IE 5.5 beats IE 6.0 and 7.0 on Acid 3?

Slashdot has written an interesting detail on the new Acid browser test. It seems like, according to the results compiled in this page, Internet Explorer 5.5 beats 6.0 and 7.0 on Acid3.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops standards for Internet applications. For example, XHTML, HTML, CSS, etc. Acid 3 basically takes a lot of W3C's newer standards and tests to be sure that the browser supports the features it should and that it behaves as it should when using them. Acid 3 is a suite of 100 different tests to be sure that these standards are being met.

View: Test Results @ Anomalous Anomaly

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Top 10 Jobs in Information Technology

Next Story

SideSlide 2.300b

45 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

(Xilo said @ #18)
Just take a look at which operating system dominates the top of the list. ;)

Beta or Released ? Beta means nothing to me, released does. And Safari is almost as bad as IE :S

I can tell you that the main reason I'm so interested in it is because Webkit almost passes already, and the test only became official a few days ago. Once Webkit passes, probably in the coming weeks/months (at its current rate), the hype will die down, just like it did when Safari 2 passed the Acid 2 test. But you'll be hearing about Acid 3 for years to come.

I think it's great that standards are getting so much recognition, personally.

Indeed. It's about time standards were taken seriously. IE has held back web development considerably and it has taken most companies, particularly online banks, years to design websites that actually work across different browsers and different operating systems.

Is this going to turn out to be like video driver updates were getting to at one point (updates driven to improve 3dMark scores), instead of fixing real problems...?

I tried to test NSCA Mosaic and Netscape 1.0 but they both crashed in Vista. Maybe I'll install OS/2 and give IBM Webexplorer a try.

So who is surprised about that? It is becoming natural that older MS products beat the new versions. Look at how XP beats Vista ;-))

(Jock Horror said @ #12)
So who is surprised about that? It is becoming natural that older MS products beat the new versions. Look at how XP beats Vista ;-))

Yeah and how 200 beat XP! and how 98 beat 200 AND XP! AND VISTA!!!111!

How would this mean the test was flawed?

Seriously, both have abysmal performances, statistically insignificant from each other.

It shows me that Microsoft put as much thought into the latest 2008 web standards and recommendations for IE7 that they did for IE5.5 (that is, "none"). Neither browser was in-development when Acid 3 was relevant. And the Acid tests aren't a full accounting of browser compatibility or suitability. It is just one metric.

(OPaul said @ #11.1)
Exactly, this say more about how flawed the test is then the browser.

Exactly! I mean, Internet Explorer is not a broken browser, it works perf

(Azmodan said @ #1)

Exactly! I mean, Internet Explorer is not a broken browser, it works perf


Far from it. Having developed web-sites I can tell you that IE is pretty terrible when it comes to web standards and will render things very differently from other browsers. You might not care when looking up the latest news on Paris Hilton but there are plenty of people that do. It's rather sad that people choose to stick their heads in the sand and then try to defend IE when they have absolutely no idea about the issues surrounding it.

Ignorance rules!

Well, considering IE 5,6 and 7 were all written before Acid3 was, I guess 1 percentage point falls well with the range of statistical probability.

The important thing is that IE8 is an improvement.
Cut Microsoft some slack guys.

Im confused... why is everybody making such a big deal out of this (ie. people saying 5.5 is a better choice...)? IE (7 for me) works perfectly for me (the actual interface, not just talking about how it renders pages), I never have any problems with it. So a different browser meets standards a bit better... but why would the average user (me) care?

I'm not agreeing that IE 5.5 is better than 6 or 7, but I'll try and explain why the average user should care about standards. The actual developers who make the websites that you use every day are forced into put more time into developing the apps they make because of browser inconsistencies. It can quite easy double the length of time it takes to develop something if you run into one of the more obscure, or sometimes simply weird, inconsistencies that can pop up.

If we don't have standards then the whole web would fall apart, you would be restricted by what browser you use. Developers don't want to spend time creating 5 different version of their website that look identical but the code behind them is completely different, its not fun and is a waste of time.

Standards are nothing but good, they reduce the time needed to make a website and give developers more time to add and improve features, something any user should care about.

(Pong said @ #8.1)
I'm not agreeing that IE 5.5 is better than 6 or 7, but I'll try and explain why the average user should care about standards. The actual developers who make the websites that you use every day are forced into put more time into developing the apps they make because of browser inconsistencies. It can quite easy double the length of time it takes to develop something if you run into one of the more obscure, or sometimes simply weird, inconsistencies that can pop up.

If we don't have standards then the whole web would fall apart, you would be restricted by what browser you use. Developers don't want to spend time creating 5 different version of their website that look identical but the code behind them is completely different, its not fun and is a waste of time.

Standards are nothing but good, they reduce the time needed to make a website and give developers more time to add and improve features, something any user should care about.


Thanks for the response, that makes sense. Still though, the average user shouldn't care what score they get on these acid tests... just the people that develop the browsers (and the people that develop the web)

How well did 5.5 do with Acid2 in comparison with other versions of IE (I think IE 8 actually passed)? I remember using it and anytime anyone would post a PNG it would come out peach-colored. :cheeky:

Even if 5.5 did better than 6 or 7, it still would not be very functional with the internet today, so the Acid3 test seems to be a little unrealistic. I find IE 7 to be fully functional on the internet (since i don't view a whole lot of fancy web pages). Also, i have noticed that Safari almost passes Acid3. To bad PDF support is not included in the test, as anytime i have tried to use a Mac at the University on the internet, i have been frustrated with Safari.

(excalpius said @ #6.2)
Indeed. All THREE of you who give a rat's arse about Acid3 benchmarks, raise your hand please. Ahem...

hmm...ie7 fails..i dont recall ie7 having trouble with websites
or firefox
or opera(well maybe a little for opera)
but none the less..acid tests mean nothing considering the sites still work!

(neufuse said @ #1)
Why are we getting so bent up about ACID3 when CSS3 isn't even 100% finalized?

The few CSS3 tokens that are tested in Acid3 are candidate recommendations and unless the sky falls into our heads, they are going to be passed. Not only that but come on... Colors HSL, Opacity, RGBA and cursors? Text-shadows? With the new Web2.0 cool**** trend? Say goodbye to transparent images and say hello to and SVG complements/fallbacks.

(M2Ys4U said @ #2)
ACID3 mainly tests Javascript (EMCAScript), AFAIK.

It uses a script to run the test.

  • DOM2 Core
  • DOM2 Events
  • DOM2 HTML
  • DOM2 Range
  • DOM2 Style (getComputedStyle, ...)
  • DOM2 Traversal (NodeIterator, TreeWalker)
  • DOM2 Views (defaultView)
  • ECMAScript
  • HTML4 (, , ...)
  • HTTP (Content-Type, 404, ...)
  • Media Queries
  • Selectors (:lang, :nth-child(), combinators, dynamic changes, ...)
  • XHTML 1.0
  • CSS2 (@font-face)
  • CSS2.1 ("inline-block", "pre-wrap", parsing...)
  • CSS3 Color (rgba(), hsla(), ...)
  • CSS3 UI ("cursor")
  • data: URIs
  • SVG (SVG Animation, SVG Fonts, ...)

Acid3 doesn't test particularly new stuff. They're 4++ years old (CSS3 cursors, the rest is ****ing older).

(excalpius said @ #3)
All THREE of you who give a rat's arse about Acid3 benchmarks, raise your hand please. Ahem...

You're a boob. What kind of developer doesn't use any of the stuff posted above? You've got to be kidding me.

(tiagosilva29 said @ #6.4)
You're a boob. What kind of developer doesn't use any of the stuff posted above? You've got to be kidding me.

I guess someone, like 99.999% of us who are not developers on this site, and therefore don't give a rat's arse about Yet Another Who Gives a Rat's Arse Web Development Widget...

thou art "boob"

(akav0id said @ #2.1)
Or upgrade to the IE8 beta, since that beat all it's previous versions

Yeah. that cud work too, but 5.5 is not a beta =P

The overall ranking list is more interesting than focusing on the bottom of the list by comparing IE5.5 to 7. They both performed poorly in this test (but not the worst one) and are separated by merely one percentage point.

Well, the Epiphany with my (mostly) standard Ubuntu install is 2.20.1 with the Gecko 1.8 rendering engine. It scored 52/100, so for some reason it didn't exactly match the 51/100 score listed for Epiphany 2.20.1 on Ubuntu 7.10.