HTML5 game developer feels IE10 lacks important features

Microsoft launched Windows 8 with Internet Explorer 10 included in the OS a few weeks ago and on Tuesday it debuted a version of the web browser for Windows 7 PCs. Microsoft has been trying to make the pitch that IE10 is faster that its competitors, and one third party company claims their information confirms Microsoft's assertions.

Not everyone has this opinion. One of them is Scierra, a developer who has created a HTML5-based game creation tool called Construct 2. In a post on their official blog, they claim IE10 is actually much slower than rivals like Google's Chrome and Mozilla's Firefox web browser when it comes to running some HTML5 games.

The blog says that because IE10 does not support the WebGL API, its HTML5 game performance suffers as a result. Running a WebGL game on identical PC software, Scirra claims that Firefox runs eight times faster that IE10 and Chrome runs 22 times faster than Microsoft's web browser. The blog adds, "As WebGL technology is refined and improved, IE is sorely losing out from the performance gains to be had."

Scirra also posted up data that shows IE10 running behind Chrome and Firefox in other tests they conducted, including particle effects and physics. While the developer feels that game creators can still make solid HTML5 games that will run on IE10, they question why the browser lacks a number of features that are already in Chrome and Firefox.

The blog adds:

IE10 introduces only a small selection of features for games over IE9: requestAnimationFrame, offline support (AppCache), and touch events (in Microsoft's own custom form), and slightly improved performance over IE9. However other browsers have had these features for a long time now, and IE10's release does very little to catch up. It is still way behind Chrome and Firefox, and appears to be falling even further behind as time goes on: the improvement from IE9 to IE10 is much smaller than the strides Chrome and Firefox have taken in the same time.

Source: Scirra blog | Image via Scirra

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia launches HERE, their next generation of location services

Next Story

Microsoft project puts Windows 8 on Facebook cover photos

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Really again? Another article slamming IE10 for NOT supporting the security nightmare piece of crap that is WebGL?

IE10 still has no support for WebGL

And their other rants about insane codecs that less than 1% of the world uses.


If Microsoft was shoving around a HIGHLY insecure NON-STANDARD version of DirectX for the Web, people would be out with pitchforks.

Yet even though W3C has screamed at the world that WebGL is FFFFFing insecure and is why there is a standards shader model, and virtually every expert in the world has said STOP USING WEBGL or it will be worse than unfettered ActiveX of 10 years ago.

Here we are with Chrome/Firefox using it and idiots like these people and Neowin supporting it.

Of course IE10 is not going to be 'quite' as fast as a Window into OpenGL. Maybe Microsoft should just expose the DirectX framework to the Web developers (which is what WebGL does for OpenGL) and then when people are running Malware through GPU code, you can thank yourself for being on the wrong side of security history.

]

thenetavenger said,
Really again? Another article slamming IE10 for NOT supporting the security nightmare piece of crap that is WebGL?
]

Its really not that bad. The worst that could happen is denial of service (GPU freeze) if you consciously go to a sketchy website that exploits this. Also, most windows drivers can reset GPU if this happens and then you kill the page. Then you move on with your life like nothing happened.

All other security issues are already fixed as you probably know. So I would call this security issue bs or paranoia (which is understandable because Microsoft was long abused by hackers)

My advice to IE is to stop playing politics and do what is best for the web platform. I believe they should support WebGL.

What I really dislike about IE development is that MS keeps leaving out features that have become close enough to standard in other browsers. IE9 should have had things like XHR file uploads, File API etc. but now it's two years later with IE10 bringing them to the table. By the time the next version of IE is released it will again be hopelessly dated compared to the competition, again making it into something that causes extra grief for developers.

I recently found out how bad the Windows Phone 7 IE is and it amazed me even more - I mean no support for touch events? No proper scaling of input elements? WTF is that **** on an OS made purely for touch control and modern web sites?

LaXu said,
What I really dislike about IE development is that MS keeps leaving out features that have become close enough to standard in other browsers.
Presumably, when Microsoft had the majority of the browser market, all other browser developers should have adopted IEs standards?

The fact is that the majority of 'standards' that IE does not adopt are not part of the HTML5 specification (e.g. WebGL) or are immature. Remember that html5test.com only tests whether a feature is supported, not whether it works in a standard way.

LaXu said,
... By the time the next version of IE is released it will again be hopelessly dated compared to the competition, again making it into something that causes extra grief for developers.

It doesn't matter.
By the time it happened, IE would still be the most used browser in the planet...

that is NOT true! I tested Firefox and IE 9. I can see that IE is more faster than FF or Chrome. Depend on hardware, not software.

gameboy1977 said,
that is NOT true! I tested Firefox and IE 9. I can see that IE is more faster than FF or Chrome. Depend on hardware, not software.
I think this discussion is about the software, not hardware performance. IE did a great job optimizing SVG performance and in some aspects its really fast, maybe even the fastest. But in some other aspects, IE is way behind.

Athernar said,
They'll never support WebGL, for the simple reason it's a derivative of OpenGL, and OpenGL is DirectX's competitor.

Must be sweet to live in a world where you can pick and choose reasons for others' behavior. Anyway, Windows supports OpenGL, so the reasoning does not make sense. WebGL is not part of HTML5, HTML5 is not a standard yet, and WebGL is extremely insecure. Your 'reasoning' might make more sense if MS was pushing some WebDX or something, but they are not because that would be equally insecure most likely.

J_R_G said,

Must be sweet to live in a world where you can pick and choose reasons for others' behavior. Anyway, Windows supports OpenGL, so the reasoning does not make sense. WebGL is not part of HTML5, HTML5 is not a standard yet, and WebGL is extremely insecure. Your 'reasoning' might make more sense if MS was pushing some WebDX or something, but they are not because that would be equally insecure most likely.


Windows supports OpenGL 'cause that was a requirement to push Windows in certain markets. The official support is limited to OGL v1.X, which equals to "not supported" for any serious usage...

Athernar said,
They'll never support WebGL, for the simple reason it's a derivative of OpenGL, and OpenGL is DirectX's competitor.

WebGL is HIGHLY insecure, and every security person and company in the world has issued WARNING after WARNING why you SHOULD NEVER FREAKING USE IT.

That is why Microsoft does not support it.

OpenGL runs faster on Windows than on any other platform, so your OpenGL is a competitor crap is just crap.

MFH said,
Windows supports OpenGL 'cause that was a requirement to push Windows in certain markets. The official support is limited to OGL v1.X, which equals to "not supported" for any serious usage...
Pretty sure that MS fell out with the OpenGL people years ago and stopped supporting it altogether. However the graphics card manufacturers include support for OpenGL in their drivers so the lack of support by Windows has no practical effect.

About this news, HTML5 is STILL not a standard.

So, it is not strange that Flash is still predominant and it will be for a long time.

Anyways, most benchmarks are useless, the speed of a browser should be measured in the render speed, nested elements (div inside a div inside a div for example), table managements and DOM changes in realtime.

Edited by Brony, Nov 14 2012, 5:17pm :

Yes, in our testing too, IE10 significantly lagged behind both Firefox 16 and Chrome 23 in terms of HTML5/CSS compliance and Javascript performance. We actually compared IE10 with Firefox 16, Chrome 23, Opera 12, Safari 5, and also against its predecessor IE9, and we were quite surprised that in a couple of our benchmark tests, IE9 actually out performed IE10 (namely in browser startup times).

But generally, there's no doubt that overall IE10 is a step up from IE9... however, IE10 still has a long way to go to meet the standards set by other competing browsers that have receive regular updates (unlike IE that sees a major update once every blue moon!)

If interested, our full browser performance report (published today) is available at: http://blog.mid.as/2012/11/14/...t-the-top-six-head-to-head/

GreatMarkO said,
Yes, in our testing too, IE10 significantly lagged behind both Firefox 16 and Chrome 23 in terms of HTML5/CSS compliance and Javascript performance. We actually compared IE10 with Firefox 16, Chrome 23, Opera 12, Safari 5, and also against its predecessor IE9, and we were quite surprised that in a couple of our benchmark tests, IE9 actually out performed IE10 (namely in browser startup times).

But generally, there's no doubt that overall IE10 is a step up from IE9... however, IE10 still has a long way to go to meet the standards set by other competing browsers that have receive regular updates (unlike IE that sees a major update once every blue moon!)

If interested, our full browser performance report (published today) is available at: http://blog.mid.as/2012/11/14/...t-the-top-six-head-to-head/

This is only occurring in tests that are using things like WebGL and other NON Standards that Chrome and Firefox have taken it upon themselves to use and pretend they are standards.

When Microsoft did this with IE5 and IE6 (implementing features before they were accepted by the W3C), people hated them and berated them... When Google and Mozilla do this, it is OK...

Why? Is everyone ok with NON-STANDARDs and browser shoving away from the W3C like Chrome and Firefox?

This is just insane.

WebGL is a self-contradiction. Modern web code has to be isolated from the hardware for security reasons, but WebGL allows code to be run directly against the hardware. That's where the speed comes from. They are overcoming an inherent limitation of web code by breaking the rules of web code. (I don't install Java browser plug-ins on my computers for a similar reason. I don't want to give the web a way to reach outside fo the browser)

MS is taking a hard stance on security by refusing to support WebGL. Compare the speed of actual standard HTML5 calls between browsers and get back to us...

I haven't seen anything tigerworks has done in years but afaik he went from being a game developer to making a game development program. About 10 years ago he was working on Terminal Orbit which was pretty cool at the time, I grabbed it off an old drive last week for the MIDIs but thought I'd upload it here incase anyone wants to see how his game looked 10 years ago http://www.filedropper.com/torbit

Oh Goood. How many years they need to Fix IE? Seriously If I were them I would have kill IE and start making another browser based on Webkit like chrome. Its much faster.

S3P€hR said,
Oh Goood. How many years they need to Fix IE? Seriously If I were them I would have kill IE and start making another browser based on Webkit like chrome. Its much faster.

Actually, WebKit is not faster than IE. In fact, with IE10, the opposite is true.

IE doesn't support WebGL because Microsoft is concerned about the security issues related to that spec. Microsoft has finally overcome the security issues of their past, what do you think would happen if Microsoft added WebGL support and suddenly people's computers started getting hacked again?

S3P€hR said,
Oh Goood. How many years they need to Fix IE? Seriously If I were them I would have kill IE and start making another browser based on Webkit like chrome. Its much faster.

It's good to know you never be them...

S3P€hR said,
Oh Goood. How many years they need to Fix IE? Seriously If I were them I would have kill IE and start making another browser based on Webkit like chrome. Its much faster.

Webkit = Document Render Model
IE = Compile and Run Model

IE is what Webkit will be when it grows up. Stating that IE should copy technology that is literally a generation behind in approach is FFFing insane.

This is a terrible idea. FF and Chrome can get away with WebGL support, because hackers don't target those browsers as much. But if IE had it, every hacker would be all over it, and then we would switch people who chastise MS for 'not supporting standards' for people who troll them for being 'insecure'. I'd rather have a secure browser, and download 3D games I want to play than have an insecure browser and play 3D games in it.

J_R_G said,
This is a terrible idea. FF and Chrome can get away with WebGL support, because hackers don't target those browsers as much. But if IE had it, every hacker would be all over it, and then we would switch people who chastise MS for 'not supporting standards' for people who troll them for being 'insecure'. I'd rather have a secure browser, and download 3D games I want to play than have an insecure browser and play 3D games in it.

People don't target FFox or chrome for vulnerabilities? Are you high?
The whole point in browsers these days is that they should be automatically updating so every time you open them they're updated to fix any possibly security flaws.

J_R_G said,
This is a terrible idea. FF and Chrome can get away with WebGL support, because hackers don't target those browsers as much. But if IE had it, every hacker would be all over it, and then we would switch people who chastise MS for 'not supporting standards' for people who troll them for being 'insecure'. I'd rather have a secure browser, and download 3D games I want to play than have an insecure browser and play 3D games in it.

Mac's Safari is based on webkit just like chrome? are you implying that IE is more secure than Safari in Mac?

S3P€hR said,

Mac's Safari is based on webkit just like chrome? are you implying that IE is more secure than Safari in Mac?

Interesting that you bring up security and Safari in the context of an "IE should support WebGL" discussion.

Safari supports WebGL, but it is disabled by default. Wanna guess why? Hint: it's the same reason IE doesn't support WebGL at all.

n_K said,

People don't target FFox or chrome for vulnerabilities? Are you high?
The whole point in browsers these days is that they should be automatically updating so every time you open them they're updated to fix any possibly security flaws.

Am I high? Well at least I don't interpret "not as much" as "not as all" so maybe someone is high here, but it is not me. Having those updates come quick is good and all, but not for the people that get whacked before the update is released. Better to keep the code sandboxed, unlike WebGL.

S3P€hR said,

Mac's Safari is based on webkit just like chrome? are you implying that IE is more secure than Safari in Mac?

Secure yes, safer? Maybe not. Things like IE being used 10x as much, come into play. All of this is misdirection, WebGL allows too much access to the system, and makes the browser and system less secure, that is the consideration that matters, not security differences between any of the browsers.

n_K said,
People don't target FFox or chrome for vulnerabilities? Are you high?
The whole point in browsers these days is that they should be automatically updating so every time you open them they're updated to fix any possibly security flaws.

Don't be so naïve...
There far a lot of hackers that would target MS products than Google or Firefox products.
Why? It's a kind of love-and-hate relationships between hackers and MS, not to mentions MS haters.

Maybe we could all stop pretending that JavaScript is anywhere near good and stop doing "web apps" that are just as heavy as normal applications, and use another cross-platform language that doesn't suck.

Aethec said,
Maybe we could all stop pretending that JavaScript is anywhere near good and stop doing "web apps" that are just as heavy as normal applications, and use another cross-platform language that doesn't suck.

Web-apps are supported on all kinds of devices, phones, tablets, PDAs, chromebooks, netbooks, etc. over a wide range of operating systems.
Yes it'd be lovely to just have a program made in assembly run on an internet page on every OS under the sun but that will NEVER happen. It is what it is.

Aethec said,
Maybe we could all stop pretending that JavaScript is anywhere near good and stop doing "web apps" that are just as heavy as normal applications, and use another cross-platform language that doesn't suck.

Have you even used or read about JavaScript in the last 5 years? Bad developers who don't know a thing about JS are producing heavy web apps that suck but so are bad developers with other languages. There's many really pushing the boundaries now and creating excellent things with JS.

It's come one hell of a long way in the past several years and long may it continue.

Thom said,
Have you even used or read about JavaScript in the last 5 years? Bad developers who don't know a thing about JS are producing heavy web apps that suck but so are bad developers with other languages. There's many really pushing the boundaries now and creating excellent things with JS.

It's come one hell of a long way in the past several years and long may it continue.


JavaScript is a weakly typed language that was designed in 10 days to be simpler than Java. There are no doubts about the fact that its "standard" library evolved, and many libraries were created to make stuff easier, but the language itself still sucks.

Aethec said,
Maybe we could all stop pretending that JavaScript is anywhere near good and stop doing "web apps" that are just as heavy as normal applications, and use another cross-platform language that doesn't suck.

Idk about you, but after actually using JavaScript, it's pretty awesome. I've learned to code in Java, C++, C, a few assembly languages, and more, and I feel JavaScript doesn't lack anything at all. Just look at this game of Tetris I made in a few weeks, just based off of a couple months of learning JS: http://bit.ly/TRLcx2. Ask me to do anything that's easy enough to do in C++ and I'll show you the equivalent in JS.

Haha ah, Scierra aka tigerworks, the guy that used to use MMF.
Glad to see his software is doing good. But yes agreed, IE performace is hardly inspiring.

I'm dissappointed with IE10 from a developer perspective. While it has pretty solid HTML5 support for what I need, I feel the developer tools are clunky!

From an end user perspective I simply do not understand why my tabs do not sync across devices and I cannot send a website from my PC to my phone and vice versa.

rojorojo said,
From an end user perspective I simply do not understand why my tabs do not sync across devices and I cannot send a website from my PC to my phone and vice versa.

I'll tell you why: Sinofsky.

Nazmus Shakib Khandaker said,
If that is true, it's disappointing. IE10 should use WebGL.
WebGL is not a part of the HTML5 specification; worse, it's widely perceived as a security risk.

Sraf said,
They don't, citing security concerns, as it can run web code directly against hardware

Author here. Just a few things to bear in mind: Microsoft's own Silverlight, as well as Java and Flash 11, all allow exactly the same access to the graphics hardware. So it seems strange MS don't like WebGL for security reasons, but are happy with the same thing in other products. Also, I don't believe there have been any actual cases of any user having their system or data comprimised due to WebGL, even though it's been in widely used browsers for some time now - I'd be interested if you know of any!

AshleyScirra said,

Author here. Just a few things to bear in mind: Microsoft's own Silverlight, as well as Java and Flash 11, all allow exactly the same access to the graphics hardware. So it seems strange MS don't like WebGL for security reasons, but are happy with the same thing in other products. Also, I don't believe there have been any actual cases of any user having their system or data comprimised due to WebGL, even though it's been in widely used browsers for some time now - I'd be interested if you know of any!

Silverlight is an old product, and MS appears to be moving away from it in favor of HTML5. So it makes sense not to introduce further security risks. And, I'm not a developer so maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't WebGL allow direct native control of the hardware, where as Silverlight has to go through a managed API? Also if WebGL is so great and has no additional risks, why doesn't w3c just make it part of HTML5?

J_R_G said,

Silverlight is an old product, and MS appears to be moving away from it in favor of HTML5. So it makes sense not to introduce further security risks. And, I'm not a developer so maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't WebGL allow direct native control of the hardware, where as Silverlight has to go through a managed API? Also if WebGL is so great and has no additional risks, why doesn't w3c just make it part of HTML5?

Yes, Silverlight was a managed tool, and ultimately even if it wasn't, MS is dropping support for it in favor of HTML5, as you said

AshleyScirra said,

Author here. Just a few things to bear in mind: Microsoft's own Silverlight, as well as Java and Flash 11, all allow exactly the same access to the graphics hardware. So it seems strange MS don't like WebGL for security reasons, but are happy with the same thing in other products. Also, I don't believe there have been any actual cases of any user having their system or data comprimised due to WebGL, even though it's been in widely used browsers for some time now - I'd be interested if you know of any!

Silverlight only allows such thing while not in "browser" mode or in completely trusted site.

Whereas, WebGL would be enabled in every god damn page you visit and the iframes inside of it.

AshleyScirra said,

Author here. Just a few things to bear in mind: Microsoft's own Silverlight, as well as Java and Flash 11, all allow exactly the same access to the graphics hardware. ....

I must apologise since I don't understand you!!!! if you say that Silverlight, Java and Flash allow the same access to the GFX hardware... then why not use them? HuH!

You are actually incorrect, Silverlight in particular does NOT allow direct access to WebGL in Hardware in a Browser mode! The reason WebGL appears so appealing is because it provides direct access to a layer that exposes full WebGL stack in hardware. Unfortunately this is like connecting your GFX card directly to the internet. Something that it was never designed to do... Next I am going to hear that my GFX hardware requires a firewall and a virus scanner!!!

AshleyScirra said,

Author here. Just a few things to bear in mind: Microsoft's own Silverlight, as well as Java and Flash 11, all allow exactly the same access to the graphics hardware. So it seems strange MS don't like WebGL for security reasons, but are happy with the same thing in other products. Also, I don't believe there have been any actual cases of any user having their system or data comprimised due to WebGL, even though it's been in widely used browsers for some time now - I'd be interested if you know of any!

Reality is, the exact the opposite of everything you said... Good job.

Silverlight runs on .NET in a freaking sandbox of a sandbox of the IE sandbox that is brokered access.

Flash is in a sandboxed IE that has brokered access to IE and brokered access to anything external. Flash DOES NOT have access to hardware, as it is using Win APIs, not a freaking GPU framework or have access to shader code. If Flash did have GPU access it would be 1000x freaking faster, there is a reason it is NOT.

thenetavenger said,

Reality is, the exact the opposite of everything you said... Good job.

Silverlight runs on .NET in a freaking sandbox of a sandbox of the IE sandbox that is brokered access.

Flash is in a sandboxed IE that has brokered access to IE and brokered access to anything external. Flash DOES NOT have access to hardware, as it is using Win APIs, not a freaking GPU framework or have access to shader code. If Flash did have GPU access it would be 1000x freaking faster, there is a reason it is NOT.

Flash does actually have GPU acceleration (newer versions), but that is kept away from the dev (Dev can't have direct access to system resources)

Aleksandar Rodic said,

Most of the security concerns are history. Denial of service attacks are the only remaining risk and its not something that can hurt users in any way. I would call the security issue BS but that's my personal opinion. It looks like its all about politics.

Got any links to where it has been noted that the security concerns have been properly addressed?

AshleyScirra said,

Author here. Just a few things to bear in mind: Microsoft's own Silverlight, as well as Java and Flash 11, all allow exactly the same access to the graphics hardware. So it seems strange MS don't like WebGL for security reasons, but are happy with the same thing in other products. Also, I don't believe there have been any actual cases of any user having their system or data comprimised due to WebGL, even though it's been in widely used browsers for some time now - I'd be interested if you know of any!

How about, do away with proprietary WebGL, and stick to HTML5 standards?

Did you know, -- had IE implemented WebGL ahead of Chrome or FF, they will be accused of not being standards compliant?

You can't have it both ways.

WebGL is a security danger. I wish it happens soon to Chrome and Firefox, to each everyone a lesson.

Sraf said,

They don't, citing security concerns, as it can run web code directly against hardware

http://arstechnica.com/informa...nd-meet-our-security-needs/

It's a red herring. Microsoft will never implement WebGL because it means supporting OpenGL (which WebGL is based off). It has nothing to do with made up security concerns. If there were real concerns, then neither OpenGL nor DirectX would be permitted in non-admin apps.

thenonhacker said,

How about, do away with proprietary WebGL, and stick to HTML5 standards?

Did you know, -- had IE implemented WebGL ahead of Chrome or FF, they will be accused of not being standards compliant?

You can't have it both ways.

WebGL is a security danger. I wish it happens soon to Chrome and Firefox, to each everyone a lesson.


Didn't you get the memo? Implementing non-standard and enabling in the wild is the new cool!!!!111

Crimson Rain said,

Didn't you get the memo? Implementing non-standard and enabling in the wild is the new cool!!!!111

ZOMG!!! I WANT MICROSOFT TO IMPLEMENT WebDirectX in IE10 !!!!1111111111