• IE9 Public Preview and Statistics! (Faster than Firefox!)
    135 replies, posted
Lol @ Faster than Firefox title. It's barely faster now, and by the time it comes out, Mozilla may have implemented their new Javascript engine already... And IE will be back at its place, as the slowest browser. [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20782432]Too bad if you're still designing in any remotely professional capacity you'll still be designing sites to run under IE6 for at [B]least[/B] a few more years, not to mention 7 and 8. A new browser version doesn't mean the old ones suddenly disappear.[/QUOTE] Some government websites over here have decided not to support IE6, suggesting users to either upgrade to IE8, or to get Firefox to browse their website. Some big companies have done the same. There's little reason to support IE6 anymore.
[QUOTE=BmB;20782032]Oh yes, anti-aliasing on large format text. At long last. Thank god.[/QUOTE] as if you actually used IE
[QUOTE=Panda X;20783369]Pre-alpha.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ibutsu;20782971]Good to know that in its [b]current state[/b], it's still shit. :downs:[/QUOTE] :/ [editline]08:46PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Aurora93;20783601]as if you actually used IE[/QUOTE] He sticks up for IE a lot, so it's possible he does.
Well, I can get using IE for web development, but to use it as your default browser is just stupid.
Looks better, but I'd rather stay with Chrome.
No it's not. IE is the browser with the least annoyances overall. Chrome is doing a fine balancing act of being functional enough to keep me from switching back so there's potential here. But I still miss some things from IE. IE has always neglected to anti-alias large format text. And it has always gotten on my tits. But it's a purely visual thing, like nearly all of IE's problems.
[QUOTE=gparent;20783501]Lol @ Faster than Firefox title. It's barely faster now, and by the time it comes out, Mozilla may have implemented their new Javascript engine already... And IE will be back at its place, as the slowest browser. Some government websites over here have decided not to support IE6, suggesting users to either upgrade to IE8, or to get Firefox to browse their website. Some big companies have done the same. There's little reason to support IE6 anymore.[/QUOTE] And why is it absolutely impossible for IE to be faster? Also IE8 has twice as many users as IE6 (tacking on to your comment)
[QUOTE=Ibutsu;20783619]:/[/QUOTE] Comparing a pre-alpha browser to a fully released and patched browser is just stupid.
I like the lack of interface. I'm guessing that means they are still redesigning it, which is a good thing because I've always hated IE's interface.
[QUOTE=Foda;20784707]I like the lack of interface. I'm guessing that means they are still redesigning it, which is a good thing because I've always hated IE's interface.[/QUOTE] I like the consistency with explorer. It could have been better though.
[QUOTE=rieda1589;20784501]Comparing a pre-alpha browser to a fully released and patched browser is just stupid.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it won't improve. I'm just not putting my hopes up that by the release it'll be any better than any of the other main browsers.
Honestly IE7 is pretty much the rolemodel for how a browser should look and function. The favorites menu is a stroke of genius. IE8 cluttered everything up but a few right clicks and you're back on track.
[QUOTE=BmB;20784894]Honestly IE7 is pretty much the rolemodel for how a browser should look and function. The favorites menu is a stroke of genius. IE8 cluttered everything up but a few right clicks and you're back on track.[/QUOTE] You want to reduce clicks to get to something while reducing clutter. Paraphrasing from Microsoft's UX Guidelines.
The only thing that sounds better from my POV is the DirectX shit, but it's not worth using IE for. The CSS3 and HTML5 compliance is encouraging though. It's early days yet, but there's nothing here that'll convince me to switch. [editline]12:26AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BmB;20784894]Honestly IE7 is pretty much the rolemodel for how a browser should look and function. The favorites menu is a stroke of genius. IE8 cluttered everything up but a few right clicks and you're back on track.[/QUOTE] I absolutely fucking hate IE's interface. The File>Edit?View etc menus were less aesthetically pleasing, but far less infuriating. If they handle it like Opera's done though, and essentially keep the menus but shove them into a rop down menu that'd be nice. [editline]12:28AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Retardation;20785421]Still not going to switch to IE9, Furhurfox works just fine.[/QUOTE] I've been staying away from firefox for a ear or so now. It's just so slow compared to these other browsers. I hope they pull their socks up at some point, because I love firefox addons, and although it isn't the nicest looking browser around (at least not yet) they more than make up for it.
It's faster than Firefox 3.6. The fastest browser is currently Mozilla Minefield 3.7a3pre
Only thing I care about is that it upholds the bloody web standards so I don't have to hack all kinds of shit in my web pages to make them look good on IE.
It looks like it's going to be a good release, JavaScript executes really fast which is nice to see and Direct2D rendering is very fast (and strange to see, much faster than Direct2D enabled Firefox) DirectWrite is awesome, but that's mainly due to the API, it's awesome in Firefox as well. Support for XHTML, SVG and HTML5 is great, it's still unfinished but hopefully the large bugs at least will be fixed before the final release (No clipping or masking in SVG, for example) MS have published skewed test results like they have with previous releases, so that's not really surprising (Only tests the areas where IE is correct, and in some cases the tests are written to fail in other browsers, lack of prefixes and such)
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;20787823]I absolutely fucking hate IE's interface. The File>Edit?View etc menus were less aesthetically pleasing, but far less infuriating. If they handle it like Opera's done though, and essentially keep the menus but shove them into a rop[sic] down menu that'd be nice.[/QUOTE] Why "infuriating"? Do you have problem finding things in more intuitively labelled drop downs or what? Are you a retard with nerd rage? And FYI, IE can work just like that. If you tap Alt the old style menus appear, use them or tap again to get rid of them. Then you can just customize the command bar in the "infuriating" style away with a right click on the tab bar.
Even if it's not the best and doesn't turn out the best it's a huge step forward for IE.
[QUOTE=Benji;20789738]Even if it's not the best and doesn't turn out the best it's a huge step forward for IE.[/QUOTE]
I take back what I said about XHTML, IE9 doesn't properly support it. It just treats the XHTML mime-type as the HTML mime-type, meaning IE9 will gladly accept malformed XHTML files and present them, which is terrible for web compatibility (every other browser that does XHTML actually does XML parsing, and as such will reject those files showing an error) I hope that's fixed for the final release, I'd rather have no XHTML support than support this broken.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;20791668]I take back what I said about XHTML, IE9 doesn't properly support it. It just treats the XHTML mime-type as the HTML mime-type, meaning IE9 will gladly accept malformed XHTML files and present them, which is terrible for web compatibility (every other browser that does XHTML actually does XML parsing, and as such will reject those files showing an error) I hope that's fixed for the final release, I'd rather have no XHTML support than support this broken.[/QUOTE] lol no. You try putting a <br> tag or an <img> without the self closing thingy in an XHTML page and watch as it still displays fine in every major browser. And since when is not rejecting a page bad for compatibility?
I think Microsoft still prioritises rendering as many websites as possible over throwing a hissy fit at the slightest error. (If your website is malformed, whose fault is it?)
Just about the only thing that's "slow" in Firefox for me is the startup time (of 3 seconds on a cold boot, 2 seconds otherwise.) Everything else is lightning fast and pages load near instantly. There's no point in me changing just so I can gain a .05 second difference in loading pages. It's a step forward compared to older versions of IE, sure, but compared to other browsers you're really not going to see a gain going from something like Firefox 3.6/3.7 alpha or Chrome to IE. Standards are still horribly broken so web pages that use the latest standards are going to be rendering like ass, so unless they fix this by release, it's still going to be the same bullshit all over again.
I hope Microsoft do well with IE9. They're an awesome company with awesome products and it's a shame they can't get their shit together with the browser - especially given that most people are using one version of IE or another.
[QUOTE=JIAC;20795093]Just about the only thing that's "slow" in Firefox for me is the startup time (of 3 seconds on a cold boot, 2 seconds otherwise.) Everything else is lightning fast and pages load near instantly. There's no point in me changing just so I can gain a .05 second difference in loading pages. It's a step forward compared to older versions of IE, sure, but compared to other browsers you're really not going to see a gain going from something like Firefox 3.6/3.7 alpha or Chrome to IE. Standards are still horribly broken so web pages that use the latest standards are going to be rendering like ass, so unless they fix this by release, it's still going to be the same bullshit all over again.[/QUOTE] Like what? Honestly I have yet to see a decent page render improperly in even IE7, that is, a broken page that wasn't intentionally misserved because of the IE header.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;20791668] It just treats the XHTML mime-type as the HTML mime-type, meaning IE9 will gladly accept malformed XHTML files and present them, which is terrible for web compatibility (every other browser that does XHTML actually does XML parsing, and as such will reject those files showing an error) [/QUOTE] This is a good thing in my book. You wouldn't be able to look at a whole website just because the author made one tiny mistake somewhere. Shit would suck. No browser just rejects a page. Most try to do their best out of what they got and log an error. Whether it's shown to you or not depends on your settings.
[QUOTE=Panda X;20784254]And why is it absolutely impossible for IE to be faster?[/QUOTE] It's not, it just hasn't happened yet. And unless they get IE9 out before FF gets their new JS engine implemented, it seems like it's unlikely to ever happen. [QUOTE=Panda X;20784254]Also IE8 has twice as many users as IE6 (tacking on to your comment)[/QUOTE] Good. Yet another reason to not support the sucker.
(Because javascript is everything in speed)
[QUOTE=BmB;20795276](Because javascript is everything in speed)[/QUOTE] In the long run it will turn out to be. People's connections are now often fast enough for regular browsing, What matters for speed won't be the bandwidth or HTML rendering but how well your browser handles all the JS and AJAX shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.