Mozilla employee: IE9 is not a ''modern browser''

Not even a week after the Internet Explorer 9 release candidate hit the web, a Mozilla tech evangelist has taken a public swipe at Microsoft bragging about web standards compliance.

In a blog post, Paul Rouget takes issue with Microsoft's public chest-beating about IE9's compliance with various standards, particularly HTML5. What appears to have particularly rankled Mr Rouget is a table, included in a February 10 post by IE boss Dean Hachamovitch, proudly proclaiming IE9's near-perfect performance on a bevy of standards tests as compared to other browsers, including Firefox.

Those tests, according to Mr Rouget, are not as objective as Microsoft would have you believe.

''Does IE9 support 99% of the HTML5 specification as insinuated by Microsoft? No, they're actually pretty far from it. The tests Microsoft are referring to are the ones they created during the development of IE9,'' he said.

Given that the tests are effectively in-house, it is unsurprising that the IE9 RC performed so well, he said.

''We score pretty well against our own unit-tests as well. The primary use case for these tests, however, is to spot regressions and validate code changes. In other words: the tests ensure that future changes don't break the things you just built. They don't actually test all elements of a specific standard,'' he said.

Using tests at caniuse.com and beta.html5test.com, Mr Rouget argued that IE9 is far from the modern browser Microsoft paints it to be, before listing more than 15 standards elements that IE9 doesn't support.

''The reality is that IE9 is 2 years late. Microsoft is glad to come out with the video tag, the canvas tag, SVG, and some CSS3. Like other vendors did years ago. Firefox 3.5 had the video tag, the canvas tag, Geolocation, SVG in 2009. Canvas and SVG existed 5 years ago,'' he said.

Given that these accusations are coming from a Mozilla employee, the case for bias is a clear one. Mr Rouget also appears to be somewhat of a lone voice when it comes to strong criticism of IE9's standards support - the release candidate performs quite well when put through a set of W3C tests, though it's worth noting that this particular suite is far from exhaustive. It's possible that after so many years of sub-par standards support from IE, developers are simply glad that Microsoft has finally begun to lift their game.

Image Credit: Myopera.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft says Zune services are not being killed

Next Story

DoubleTwist serves media from Android devices to Xbox 360, PS3 (and more?)

188 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well... in my opinion, the "IEFox" War is, kind of ... stupid ... there are like little childrens.

"i have css3 support"
"i have better windows integration"
"i'm faster than you"
"i upgrade myself with Windows Update"
"my old release its better than you're recent release"

however, google its quieter than those 2, google releases its broswer and then shut its mouse
Google Chrome has the largest HTML5 Support, and has one of the better CSS3 Support.

maybe we're going the wrong way with browsers? Perhaps the w3c, comprised of groups like microsoft, mozilla, apple, adobe, etc should be responsible for putting together a single library that parses and renders html? then anyone who makes a browser is free to use this rendering engine and can only make changes for the particular environment (such as hardware rendering).

seta-san said,
maybe we're going the wrong way with browsers? Perhaps the w3c, comprised of groups like microsoft, mozilla, apple, adobe, etc should be responsible for putting together a single library that parses and renders html? then anyone who makes a browser is free to use this rendering engine and can only make changes for the particular environment (such as hardware rendering).

Yeah, I don't understand why every browser has to render differently, IMO none of them are "right" as they are all different. Firefox is no better, yes it has better support, but still.

IE9 is a modern browser because its not yet released, so it must be...It's just not a good browser. Still has poor CSS mistakes and bad usability.

Since when did a browser not save tabs for instance? It's just bad. Microsoft are getting worse at usability again, they were getting good at it. I dread to think what Windows 8 will be like.

SPARTdAN said,
IE9 is a modern browser because its not yet released, so it must be...It's just not a good browser. Still has poor CSS mistakes and bad usability.

Since when did a browser not save tabs for instance? It's just bad. Microsoft are getting worse at usability again, they were getting good at it. I dread to think what Windows 8 will be like.

IE9 scores 100% on finalized CSS 3. There are aspects of CSS 3 that some browsers support and some don't. For example try the voice features of CSS 3 that only Opera currently supports, and then you can say that Firefox and Chrome sucks at CSS 3 too.

Every browser has missing CSS 3 features, and some are purposely not implementing functions that are still under revisions as the specification is not right or has problems.

As for the saving of the tabs, IE9 does this. Just save the Tab Group to your Favorites, you can then reload the entire group with a single click. (IE9 and how Tabs and saving them is a bit more elegant than just trying to remember your last tab settings.)

Firefox used to be very good, but its latest beta I tried I hate it, the menu layout is rubbish imo and the speed of it v other browsers is slow/average at best

I thought that I would take a look at RC, first impressions are mutch better than the last version I seen. neowin.net loaded un cached extremely fast. In fact it was insane, typed in the web address and it was there within... as a gues, probably within 5 seconds easy. Oh dear now I'm stuck between Chrome, Opera, and Firefox. Shista at the moment until Firefox flops out of RC10, RC11, RC12, RC13 and probably RC14. Well maybe not this far but IE9 has my vote at the moment. There is one aspect of IE9 I do like and that is the Development Tools. ideal for Web Dev.

i mean there are many things in ie9 that seems downgrade, the lack of customization, the forced UI, the idea of copying chrome its a bad effect that affects not only to microsoft but the same we could say about firefox (the elimination of the status bar its one of many issues)

eilegz said,
i mean there are many things in ie9 that seems downgrade, the lack of customization, the forced UI, the idea of copying chrome its a bad effect that affects not only to microsoft but the same we could say about firefox (the elimination of the status bar its one of many issues)

The UI changes are a shock to most people. I bet if you give them time they will adjust. As far as concerning UI customisation, IE9 remains a browser that targets both the home and corporate user and your typical IT administrator would like to have full control over your pc. Hell, in my previous company they forced an ugly and dark wallpapper to every desktop

We already all knew that FireFox 4 is better than IE 9. Only Hardware Acceleration IE has better cause it's native but even we can't be 100% sure. Ah! The design also! I hate FF's extreme rounded corners on everything but it's easily fixable.

Deo Domuique said,
We already all knew that FireFox 4 is better than IE 9. Only Hardware Acceleration IE has better cause it's native but even we can't be 100% sure. Ah! The design also! I hate FF's extreme rounded corners on everything but it's easily fixable.

BS. Firefox uses Direct2D like Internet Explorer.

day2die said,

BS. Firefox uses Direct2D like Internet Explorer.

Yeah, but FF uses ANGLE to convert OpenGL instructions to DirectX ones. Which means it'll be a bit slower.

I'm sure web devs will have lots of fun in one or two years
"Guys, we have to support WinXP/OS X 10.whatever/some Linux distro/... and the latest Firefox version available on it is FF4...we'll have to write different code for it because the drafts it implemented have changed since then..."

Aethec said,
I'm sure web devs will have lots of fun in one or two years
"Guys, we have to support WinXP/OS X 10.whatever/some Linux distro/... and the latest Firefox version available on it is FF4...we'll have to write different code for it because the drafts it implemented have changed since then..."
Can you explain that in a different fashion? I can't make heads of tails of it. What does web code have to do with OSes? Web devs should code for features supported in browsers that people use, or are about to use. Features prone to potential change are rarely readily accessible.

Kirkburn said,
Can you explain that in a different fashion? I can't make heads of tails of it. What does web code have to do with OSes? Web devs should code for features supported in browsers that people use, or are about to use. Features prone to potential change are rarely readily accessible.

Remember IE6? Well, one of the main reasons everyone's bashing it is because it's not understanding standards the same way as other browsers.
Why? Because the IE team wanted to support drafts and early drafts - when those changed, IE6's support for them became a huge problem since the same code didn't do the same thing in IE6 and other browsers.
Mozilla is doing just that - implementing drafts, non-standards, etc.
Which means that web devs will have lots of fun if they have, for some reason, to support FF4 in a few years' time.

PS : I'm not saying this was IE6's only problem - of course it had other pretty huge bugs.

I really don't think that's an accurate representation at all. IE6 has implementation issues, and they became a problem because IE6 didn't get updates for *years*. Some of it may have been down to attempting to support early drafts (they were pretty much the only browser on the block, so it was down to them anyway, really), but that became an issue because it just didn't get updated and made some use of proprietary stuff.

All other browsers get and continue to get reasonably frequent updates, which helps ensure people don't code for a specific browser version.

As a webdeveloper I don't care if IE9 is not the best browser but it is a huge improvement over its predecessors. Don't get me wrong IE9 is still behind but we still have to support it.

I just give thanks because I hope in the near future my life is going to be easier.

Cocoliso said,
I just give thanks because I hope in the near future my life is going to be easier.
Amen.

I am *really* hoping for a speedy take up of IE9. If they're not going to move to Chrome/Fx, etc ... at least they're not on IE7/8.

QUOTE: "It's possible that after so many years of sub-par standards support from IE, developers are simply glad that Microsoft has finally begun to lift their game."

Yes, this sums it up nicely. I'm sure that the developers from the other browser teams may be a bit frustrated that IE9 is getting so much attention right now, since they've been embracing these (draft) standards for a while. However, it's just great to see that the road map for IE will not continue to cause headaches for web designers going forward.

if Firefox 3.5 had the video tag, the canvas tag, Geolocation, SVG in 2009 and the IE 9 beta still beta the crap out of the firefox in term of the performance in this these area in various demos, I think Mr. Rouget didn't point that out in his article.

Average Joe comment here...Use only Firefox in the past...but it slowly become too laggy and slow compared to Chrome and has switch to Chrome for good. Tried IE 9 RC and find it better than Firefox for smoothness and stability?...So for me it Chrome > IE 9 > Firefox. I dont base it on standards just my own user experience which can be personal I guess. Haha.

Yeah. I used to use Firefox and had done since it was known as Phoenix but after it started getting slow and falling behind with web standards I switched to Chrome and MUCH prefer it. IE9 hasn't done anywhere near enough to make me use it.

Stingray said,
Who the hell uses IE9? The computer-illiterate?

Microsoft employees, fans and partners...
Oh, I forgot those who don't have the skill and/or knowledge of any other browser.

Stingray said,
Who the hell uses IE9? The computer-illiterate?

People who are more worried about a fast and useful browser than being perceived as cool by somone who thinks they know a lot about computing?

bob_c_b said,

People who are more worried about a fast and useful browser than being perceived as cool by somone who thinks they know a lot about computing?

+1

Kirkburn said,
People who like IE9, perhaps? It's not a *bad* browser, just behind some areas of support.

You're not Paul Rouget in disguise are you?, cos all you've done in this thread so far is evangelize FF lol.

Stingray said,
Who the hell uses IE9? The computer-illiterate?

More like most of the truly serious web surfers that run Windows.

IE9 RC is both Windows-specific (unlike Firefox or Chrome) and the most compliant with *current* standards that have already been ratified by W3C (as opposed to *de-facto* standards, as even the Mozilla Foundation refers to non-ratified but widely-used formats). I use FF4 on openSuSE 11.4 RC1 because the current Chromium (FOSS version of Chrome) has problems with Flash, and IE is not an option (unless I want to load a VM). On Windows 7 x64 (the *other OS* that I dual-boot with), despite FF4b11, IE9 RC is my default due to faster performance than Firefox (especially in terms of Flash, despite one of my FF add-ons deferring Flash to the background by default). In short, IE9 RC (with Flash enabled by default) is whacking FF4 with FlashBlock (the add-on in question), and all the FB-equiopped FF is doing is loading the placeholders, while IE9 loads everything.

Explain that, please.

Hackersoft MS MVP said,
You're not Paul Rouget in disguise are you?, cos all you've done in this thread so far is evangelize FF lol.
What, like the comment you quoted where I just said IE9 isn't a bad browser? I'm absolutely looking forward to it! I use multiple browsers btw, it's part of my job Firefox is my main one, it's true ... but the amount of bull**** in this comments thread needed answering.

Hmm yes not a "Modern Browser" at all is it. And I always thought Google creating a browser based on Webkit rather than Gecko said the same about Mozilla.

I have used Firefox since 2.0 and I just switched to using IE9 RC because it is quite superior to FF 3.6 without question. If 4 final is better I will switch back because I love the addon/plugin system FF has over IE9's.

Mozilla better get it straight with 4.0

I have to agree with this guy. For developers IE isn't competitive *today*, it lacks A LOT of simple yet important HTML5 features (and I'm talking about HTML5 only, not the various standards around it). That being said, this may be irrelevant due to 2 factors :

1) HTML5 isn't finished by any means, and it shouldn't be really widespread until 2013.
2) Microsoft may be considering shorter cycles, even though IE9 had a pretty long release cycle compared to other browsers but that would be due to the gap it had to close.

So from a developer PoV, is IE9 a cutting-edge browser today ? No. Is this relevant today ? No. That being said I think Microsoft should really shorten their update cycles.

Feature wise. There may be issues with the implementation that are holding it back (I have similar results disparities), but they've tried for the same end-to-end acceleration IE9 has. It's not perfect, and perhaps it is a bit of hyperbole to describe it in the way he did ... but it's exactly what they're attempting to do.

Kirkburn said,
Feature wise. There may be issues with the implementation that are holding it back (I have similar results disparities), but they've tried for the same end-to-end acceleration IE9 has. It's not perfect, and perhaps it is a bit of hyperbole to describe it in the way he did ... but it's exactly what they're attempting to do.

Trying != achieving.
Saying "we are trying to do the same thing as our competitor" does not mean you are actually doing it.

Aethec said,
Trying != achieving.
Saying "we are trying to do the same thing as our competitor" does not mean you are actually doing it.
They have achieved end to end acceleration afaik ... there are just some issues with getting optimal throughput.

Kirkburn said,
They have achieved end to end acceleration afaik ... there are just some issues with getting optimal throughput.

Which means their HA is not as good as IE9's.

BTW, HTML5 will become a standard no earlier than 2014 (source W3C). They'd better give upd that HTML5 compliant or not thing and focus on making a fast, lightweight, user friendly browser. I don't want to wait for long just to opening the browser to read a couple of pages.

Nikos_GR said,
BTW, HTML5 will become a standard no earlier than 2014 (source W3C). They'd better give upd that HTML5 compliant or not thing and focus on making a fast, lightweight, user friendly browser. I don't want to wait for long just to opening the browser to read a couple of pages.

Long startup time in FF is because they have to init a whole application framework (XUL) for the GUI compared to Chrome and IE. If the browser is already open, it isn't a wait. Open/Close your browser a lot or open it once and minimize it when not in use, different ways of using it.
Additionally W3C standards are based upon what developers need/want, what browsers offer and what is the most common use when developing a web page. i.e. if no browser implements it, it can't become a standard, and if FF implements it and devs are happy, their market share makes it much more likely to become the standard. "Wait until it is a standard" is the catching up approach, "set the standard" is the approach the non-IE browsers have been using.

Now, on to performance; on a Windows machine, IE should Always have a performance advantage because Microsoft owns both and can give IE access to private APIs etc, saving itself memory usage and making it fast. At the moment with IE9 it seems they have accomplished this. Other ways to make it fast are to completely leave out some hooks and debugging stuff, which is what I believe Chrome does and the new JavaScript engine in FF4 does (in comparison to the previous engine).
FF gives most options -> FF is slower. Sad fact.
Personally, I like to have these options and therefore use FF a lot of the time (also use Chrome for some tasks); I'm so paranoid that I whitelist cookies and script on a per-site basis and afaik FF is the only browser that lets me achieve this.

shhac said,
Now, on to performance; on a Windows machine, IE should Always have a performance advantage because Microsoft owns both and can give IE access to private APIs etc, saving itself memory usage and making it fast.

What "private APIs" does IE use? Another myth...
I reality, IE9 is fast because the God loves it more than FF.

Nikos_GR said,
BTW, HTML5 will become a standard no earlier than 2014 (source W3C). They'd better give upd that HTML5 compliant or not thing and focus on making a fast, lightweight, user friendly browser.
They are not unrelated things, y'know. Besides, no ... stable parts of HTML5 are still things to be readily implemented, the dates are mostly meaningless from *our* perspective.

RealFduch said,

What "private APIs" does IE use? Another myth...
I reality, IE9 is fast because the God loves it more than FF.

IE did use private APIs, a long time ago.
Safari on OS X does...I can't remember if Apple stopped doing it or not.

Well I am sorry but IE9 looks clean, fresh, it's very fast, doesn't crash, fits into Windows 7 nicely and renders most web sites just fine - even those created around IE6. I wish I could say exactly the same especially for firefox and a bit for Chrome which feels like a hot hooker but with one leg.
If mozzila need to draw attention to them or away from the fact that they lost one of their veterans, they can achieve this with cleaning up their browser which at some point was a way better product.

why doesnt the firefox avangelist STFU and get THEIR comparable browser out to the masses instead of nitpicking, the childish ****!

I stopped paying attention to mozilla years ago, they are just as bad if not worse than MS, although recently discovered Chrome and ya know what I actually have come round to it, slick, minimal and quick. Do they all show webpages without issue....yes (for the most part) well there ya go its a web browser wooooo. how can they be 100% compliant on a standard thats not finalised..........morons the both of them. Sales & marketing claptrap tbh.

Mando said,
why doesnt the firefox avangelist STFU and get THEIR comparable browser out to the masses instead of nitpicking, the childish ****!

They start to sound like Linux Evangelists..

I laugh whenever somebody uses the term "modern browser".

It's a meaningless phrase, coined by Google and Apple (at a time when the two companies openly shared board members). It's a propaganda term, used to cast IE in a negative light, often used by Google employees and popular among fan communities (wannabes who feel cool when they speak like their idols).

Tim Acheson said,
It's a meaningless phrase
Really? Utterly meaningless to talk about timelines of feature support in a browser? Don't be silly.

Yes, you can define modern browser in slightly different ways ... IE9 has some very good, new features that other browsers should also take. That doesn't mean you can ignore the places where it falls down, and this is why they are using that term.

Do you really think it's not possible to, say, call IE6 a non-modern browser? If I released IE6 today, would you justify it as a modern browser?

Sorry Mozilla, talking bad about the competition doesn't improve your own browser. Have been using FF for 6-7 years now and just tested IE 9 RC yesterday. It's clear for me, I going to have to switch back to IE again, it's so much better in almost all respects.

If the test from MS are fully HTML5 conform, but benefit the IE9.0, a testresult of 99%/50% means that Fx not pass 50% of the MS-HTML5 tests. Draw conclusion from the tests that Fx prefer now...

Lastwebpage said,
Draw conclusion from the tests that Fx prefer now...
It's not about 'preferred' tests. The tests are browser-agnostic. As long as the test is correct, it applies to all browsers equally. The IE9 team contributed more tests to the suite, to make it more complete (a very good thing).

Nonsense.

IE9 is the most compliant and fastest browser. Remember, HTML5 is still a draft spec, it's not finished yet.

Mozilla's top developer just quit the company, by the way.

Tim Acheson said,
IE9 is the most compliant and fastest browser. Remember, HTML5 is still a draft spec, it's not finished yet.
Ugh, not this again. PARTS of HTML5 are at different stages. HTML5 itself is a bit of a misnomer, since it's not the only thing going on. IE9 is the most compliant in specific parts, but not all parts, and not even all stable parts.

Tim Acheson said,
Mozilla's top developer just quit the company, by the way.
People change jobs all the time. It happens at MS too, y'know. (I keep having to make this same comment about the people leaving stories ... they're very often meaningless.)

Modern or not, firefox will get a hell of a kick in the b_tt! To little, too late, too slow (both loading and surfing), They'd better start looking at their other rival (chrome that is).

The reality is, Firefox 4 is too late. I mean at least IE9 looks nice and will be out soon. Firefox will be on it's 12TH BETA and then only move onto RC. How slow can they get!

TechDudeGeorge said,
The reality is, Firefox 4 is too late. I mean at least IE9 looks nice and will be out soon. Firefox will be on it's 12TH BETA and then only move onto RC. How slow can they get!

it's never to late. reality is, do want a buggy release? or a stable release?, i'll take a stable release than a buggy release. Doesn't matter if IE9 gets out first, if you want to talk about slow look at Safari, enough said.

TechDudeGeorge said,
The reality is, Firefox 4 is too late.
So ... neither IE9 or Fx4 is out, and Fx4 is too late? Couldn't I suggest IE9 is also too late for Chrome's releases? Or Opera's? Or Safari's?

sure. modern browser should be a bloatware with gigantic memory and cpu leaks, tones of bugs and should have very unfriendly, poor interface. just like firefox...

Maybe Microsoft should throw some back asking why its coming up to the five years and Gorilla still haven't got a 'protected mode' in FireFox

anewhope said,
Maybe Microsoft should throw some back asking why its coming up to the five years and Gorilla still haven't got a 'protected mode' in FireFox
Because it's not an easy thing to implement? Of course they want to do it, but it's an OS-specific change - the other browser support other OSes, which makes such work more complex.

PS. "Mozilla", and "Firefox".

Kirkburn said,
Because it's not an easy thing to implement? Of course they want to do it, but it's an OS-specific change - the other browser support other OSes, which makes such work more complex.

PS. "Mozilla", and "Firefox".

Yes, I can appreciate that it is not a simple or straightforward task but Google don't seem to have had an issue. If it's not something they consider a necessity then that's another issue entirely..

Yeah, I know. That's walking and typing with predictive text for you..

zikalify said,
ie on html5test.com scores 116 chrome get 243 ff4 207 hmmmmmm

Html5test.com is garbage. It tests for specs that aren't even related to html5. WebGL, really?
Also it only checks for support of features. Not if they actually work or conforms to the standards. IE9 doesn't support all of the latest draft standards because some of them are still changing. It's a wise strategy, instead of just haphazardly tacking on the latest html5 features like Webkit and Mozilla has done.

floopy said,
It tests for specs that aren't even related to html5. WebGL, really?
Also it only checks for support of features. Not if they actually work or conforms to the standards.
This is true, but it is still a check for support for features. It might not be completely in depth, or test all cases ... but it does give a guideline of what features are supported. Trashing it *entirely* because it strays outside HTML5 (so what? they're still useful features) and doesn't test for conformance is silly.

floopy said,
haphazardly tacking on the latest html5 features like Webkit and Mozilla has done.
You know this, how? There may be some parts which have been implemented and subsequently changed - but it was done in the knowledge it was a less stable part of the spec (and thus often tagged experimental), and implementing stuff is part of the process of getting things polished (some issues you won't notice until you actually try it out).

But to insinuate Webkit and Mozilla sit there trying to run thru the list as fast as possible is plainly false.

I was actually pretty pleasantly surprised that IE9 RC supports XHTML and even HTML5 sectioning elements. Opera's the only one lagging behind on sectioning elements now.

Mozilla lost me too a few months ago,
because of using energy and ram too much!!!

now i use Opera and IE9

both are great

one of cool things about IE9 is that it has 3 engine: IE7 + IE8 + IE9

press f12

So...what about the W3C's CSS 2.1 Test Suite results? You know, the ones in which IE9 nukes Firefox (as well as Opera and WebKit) ?

Aethec said,
So...what about the W3C's CSS 2.1 Test Suite results? You know, the ones in which IE9 nukes Firefox (as well as Opera and WebKit) ?
Linky link? Nukes is probably a rather harsh term, though it may indeed be more compliant in that area.

Kirkburn said,
Linky link? Nukes is probably a rather harsh term, though it may indeed be more compliant in that area.

There was a post by Gérard Talbot on a W3C newsgroup about it, but it seems to have disappeared...I can't find it any more
IE9 Beta and Safari's reports are here: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20101001/reports/ (as well as an incomplete Opera one). Trident was first, followed by (IIRC) Presto, Gecko and WebKit in that order.

The Microsoft dissimulation machine is in full force once again. Do they know anything but deception and carefully crafted specious claims?

Flawed said,
The Microsoft dissimulation machine is in full force once again. Do they know anything but deception and carefully crafted specious claims?

Weak.

KavazovAngel said,

Meh. I just installed RC, and its way, way better than FF4's betas.

I'll respectfully disagree, but either way i find IE9 a hell alot improvement much so than IE8.

Sub_Zero_Alchemist said,

I'll respectfully disagree, but either way i find IE9 a hell alot improvement much so than IE8.

Depends on what you use the browser for, I guess. The only addon I had was Adblock Plus, so moving to IE is not much of a deal, in terms of addons. IE9 is faster than Firefox 4 (and safer), so this is my main reason.

I miss the days where things were done based off of quality and reputation, not slamming the competition. Keep an eye on what the competition is doing, but that should be it.

The fact that IE9 is getting widely criticized by some many other browser makers shows that Microsoft has done a good job. Notice they are only talking about standard not speed. And, the fact that W3C announced that HTML5 will be finialized in 2014, it does not really matter if a browser does not completely comply with HTML5.

The fact of the matter if IE9 is scary fast and that is all I care for besides security. Well tracting protection, I guess IE9 offers the most what I want from a browser. I cannot wait for windows 8, bring it already.

The Black Mamba said,
The fact that IE9 is getting widely criticized by some many other browser makers shows that Microsoft has done a good job. Notice they are only talking about standard not speed. And, the fact that W3C announced that HTML5 will be finialized in 2014, it does not really matter if a browser does not completely comply with HTML5.

The fact of the matter if IE9 is scary fast and that is all I care for besides security. Well tracting protection, I guess IE9 offers the most what I want from a browser. I cannot wait for windows 8, bring it already.

bravo

The fact that IE9 is getting widely criticized by some many other browser makers shows that Microsoft has done a good job. Notice they are only talking about standard not speed. And, the fact that W3C announced that HTML5 will be finialized in 2014, it does not really matter if a browser does not completely comply with HTML5.

The fact of the matter if IE9 is scary fast and that is all I care for besides security. Well tracting protection, I guess IE9 offers the most what I want from a browser. I cannot wait for windows 8, bring it already.

The Black Mamba said,
The fact of the matter if IE9 is scary fast and that is all I care for besides security.
No it isn't. You also care about standards support, because if you didn't, half the sites you visit wouldn't work, and the other half wouldn't have the features you want to use.

IE9 has made a massive improvement versus IE8. It's just still behind the rest in many aspects.

FF 3.6 used to gobble up 1GB+ memory on my machine regularly with only 5 or 6 tabs open. I have since switched to Chrome and IE9 RC.

bj55555 said,
FF 3.6 used to gobble up 1GB+ memory on my machine regularly with only 5 or 6 tabs open. I have since switched to Chrome and IE9 RC.
Used addons? I very much doubt that can happen without buggy addons, extensions or plugins.

yowan said,
True. IE9 appears to cheat
Cheat? Cheat what?

The results they show on the testdrive site are not 'cheating', just a little misleading.

When Mozilla can keep their own damn engineers from jumping ship, and release a decent browser after 200 trillion betas, I'll take his criticism seriously.

Educated Idiot said,
When Mozilla can keep their own damn engineers from jumping ship
Yeah, like no company ever has people leave for new jobs. We just know about Mozilla because it's all public.

Maybe they should focus on getting Firefox tabs into separate processes, and making Firefox startup in under 30 seconds. I quit using the beta full time and went back to Chrome (in large part because Microsoft released the H.264 plugin for it) because the startup time was too ridiculous, and the dependency on other tabs.

It's really a crying shame too. Firefox is the reason that Safari came around. The reason that Chrome came around. The reason that IE9 even exists (beyond IE6). Now all that they can do is throw stones.

pickypg said,
Maybe they should focus on getting Firefox tabs into separate processes, and making Firefox startup in under 30 seconds.
They are.

How on earth development and evangelism are mutually exclusive, I don't know.

mattburles said,
still cant decide if i should go for ie 9 or ff 4
Depends, what type of computer are you using? Desktop, laptop or netbook?

I used IE9 RC on my netbook for a few days, and it was good at first, but then I had to disable hardware acceleration because, well, its a netbook... Then it just wasn't very good, period. So I went back to Google Chrome. Who knows, though, IE9 RTW could be different.

As for the desktop, it's really your choice I continue to use IE9 RC on my desktop, with the pinned sites and everything, it's great. Just not on lower powered devices.

That's simply my opinion and experience though.

(Edit: Yeah, I know, before anyone says, you asked IE9 or FF4, I left FF4 out on the netbook because it was worse than IE9 RC with battery life, speed, etc.)

yazb123 said,
ie 9 all the way

i would but they need to update more often.. not a new version every 2 years :\

Mr aldo said,
Depends, what type of computer are you using? Desktop, laptop or netbook?

I used IE9 RC on my netbook for a few days, and it was good at first, but then I had to disable hardware acceleration because, well, its a netbook... Then it just wasn't very good, period. So I went back to Google Chrome. Who knows, though, IE9 RTW could be different.

As for the desktop, it's really your choice I continue to use IE9 RC on my desktop, with the pinned sites and everything, it's great. Just not on lower powered devices.

That's simply my opinion and experience though.

(Edit: Yeah, I know, before anyone says, you asked IE9 or FF4, I left FF4 out on the netbook because it was worse than IE9 RC with battery life, speed, etc.)

I wonder what was up with IE9 on your netbook. Our netbooks are showing impressive numbers with IE9. Several times faster than IE8 for general browsing. Better flash performance using the updated Flash add-on for IE9 - even including Flash handled video like on Hulu, which on a couple of the older netbooks would drop a few frames now and then in all browsers, but runs almost effortlessly inside IE9.

So your finding make me curious.

One demonstration our techs found is that sites using a lot of graphical and dynamic content that IE9 excels at accelerating, including the tests on the IEtestDrive site, run significantly faster on any Netbook with IE9 than our most powerful Desktop using the release and the latest test versions of Chrome or Firefox.

Curious if you have Aero enabled on your Netbook?


A tip for your Netbook performance, as a whole and for IE9...

On Netbooks, upgrade from starter ediion if you can, so you are running Windows7 Home Prem, Pro, Ultimate, or Enterprise. (They all perform the same, and are ironically faster than Windows7 starter because of Aero.)

Enable Aero, yes even on your Netbook. Aero is faster for 99.9% of the applications out there, especially with Windows7, that has even more GPU assistance than Vista. On a Netbook with a bit slower CPU, this GPU assistance increases performance even more than it would on your regular laptops and desktop computers.

(In addtion to the redraws it saves, and the rendering acceleration it provides, Aero also uses the computing aspect of Vista and Win7's WDDM/WDM to shove things through the GPU that you never see, making them faster and using a lot less CPU resources.)

When you are on Battery the default settings should flip the 'transparency' of Aero off, but leaves Aero functionality and GPU assistance on. This will even give you longer battery times because of Aero using the GPU for a lot of under the hood acceleration. (Sounds crazy, but is true.)

If your settings don't default to turn off Transparency when on battery, you can easily set this in the power options. Or you can turn off transparency for both plugged in and battery, as it is a hair faster since the GPU isn't having to do the blur effects. (Transparency is a checkbox in the Window Color options, fastest way to get there is to open the Start Menu and type: transp - it will be the first item returned in the Start menu results.)

Make sure you haven't disabled any of the default Win7 features on your Netbook. This includes everything from the Search services to the Superfetch caching services, as they are something people turn off and don't realize that they speed up the computer far more than the resource that takes to run them.

Also make sure you grab the latest Intel/etc Video drivers made for Windows7. They should be an 'optional' install in Windows Update, but if not, go find them on the GPU MFR site.

Good luck with your netbook, and I hope you can find your IE9 GPU rendering issue none of this helped.

mattburles said,
still cant decide if i should go for ie 9 or ff 4

With good GPU Firefox is hands down the fastest browser for me. Add add-ons and customization options.. while IE9 is good, it really doesn't have anything on Firefox 4.

Use both. Make a decision based on them when they're final. Hell, install Chrome and Opera too. It doesn't make life more complex.

mattburles said,

i would but they need to update more often.. not a new version every 2 years :\

The engine is updated every 2 years, the program itself is updated a lot actually, if you go through windows update you can see internet explorer is updated every couple of months.

Going through firefox releases it looks like they release a new version about a year and a couple of months, and release bug fix versions every couple weeks. When they fixed the memory leakage problem a while ago they released another version with again the same problem and had to reissue another version to re-fix the problem. I understand everybody makes mistakes and everybody is human but they lost me as a user a while ago.

IE first introduced the concept of one process per tab, so a tab crashing doesn't crash the whole browser. I just found Firefox to be bulky and slow, and went to Chrome. Been happy ever since

Devmonster said,
IE first introduced the concept of one process per tab, so a tab crashing doesn't crash the whole browser. I just found Firefox to be bulky and slow, and went to Chrome. Been happy ever since

actually i thought it was Chrome which introduced one process per tab?

random_n said,
No, Internet Explorer 8 betas had per-process tabs before Chrome was even announced.

Exactly. Chrome was pretty much a copy of IE8 when it came out.

When I saw the title, I was thinking the guy was going to complain about IE9's add-on system (not that the title was misleading)... For which I would agree. It's such a piece of crap in that regard.

Still, we should all be happy Microsoft is doing so much with IE... Finally. It is just it would be so much easier to love if there were a more modern add-on system, something you didn't need to use like C++ for. Google Chrome's add-on system is somewhat lacking in the regards of functionality (can't modify headers and other things, but still better than IE's), but still very easy to use. Never used Firefox's, but I bet it is pretty good too.

Finally left FireFox in 2009. Should of left for Opera when my sister implored me to in 2005 or 2006. No matter what they say, Internet Explorer 9 is better than anything they released in years.

Can't call it not modern if I still use both at the same time. While my firefox 3.6.14 draws out 600mb with 72 tabs open, ie9 won't crash totally if one tab borks. Both browsers do what I intend it to do and I'm fine with them as long as the performance/memory usage improves in future revisions. Only plus I see with firefox are the extensions/scripts I use with it.

The topic of discussion is standards support. To a general consumer that might not be immediately important, but to the future of the web it's hugely important.

''The reality is that IE9 is 2 years late. Microsoft is glad to come out with the video tag, the canvas tag, SVG, and some CSS3. Like other vendors did years ago. Firefox 3.5 had the video tag, the canvas tag, Geolocation, SVG in 2009. Canvas and SVG existed 5 years ago,'' he said.

Typical Moz bull. Canvas and SVG existed 5 years ago, but they were NOT standards 5 years ago. In fact, I believe, they are still NOT standards today,
maybe this Moz employee should consider that fact before mouthing off.

*edit: didn't mean to reply to mistat40...

Eastwind said,
And it was supported on IE by plugins already. It was not a WEB standard, it was just a format...
Plugins obviously don't count. Jeez. What do you mean, not a WEB standard? It is a standard that browsers need to support. What's more web than that?

Eastwind said,
And it was supported on IE by plugins already. It was not a WEB standard, it was just a format...
Plugins obviously don't count. Jeez. What do you mean, not a WEB standard? It is a standard that browsers need to support. What's more web than that?

How ungrateful, after Microsoft allowed Firefox to support H.264 for video tags where mozilla couldn't be bothered.

Also I was once a firefox user, thinking it was a modern browser, with its memory leaks and poor performance, then I found chrome. Now I am using both IE9 for pinned sites, and google chrome for general browsing.

martinDTanderson said,
How ungrateful, after Microsoft allowed Firefox to support H.264 for video tags where mozilla couldn't be bothered.

Also I was once a firefox user, thinking it was a modern browser, with its memory leaks and poor performance, then I found chrome. Now I am using both IE9 for pinned sites, and google chrome for general browsing.

It wasn't out of the "goodness of their hearts". Microsoft have interests in H.264, and without Firefox support, there's revenue to be lost, so in a weird kind of way, it was in MS' best interest to add H.264 support to Firefox.

Firefox is getting to inevitable end, like their previous browser Netscape, doing the very same mistakes they did on Netscape. They were saying the very same to IE 3 when Netscape died

Alansonit said,
Sorry Mozilla, you lost me 6 months ago (after years of use) after your browser continuously hung/crashed/ate my cat.

Mozilla lost me too, Used to be good, chrome its good for now.

Alansonit said,
Sorry Mozilla, you lost me 6 months ago (after years of use) after your browser continuously hung/crashed/ate my cat.

it ate YOUR cat too?

Alansonit said,
Sorry Mozilla, you lost me 6 months ago (after years of use) after your browser continuously hung/crashed/ate my cat.

SRWare Iron here!!

Alansonit said,
Sorry Mozilla, you lost me 6 months ago (after years of use) after your browser continuously hung/crashed/ate my cat.

Same here, minus the cat part.

Alansonit said,
Sorry Mozilla, you lost me 6 months ago (after years of use) after your browser continuously hung/crashed/ate my cat.

For having used IE on a Windows box when visiting my aunt last December, IE is well on its way to kicking Firefox arse and the Mozilla team yet again. It feels like Netscape all over again. Let's see what time will tell.

(On a side nots, not wanting to sound like one, but the fox looks like a d**k…)

"The reality is that IE9 is 2 years late. Microsoft is glad to come out with the video tag, the canvas tag, SVG, and some CSS3. Like other vendors did years ago."

... so IE 9 is late to the game and that means its not a modern browser?
The reality is that average Joe does not care who came first.

billyea said,
... so IE 9 is late to the game and that means its not a modern browser?

Usually, that is the implication of being a few years "late", yes.

However, I don't agree with him to 100%. Although IE 9 isn't the awesome standards-compliant browser it could be, I can understand if MS is avoiding at least various non-finalized standards.

billyea said,
"The reality is that IE9 is 2 years late. Microsoft is glad to come out with the video tag, the canvas tag, SVG, and some CSS3. Like other vendors did years ago."

... so IE 9 is late to the game and that means its not a modern browser?
The reality is that average Joe does not care who came first.


i wonder if IE9 is 2 years late, how late FF must be?
even FF4 is missing stuff that is added into IE9....
FF4 has probably a later release date then IE9 and longer under development too
MS just runs passed mozilla with IE9 and now they are mad

CSS3 and HTML5 are not yet standardized so its likely all current implementations (in Firefox or IE) will look broken when they become final recommendations.

figgy said,
CSS3 and HTML5 are not yet standardized so its likely all current implementations (in Firefox or IE) will look broken when they become final recommendations.
Different parts are at different stages ... much of it is incredibly unlikely to change.

winlonghorn said,

Eyeroll is null or not an object? lol


that's not quite a normal error message - what compiler are you using?^^

Panda X said,
Eyeroll.exe

Microsoft Security Essentials detected 1 potential threat and suspended it.

Click 'Clean computer' to remove this threat.

rm20010 said,
Pot, meet kettle.

That's all really.


Mozilla:

Microsoft cheated SunSpider...
Microsoft cheated HTML5...
Microsoft cheated this...
Microsoft cheated that...

rm20010 said,
Pot, meet kettle.

That's all really.


Actually, sounds like a certain fox has a case of sour grapes. Today's Mozilla community pat themselves on the back for including new features while poopooing IE for adopting the same ones, but I remember better days when the community, upon being matched, would be asking itself how to pull ahead rather than waste air attacking the competition.

rm20010 said,
Pot, meet kettle.

That's all really.


whahaha so true

Didnt hear Mozilla when Google was cheating with Chrome by loading local pages on an optimized machine with 'it loads a webpage faster then a bullet hits the target'.
those tests where completely fake too

besides Mozilla barely has to fear IE9, they should start opening their eyes, they lost most of their market share to goddamn GOOGLE..

but mozilla still seems to love google while google backstabbed mozilla so bad...

Shadowzz said,
Didnt hear Mozilla when Google was cheating with Chrome by loading local pages on an optimized machine with 'it loads a webpage faster then a bullet hits the target'.
those tests where completely fake too
How the hell is that related? How do you know the Mozilla developers weren't bothered? What on earth is 'fake' here?

Shadowzz said,

whahaha so true

Didnt hear Mozilla when Google was cheating with Chrome by loading local pages on an optimized machine with 'it loads a webpage faster then a bullet hits the target'.
those tests where completely fake too

besides Mozilla barely has to fear IE9, they should start opening their eyes, they lost most of their market share to goddamn GOOGLE..

but mozilla still seems to love google while google backstabbed mozilla so bad...

This may be a hard thought for you people to muster, but Google is a BUSINESS. They owed Mozilla nothing.

rm20010 said,
Pot, meet kettle.

That's all really.

Meet microwave, Chrome. Think about future standards. How many Droid devices will not work with what webpage, and why?

Majesticmerc said,

How so? Have Mozilla biased their test results to the same extent as Microsoft?

yes actually. some they have done themselves. other tests are made specifically to show off how FF is better by other FF fanboys thta may or may not be paid by the mozilla foundation. Chrome does the same. they also have tests that are created specifically for Chrome.

justmike said,

Meet microwave, Chrome. Think about future standards. How many Droid devices will not work with what webpage, and why?

I tend to find that pretty much any page that I can view on Chrome will also work on Android. The only thing Android's webkit doesn't seem to like is the BBC's web page.

Subject Delta said,
The only thing Android's webkit doesn't seem to like is the BBC's web page.
I've only noticed the inherent problem of hover menus there tbh ... hover just doesn't mean anything for touch screens.

Kirkburn said,
I've only noticed the inherent problem of hover menus there tbh ... hover just doesn't mean anything for touch screens.

I think it's their flash videos. There's something about them that seems to crash the browser, apparently they are working on a fix, heaven knows how long it's going to take. It only seems to occur on the default Android browser, and the Sense browser. Doesn't even FC like usual app crashes on Android, just quits to desktop

HawkMan said,
yes actually. some they have done themselves. other tests are made specifically to show off how FF is better by other FF fanboys thta may or may not be paid by the mozilla foundation. Chrome does the same. they also have tests that are created specifically for Chrome.

This is true, but as far as I was aware, Mozilla and Chrome have never bragged about them to the extent that IE did. Nor have they ever claimed that their browser supported 99% of HTML5 because they are aware that pulling stunts like that invariably come back to bite them in the ass.

In relation to JavaScript, this has (unfortunately) always been the case that the Firefox, Safari and Chrome teams always brag about THEIR scores in THEIR benchmarks, but again, Firefox does show their performance against V8Bench (Google's JS test) on http://www.arewefastyet.com.

Majesticmerc said,

This is true, but as far as I was aware, Mozilla and Chrome have never bragged about them to the extent that IE did. Nor have they ever claimed that their browser supported 99% of HTML5 because they are aware that pulling stunts like that invariably come back to bite them in the ass.

In relation to JavaScript, this has (unfortunately) always been the case that the Firefox, Safari and Chrome teams always brag about THEIR scores in THEIR benchmarks, but again, Firefox does show their performance against V8Bench (Google's JS test) on http://www.arewefastyet.com.

I usually use sunspider for Javascript tests, and it put FF4 Beta 11 about 12% behind IE9 RC

Shadowzz said,

whahaha so true

Didnt hear Mozilla when Google was cheating with Chrome by loading local pages on an optimized machine with 'it loads a webpage faster then a bullet hits the target'.
those tests where completely fake too

Except those were supposed to be rendering speed tests, not loading a page tests. If they were actually loading pages of the Internet then why even call it an ad for chrome? It would have been more like and ad for whatever ISP they were on.

geoken said,
Except those were supposed to be rendering speed tests, not loading a page tests. If they were actually loading pages of the Internet then why even call it an ad for chrome? It would have been more like and ad for whatever ISP they were on.
Browsers also have an effect on loading speed, not just rendering speed.