46 replies to this topic

[regenerati0n]

Since Windows 8 RTM is now available on MSDN and TechNet, we were able to benchmark IE10. Has IE gotten any faster? Read on to find out.

http://www.ngohq.com...enchmarked.html

[Shane Nokes]

The taskbar shortcut actually links to IE64, not IE32.

[+Yorak]

Well...they made some progress. Still looks bad compared to Chrome and Firefox, though.

[regenerati0n]

Shane Nokes, on 21 August 2012 - 04:38, said:

The taskbar shortcut actually links to IE64, not IE32.

Well, here on a clean installation, the taskbar shortcut links to IE32, Metro links to IE64.

[StevenJ]

I don't understand why Firefox memory usage is so low compared to the rest. Since the 0.x beta days they had a huge memory leak. However they never acknowledged it as a memory leak: they called it a 'feature' in that it saves the browsing sessions of closed tabs and previous pages.

They should test these browsers after they've been opened and fully used for a couple of hours (that is, tabs open, tabs closed, after watching youtube videos and other things) and should also test them after they've already opened flash or javascript items in some tabs.

My website, which uses a lot of CSS3 animation, chokes up on firefox so much it's ridiculous.

[Shane Nokes]

regenerati0n, on 21 August 2012 - 04:59, said:

Well, here on a clean installation, the taskbar shortcut links to IE32, Metro links to IE64.

Ok, how are you verifying that it's liking to the 32-bit version? If you're using the 'tell-tale' jump-list it actually switched between 7 & 8. 64-bit now shows the jump-list and 32-bit does not.

I verified by going to C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer and when I right click 'Unpin from Taskbar' is shown. When I go to C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer and right click 'Pin to Taskbar' is there.

That tells me 64-bit is default and 32-bit is not. Are you seeing different behavior?

[Ci7]

or just look in task manger

you would see (32 bit) next to the application name

Attached Images

• 

[still1]

Lost faith in MS when they took 5 years to get IE7.
They though customers will use the web browser even if they do nothing??

[Shane Nokes]

Ci7, on 21 August 2012 - 05:21, said:

or just look in task manger

you would see (32 bit) next to the application name

That also shows that it's the 64-bit version...since there's no 32-bit next to it. So double confirmed on my clean install that 64-bit is the default IE. So wondering why the OP is not having the same behavior.

[-Razorfold]

still1, on 21 August 2012 - 05:21, said:

Lost faith in MS when they took 5 years to get IE7.
They though customers will use the web browser even if they do nothing??

Microsoft pretty much controlled the market when IE6 was released. And when a company controls a market they don't feel the need to release new products since there's no competition and hence no incentive to do so.

When Firefox and then Chrome started to become popular Microsoft took notice and released IE7, 8, 9 and now 10. If Chrome ever reaches the marketshare IE6 once had, Google will start doing the same thing Microsoft did simply because it saves them a ton of money. Though one can hope that they learnt from the mistake MS made and will keep improving their product.

[Ci7]

Shane Nokes, on 21 August 2012 - 05:25, said:

That also shows that it's the 64-bit version...since there's no 32-bit next to it. So double confirmed on my clean install that 64-bit is the default IE. So wondering why the OP is not having the same behavior.

he upgraded Vista/7 => 8 and the setting got carried over perhaps? my speculation

-Razorfold, on 21 August 2012 - 05:25, said:

Microsoft pretty much controlled the market when IE6 was released. And when a company controls a market they don't feel the need to release new products since there's no competition and hence no incentive to do so.

When Firefox and then Chrome started to become popular Microsoft took notice and released IE7, 8, 9 and now 10. If Chrome ever reaches the marketshare IE6 once had, Google will start doing the same thing Microsoft did simply because it saves them a ton of money. Though one can hope that they learnt from the mistake MS made and will keep improving their product.

Google has more incetive to keep improving since they mainly internet company

unlikely

[-Razorfold]

Ci7, on 21 August 2012 - 05:31, said:

Google has more incetive to keep improving since they mainly internet company

Google is mainly an ad company. Chrome is just another way to get people to use, and sign up for, Google services and therefore make Google money (default search is Google, syncs to GApps etc).

[adiaga]

the problem with IE is that it if even it would be better than most browsers now it will remain behind pretty fast as the others will bring updates much quicker than microsoft which releases a new IE version when a new OS comes out.

[+Brandon Live]

Shane Nokes, on 21 August 2012 - 05:25, said:

That also shows that it's the 64-bit version...since there's no 32-bit next to it. So double confirmed on my clean install that 64-bit is the default IE. So wondering why the OP is not having the same behavior.

IE10 should always launch a 64-bit frame, and will default to 64-bit tabs. However, it can/will use 32-bit tabs for some things (depending on add-ins you have installed, intranet vs internet maybe, etc).

[Shane Nokes]

Brandon Live, on 21 August 2012 - 05:37, said:

IE10 should always launch a 64-bit frame, and will default to 64-bit tabs. However, it can/will use 32-bit tabs for some things (depending on add-ins you have installed, intranet vs internet maybe, etc).

Yup, that's what I figured would be the case. That's why I'm wondering why the OP said that the desktop version defaults to 32-bit and that's what he has labelled in the benchmarks. It was a clean install according to them. I brought it up since if they are incorrect it would affect the legitimacy of the benchmark results.