several times in Windows Update, so this was a rather painful process. If Google, Mozilla, and Opera can make stand-alone installers, it's inexcusable that Microsoft, the world's largest software company, can't.

While I do agree that Microsoft's "windows update" method of installing IE has been annoying in the past, I would just like to relate my experience installing IE9 (which I just did).

First of all, I was already up to date on Windows Updates (last installed about 1 week ago). So that wasn't an issue.

I went to their website:

I chose "64 bit", clicked on "download", and it gave me a "stand-alone" installer. Technically this was only 500K and surely downloaded the rest of the install from Microsoft before installing.

The installing started about 10 seconds after running the 500K installer.

It required closing Firefox, Java updater, and Explorer windows, which it offered to do automatically or manually.

After that, it took about 1 minute to install (including launching the "customizing settings" popup that went away quickly.

Then, I was able to use it. I didn't have to reboot, which is a first with IE for me.

All in all it was a pretty painless process. I did not have to use Windows Update at all, and I didn't have to reboot.

While this is definitely the most painful install process when compared to Chrome, Firefox, and Opera (Safari for Windows is worse, IMO), it is quite a bit less painful than IE8. And even though it is not as painless as those browsers, it is still a very easy install process.

Now, if you can't install certain Windows Updates, I'm sure it could be more annoying. But from my perspective, on a fully patched Windows 7 machine, it was easy.

Personal note
By shortylickens on 3/16/2011 10:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
My moms law firm uses a lot of custom built apps and services for doing legal work. They can't move to Win 7 or IE9 until they get all those apps rebuilt. Which means going back to the vendors and negotiating a deal to rewrite all the old software, which will take a while and probably require a complicated migration process.

I cant even imagine what it would be like for an industrial company to have to make the move.

If IE9 gets picked up it will be a slow, painful process for professional users I am sure.

Don't let IE9 become the new IE6.
By tfk11 on 3/15/2011 12:11:24 PM , Rating: 1
Will IE9 "just work" sure it will... is it just as fast as the competition... yeah, most people will probably hardly notice any difference. But the reasons for not using MS browsers has nothing to do with either of those issues at this point in time unless you've all already forgotten how MS operates. MS has shown time and time again that they will never maintain compatibility with open standards beyond the extent required to keep up appearances. If you're interested in a stagnant and proprietary internet then by all means go back to using IE as your primary browser.

By troysavary on 3/15/2011 1:34:08 PM , Rating: 1
I used to be a Firefox zealot. But Firefox seems to crash the most of all my browsers now, plus it is a memory pig. Opera has way too many sites it does not work properly on (so much for standards compliance). Besides, Opera is a whiny little bitch who cries to the EU because they cannot compete otherwise. Chrome is ugly, and I trust Google about as much as I do mu mother-in-law.

IE does everything I need. Every page I visit regularly works. A crashed Flash app just causes that tab to reset, rather than freezing the whole browser. Those of you that are taking 3 seconds to open a tab should check other shit on your PC, because on my Athlon based laptop, a tab opens in less than a second.

I see no reason for me to use anything other than IE, except when I am testing a page on another browser. I thought I would miss extensions when I move from FF, but actually, the freedom from conflicts between extension when updating FF has been a blessing.

IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By Pirks on 3/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By damianrobertjones on 3/15/2011 11:40:51 AM , Rating: 4
Today, I manually installed ie9 onto 12 standard Windows 7 machines. All worked/installed without issue.

MS cannot POSSIBLY know what is on every machine in the world and instead of posting utter garbage, maybe wait at least three days as I'm sure someone far more technically minded, with the time, will find a resolution for your issue.

Thank you.

MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By Pirks on 3/15/11, Rating: -1
By tomorrow on 3/15/2011 2:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Try these .msu installers.These will likely be the same ones to be made available on Windows Update. - Windows 7 x64 - Windows 7 x86 - Windows Vista x64 - Windows Vista x86

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By zero2dash on 3/15/2011 12:35:56 PM , Rating: 1
I can't get it to install either; it's telling me to update Windows because IE9 is not supported on pre-release versions of 7 or Vista. Funny, because the RC installed just fine, and I'm running an activated Win7x64 SP1.

Not that I was going to use IE9 much anyway, but regardless - the installer is a big bucket of FAILSAUCE.

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By Pirks on 3/15/2011 12:45:10 PM , Rating: 1
the installer is a big bucket of FAILSAUCE
and Ballmey's full of it too

Lousy Ballmey LOUSY!

"Tfoy soft - hofno" (C) Vanko from Iron Man 2

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By Pirks on 3/15/2011 4:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Tfoy soft - hofno" (C) Vanko from Iron Man 2

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 4:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
The only 'FAILSAUCE' here is pretending as though any company should support a pre release OS.

They put in validations so that people like you cannot complain about the install not working because they are not running release software. The install itself hardly failed, you immediately failed the system installation requirement validation and as such the install would no continue.

Thats why the RC works perfectly fine, its a completely unsupported release. Production releases require support, and its not something MS should be wasting their time on because you are too cheap to buy the software, or too lazy to pirate a real version. (which you are basically doing anyway by running pre release software a year+ after its release)

P.S I immediately pictured a child talking when I read your little 'failsauce' statement. Grow the heck up..

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By Pirks on 3/15/2011 4:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Both myself and zero2dash run release version of Windows, I guess you should vent in another direction then? Just a friendly advice.

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 5:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
Was I commenting on your situation?

I will if you would like..

I've done 5 installations today, 2 Vista, 3 Windows 7.

Not problem on my end, so its clearly not widespread.

I've had updates fail on every single platform, so please do not make it out as though this is something limited to Windows. I've had to perform FULL OSX updates (i.e downloading the full combo update package) instead of doing the incremental updates many times, and they do not have the excuse of having millions of hardware and thousands of configurations to support.

Furthermore, can we assume you are upgrading from an RC release?

RE: IE9 installer is a piece of sh1t
By Pirks on 3/15/2011 5:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
I haven's got any RC installed ever before, this is the first time I tried to install IE9 and I never had any betas or RCs of Windows ever. zero2dash didn't have a "pre release OS" of yours either. Hence this:

By omnicronx on 3/15/2011 5:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
Was just wondering bud ;)

Still does not change the fact that stuff happens, and MS cannot control everything you do to your machine..

For the most part their update process works great.. One of my Vista machines was an RC update, the other was a full install.. Once again no problem.

I already searched the web, I don't see any sites/forum postings etc complaining about the issue, so it must be few and far between. So please stop trying to claim otherwise until you have something to show for it.

By zero2dash on 3/15/2011 8:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
They put in validations so that people like you cannot complain about the install not working because they are not running release software. The install itself hardly failed, you immediately failed the system installation requirement validation and as such the install would no continue.

I'm not running an unreleased/hacked copy. If I was, I'm pretty sure a) I wouldn't be able to grab every update (including SP1) and b) I would notice a warning about "not being genuine" and I wouldn't have a "Windows is activated" prompt in my system properties window.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki