[WinTard]

Your system must be completely fouled up. Have you tried Crap Cleaner? Did a Chkdsk, and repair all inconsistencies? And perform a disk defragmentation lately?

So your experience is not only contradictory, but it makes absolute nonsense compared to what typical PCWorld community members are reporting.

Raising doubts as to your credibility, or the ultimate motives of your post?

[TechieXP]

yea i am going to try 7057...i was trying to get it, but teh location was simply to slow. I'll wait until MSFT releases it.

[TechieXP]

Even if MSFT didn't include IE in Windows, IE would still be more popular because it is better. Any application that requires network access are inherently slow. It doesn't matter who makes it.

MSFT however does take on the job of writing code to support features designers typically code into web pages. Mozilla, Opera and other don't. That is why you need plugins. After you take any browser and add all the plugins you need to view things IE does natively they ALL will be slow.

Also as another person said...what is really the rush? A few seconds of waiting isn't going to kill any1. If waiting 5 sec at ost for a typical page is too slow for you, there are plenty of things you can do while you wait. Get a drink, get a kiss or simply get a life. That way you won't have time to be wasting browsing teh internet to begin with.

Most web page are developed based on the most popular browser wihich is IE, which means the rest are doomed to break if the coder didn't add the extra code needed for the others. Dreamweaver offers a code checker that will check code to make sure you have basic code that will support all browsers at teh same time. However once you add other things like how flash, ovies or other media is called up...all browsers are very different. Some can't call up any media at all beyond flash if it requires a plugin. WM file and Quicktime both require a browser plugin. Active X at least guarantee that it has been tested by MSFT and that it will work.
No matter how much you bash IE, it is number one not bec it is bundled in the OS...it is because it works...
Proof of that is Safari is bundled in OSX, yet Firefox is used more...
If IE was on OSX it would be used their ore too.

[cookieG111]

FF for me was the faster web surfer but IE8 was far better at video downloading. (As much as a minute for shorter downloads). FF is still far more flexible for personal customization.

[eMJay]

I just did some investigating of my own. IE8 renders as fast as FF3.0.7 on most of the popular websites and actually beats 3.0.7 slightly on some of them. Yet, its javascript rendering capability is significantly slower than FF or any of the other browsers i tested it against (FF's engine was nearly 3X faster, Chrome's was 6X faster) . Clearly, FF and other browsers have significantly faster javascript engines. That just tells me that the IE development team simply tweaked aspects of their engine and browser to make most commonly viewed pages load faster. Neat trick, that one, but no cigar.

The problem with just doing the tweaking rather than speeding up the actual engine is that when sites start requiring faster javascript for more interactivity, IE8's performance at those sites will deteriorate while the other browsers' will not. It's clear to me that IE8 has been customized to deal with pages as they are today, while the other browsers are preparing for the next generation of web pages and web applications.

Ultimately, there really isn't any point to comparing IE to any of the browsers, because IE isn't actually able to actively compete with them. The most significant thing about the IE8 release isn't that it can finally look competitive against a version of FF performance-wise - it's that we now know what IE's limitations in speed, design and standards compliance will be like for the next 2-3 years. In 6-9 months, FF (and some of the other browsers) will be 2-3X faster than they are right now, and will be even more standards compliant. In 6-9 months, the only thing IE8 will get from MS is patches to fix newly discovered vulnerabilities.

[thewazak]

FireFox not the fastest any more?
It depends which report you read!
According to Javascript rendering tests run by Computerworld, Firefox proved to be 59% faster than IE8, while Safari was 47 faster faster. Opera, the slowest non-Microsoft production browser, was still 38 percent faster than IE8.
This looks like a BS story to me.

[computerguy01]

i thin IE8 is not very safe to use and google chrome is and so is opera others no.

[WinTard]

I reiterate that under Windows 7 Ultimate x64 beta, simple using of IE8 x64 is way faster than FF or Chrome (albeit 32-bit versions). Have you guys tried under Windows 7 x64? Granted, I've yet to try this under XP x86 (32-bit).

Message was edited by: WinTard
Well for some obscure reason, Chrome refuses to work under Windows 7 beta now! :(

Quote

All I did was to perform the optional update for this bluetooth driver... I don't even use bluetooth under Windows 7 (yet)... And according to device manager, it was working already. Hm.

Quote

I guess this is all about beta, and I shouldn't complain. In all fairness, Windows 7 always complained about Chrome and some problem(s). Funny, this Aw Snap! message only comes up on forums.pcworld.com. If I go to google.com, just blank screen, and nothing. ?:|

[eMJay]

IE8 has already been customized and designed to work with Win7. In contrast, the versions of FF, Chrome and the other browsers currently available right now were not specifically developed for 7. So, attempting to make comparisons and conclusions about browser performance by pitting a Win7-customized browser against versions of browsers that were not customized for it is premature. Furthermore, by the time 7 is released, there WILL be new, faster versions of FF and Chrome that will actually be designed to work with 7. And at that point, all speed comparisons between IE8 and other browsers developed for 7 will put IE8 in last place.

As I've stated before, we now know the limits of IE's performance for the next 2-3 years. What we don't know yet is to what extent the other browsers will surpass it.

[djkenny79]

IE8 should still be in Beta. There are still too many web sites that do not display properly under IE8, but they are OK in IE7.

We have sent Microsoft many feedback notices about this but have NOT see a fix, to-date.

It is not about whether it is faster versus FireFox. FireFox displays the same web pages correctly!

Too fast Microsoft, IR8 is NOT ready for prime-time.

[TechieXP]

First off there is nothing wrong with the browser. Did you ever think that since web pages have not been update to take in consideration how IE8 renders pages that why they don't work? Also that is why IE8 has a compatibility mode to make it compatible to typical web pages.

Its just like when MSFT releases a new OS. First thing people say it isn't ready for prime-time. No it simple means people just need to catch up. I see plant y of pages that break in FF and Opera and all those other cheesy browsers, yet everyone claims they are so much better than IE. How come no one attacks them. Everyone wants to attack MSFT at every turn. Just so tired of hearing it.

IE has been better than any browser I have ever used including that cheesy @$$ Netscape. Everyone attacks IE8 because it dioesn't have customizations like FF. Why? No one would even have cared if no other browser had it. MSFT doesn't have to be like FF. ANyone who is expecting software made by 2 different companies to be teh same is going to have a heartbreak to begin with.

Also someone else said something about IE8 not being faster than FF bec the version in Windows 7 is different from the one you download and installed in Vista. The only difference is the browser is built into teh OS, versus downloading and installing it. I compared the two on the same different pages. Sure I noticed it was somewhat faster...but not by much. I don't think browsers were meant to work like a light switch. Software isn't instant on instant off. Since none of us are smart enough to create something better we are at teh mercy of those who are.

I personally don't think teh other browsers are better, they simply do the same thing differently.

[laranz]

My IE in Vista is much faster than my FireFox in XP!

Microsoft Always rocks! ;)

[chuckchuck]

downloaded and tried ie8 for 3 days - sheesh . . . the browser rendered things fine as mentioned here, but took longer than ie7 to actually start . . . some nice features in ie8, but after I couldn't resolve a bug telling me "my search provider" was changed (quite annoying EVERY time you start the browser) . . . I went back to ie7 - at least until more bugs get worked out of ie8.

[apexwebmaster]

It's good to see Microsoft has learned by its failures and mistakes of the past. Competition is good, and even in the world of web browsers, it's a good thing. However, it makes me wonder with IE being closed source, how it will fare in the coming years against Firefox which is open source. It seems like Firefox is ahead of the game as features, enhancements, and security issues come out a lot faster since it is open source. Personally, I have been burned by security exploits in IE so I'm done using it. I use Firefox on Linux and feel confident that I'm about as safe as I can get from malicious websites. I strongly recommend this for others as well.

This post has been edited by smax013: 04 October 2009 - 12:20 PM
Reason for edit:: Removed self-promotional/external link

[Toolkid]

Why is everything reduced to speed. How does IE8 do with the acid-test. Are the rendering problems resolved? How about exploits und customization via addons? How about RAM-usage with multiple tabs. That's what I'd like to know/see compared.
On computer systems with more computing power than the average home user will ever need, the differences will be minute. But on netbooks those differences... well will make the difference.

[georgeb]

Under XP this is the slowest browser for me. It kills some sites Javascript. And it still doesn't have spellcheck. Safari 4 beta and Chrome are the fastest. Safari 4 beta on the Mac seems even faster.

[steve39]

What I have found, in very unsciteific way, is that:

--It seems about the same as Safari, Google and Firefox in timing of the first page, but much faster in any links on the page--I think IE8 downloads links after the initial page is loaded.

--Other processes on my computer that seemed to have been slowed down seem to have speeded up when I made IE8 my default browser.

--It does not have the bare bones feel of Safari and Chrome.

--I have been using the latest Beta of Firefox which crashes too too often. IE8 has not.



I am not a big MS fan, but for the time being, in most respects am quite happy with IE8.

[bigjohnl]

Please write in English

[rifter]

Microsoft is doing to IE what it does to all its programs -- feature bloat. Mozilla has the right approach by using an open architecture that allows users to create plug-ins and add-ons that you pick and choose based on your unique needs in a browser.

It doesn't matter to me which one is faster to load, although I don't think the method of testing here was so great. Nobody uses a browser that way, and net traffic will have far more effect on load times than any inherent speed advantage or lack of same. But, the biggest reason to use Firefox over IE8 is still the fact that IE8 is one of the top targets of hackers. Microsoft has not been all that diligent about ensuring its code base is bulletproof, and no matter how much more secure they claim it is, I'd bet my paycheck that somebody will find a major hole that can be exploited in short order.

I'd also make note of the fact that Firefox has a plug-in called 'IE Tab' that allows it to run webpages that are Microsoft only as if it were IE, with a single mouse click to switch from IE mode to Firefox mode and vice versa.

In addition to all the above, I have read a bunch of reports of crashes, lock ups, and the infamous BSD with IE8. With three versions of Windows floating around right now, I'll leave the bug hunts in a new browser to somebody else.

[Buddha3]

I would like to know who is the ISP for PCWorld??? Is PCW still on DSL or dial-up??

If any browser took over 2 to 3 seconds to load a page on a regular basis I would immediately change my ISP, quit using the computer or shoot myself, probably in that order. Are you folks at PCWorld really pros??

My times are consistently about one second in the same test after clearing my browser cache. I have Comcast, not because I like their company, but because THEY are fast. If I've been to a page before the time is INSTANTANEOUS!!!

So I will stick with Firefox, because after years of treating me good with all those add-ons and saving my ID's and passwords for each site and being fast, the millisecond (and I do not mean centisecond or decisecond) that IE8 might save is not worth the time learning how to make it do all the cool things firefox has done for years.

Of course if you really care at all about FAST, you will tie yourself to CABLE.