IE8 runs 10 times faster with Google plug-in

Computerworld - Microsoft's Internet Explorer zips through JavaScript nearly 10 times faster than usual when Google's new Chrome Frame plug-in is partnered with the browser, benchmark tests show.
According to tests run by Computerworld, Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) with the plug-in was 9.6 times faster than IE8 on its own. Computerworld ran the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark suite three times each for IE8 with Chrome Frame, and IE8 without the plug-in, then averaged the scores.

IE8 runs 10 times faster with Google plug-in

Nice one. Thanks.

We tested it out here a few days ago and it was really fast but broke most of the site lol

And of course, Microsoft is unhappy with this. They also feel that this plug-in will severely reduce the security of their browser.
Microsoft howls as Google turns IE into Chrome • The Register

I saw if you want something faster than IE...just use something faster than IE.

I really like this add-on because I like the interface, layout and windows integration of IE and I like the speed of Chrome.

Is there any way to run this as default?

Does Chrome Frame actually make IE less secure? I thought Chrome was pretty secure by itself.

I've just installed it and wow that is fast.

Hello from where can I download this plugin?

Hi, read the first post and the link is in there.

Here try this.

Google Chrome Frame for Windows - Terms and Conditions Agreement

Hi there

Works fine

If it DOES break a few sites who cares -- I'm an old Dinosaur who STILL can't see the point of text messaging ( a PHONE is a PHONE for xxxx's sake) and feel much the same for the Internet -- if a site doesn't work I'll try another one.

Believe me I'm NOT anti technology but against the slavery a lot of youngsters have unwillingly got themselves into ("Blackberries" - emails etc etc).

If I'm off for 3 weeks I just DELETE all my emails when I get back to work -- ALL OF THEM without even reading A SINGLE ONE.

If there's anything important they will either send it again or call on the phone - They know my HATRED of "texting" so they wont bother with that method of communication.

Let US be in charge of technology -- not the other way around.

Cheers
jimbo

Thanks demex, just installed and I like it,it's really fast but I am not sure about the security threats. Well, I'm not too bothered as long as it doesn't break anything else.

i have got a feeling microsoft will block that plugin soon with an update, because it breaks some sites, and microsoft dont want that.

OFFTOPIC
End of the day firefox rocks!

hehe, recently i've been using ie within chrome.

chromeplus, based on latest chrome beta, comes with an 'ie tab', so you can use those rare sites that don't work natively in chrome...

jimbo45 said:

Hi there

Works fine

If it DOES break a few sites who cares -- I'm an old Dinosaur who STILL can't see the point of text messaging ( a PHONE is a PHONE for xxxx's sake) and feel much the same for the Internet -- if a site doesn't work I'll try another one.

Believe me I'm NOT anti technology but against the slavery a lot of youngsters have unwillingly got themselves into ("Blackberries" - emails etc etc).

If I'm off for 3 weeks I just DELETE all my emails when I get back to work -- ALL OF THEM without even reading A SINGLE ONE.

Click to expand...

If there's anything important they will either send it again or call on the phone - They know my HATRED of "texting" so they wont bother with that method of communication.

Let US be in charge of technology -- not the other way around.

Cheers
jimbo

Click to expand...

You may miss that you got fired - LOL.

My IE8 started behaving sluggish and pages opened slowly, when I looked in Manage Add-Ons I found another Add-On "Google Update plugin" enabled. I have disabled it now and see how it goes.

You guys go realise that this does nothing unless the webpage is enabled to use the plug in?

z3r010 said:

You guys go realise that this does nothing unless the webpage is enabled to use the plug in?

Click to expand...

Thanks John, now I understand why SF and VF were playing up, I should have used the Test skin as you have mentioned in earlier post.

really? it seemed to work pretty fast with all pages. oh well, I'm gonna compare this with Firefox 3.5.

ok, here's the results.

TEST COMPARISON FROM TO DETAILS

=============================================================================

** TOTAL **: 4.03x as fast 11108.2ms +/- 3.0% 2753.2ms +/- 3.2% significant

=============================================================================

3d: 3.31x as fast 1344.8ms +/- 8.8% 406.6ms +/- 17.6% significant
cube: 3.84x as fast 468.2ms +/- 11.7% 121.8ms +/- 6.6% significant
morph: 3.22x as fast 399.4ms +/- 11.8% 124.0ms +/- 25.4% significant
raytrace: 2.97x as fast 477.2ms +/- 11.0% 160.8ms +/- 29.4% significant

access: 5.38x as fast 2084.6ms +/- 4.2% 387.8ms +/- 7.6% significant
binary-trees: 3.10x as fast 358.8ms +/- 12.1% 115.8ms +/- 13.2% significant
fannkuch: 5.31x as fast 827.0ms +/- 3.7% 155.6ms +/- 12.0% significant
nbody: 7.07x as fast 511.8ms +/- 8.6% 72.4ms +/- 22.0% significant
nsieve: 8.80x as fast 387.0ms +/- 10.9% 44.0ms +/- 8.0% significant

bitops: 15.5x as fast 1638.4ms +/- 4.4% 105.8ms +/- 6.5% significant
3bit-bits-in-byte: 78.1x as fast 281.0ms +/- 23.0% 3.6ms +/- 18.9% significant
bits-in-byte: 13.5x as fast 299.6ms +/- 14.8% 22.2ms +/- 4.7% significant
bitwise-and: 106.3x as fast 574.0ms +/- 12.5% 5.4ms +/- 12.6% significant
nsieve-bits: 6.49x as fast 483.8ms +/- 5.7% 74.6ms +/- 7.1% significant

controlflow: 1.87x as fast 278.0ms +/- 18.6% 148.4ms +/- 7.6% significant
recursive: 1.87x as fast 278.0ms +/- 18.6% 148.4ms +/- 7.6% significant

crypto: 5.20x as fast 849.4ms +/- 10.4% 163.4ms +/- 9.7% significant
aes: 3.68x as fast 343.4ms +/- 12.5% 93.2ms +/- 12.2% significant
md5: 5.27x as fast 262.4ms +/- 19.1% 49.8ms +/- 2.1% significant
sha1: 11.9x as fast 243.6ms +/- 31.7% 20.4ms +/- 38.4% significant

date: 2.12x as fast 879.6ms +/- 4.3% 415.0ms +/- 7.6% significant
format-tofte: 2.32x as fast 449.2ms +/- 5.7% 193.4ms +/- 16.0% significant
format-xparb: 1.94x as fast 430.4ms +/- 8.8% 221.6ms +/- 12.0% significant

math: 8.08x as fast 1220.2ms +/- 10.4% 151.0ms +/- 8.9% significant
cordic: 5.31x as fast 508.4ms +/- 13.4% 95.8ms +/- 2.1% significant
partial-sums: 10.4x as fast 356.0ms +/- 21.0% 34.2ms +/- 33.1% significant
spectral-norm: 16.9x as fast 355.8ms +/- 6.0% 21.0ms +/- 4.2% significant

regexp: 4.05x as fast 683.4ms +/- 3.1% 168.8ms +/- 19.2% significant
dna: 4.05x as fast 683.4ms +/- 3.1% 168.8ms +/- 19.2% significant

string: 2.64x as fast 2129.8ms +/- 3.0% 806.4ms +/- 3.5% significant
base64: 8.53x as fast 383.8ms +/- 18.0% 45.0ms +/- 26.8% significant
fasta: 2.84x as fast 546.2ms +/- 8.7% 192.6ms +/- 8.6% significant
tagcloud: 2.19x as fast 438.4ms +/- 9.6% 200.2ms +/- 11.5% significant
unpack-code: 1.28x as fast 365.0ms +/- 10.3% 286.0ms +/- 3.8% significant
validate-input: 4.80x as fast 396.4ms +/- 12.2% 82.6ms +/- 12.7% significant\

as you can see, Firefox is still the fastest!

sorry, it's a bit jumbled up because I copy/pasted it. I'm sure it gets the point across though!