Security Expert Recommends IE8 over Firefox, Chrome
-
Also, i find IE8 far faster than FF and without the ever present FF memory hole.
What Memory hole would this be? Do you mean the Memory leak on shutdown problems that they fixed 6 (7 if you include the new Beta) releases ago?
The current version is 3.6 is it not. 3.5.2 was the one with a memory leak.
-
-
![]()
Please, ACID is a joke to use as a comparison. It is simply a linear suite of tests and your score is basically where in the LINEAR set of tests you first fail. Hypothetically, IE could do 99 of the tests correctly, but fail on the 22nd and get a score of 22/100.
The "humor" escapes me. The simplicity of Acid 3 is also it's beauty. Any number less than 100/100 is pretty irrelevant, because it is a failure. There is no curve involved.
But the "simplicity" makes it a poor method for comparing, that is the point.
I disagree. Any kind of a test is only going to look at 1 or more aspects of software. I don't know of any test that encompasses every aspect of any software. A test can and should be used to evaluate what it is designed to test.
Obviously, there is one factor that no test can be made for... subjective preferences, but that is not necessary, for each of us are qualified for dealing with that. Other than that, Acid 3 is one method of testing, which can be teamed with other objective standards.
Most of us are not programmers or IT pros, and a simple graphic representation such as Acid 3 is quite useful and comprehensible.
-
![]()
The "humor" escapes me. The simplicity of Acid 3 is also it's beauty. Any number less than 100/100 is pretty irrelevant, because it is a failure. There is no curve involved.
But the "simplicity" makes it a poor method for comparing, that is the point.
I disagree. Any kind of a test is only going to look at 1 or more aspects of software. I don't know of any test that encompasses every aspect of any software. A test can and should be used to evaluate what it is designed to test.
Obviously, there is one factor that no test can be made for... subjective preferences, but that is not necessary, for each of us are qualified for dealing with that. Other than that, Acid 3 is one method of testing, which can be teamed with other objective standards.
Most of us are not programmers or IT pros, and a simple graphic representation such as Acid 3 is quite useful and comprehensible.
You're missing the point. The way ACID is set up, it runs through its tests in a linear fashion. If your software fails at step 22, you score a 22, even if you could pass the remaining 78. If the competitor can complete to 68, it scores a 68 even if it couldn't perform the remaining 32 tests. So one package scores a 22/100 even if it can actually perform 99/100 and the other scores a 68/100, even though it can only perform the 68 tests.
That is the problem with using ACID as a comperative test. As a test, it's fine, but as a benchmark, it fails.
Last edited by PhreePhly; 12 Jul 2010 at 22:57.
Reason: spelling error
-
![]()
But the "simplicity" makes it a poor method for comparing, that is the point.
I disagree. Any kind of a test is only going to look at 1 or more aspects of software. I don't know of any test that encompasses every aspect of any software. A test can and should be used to evaluate what it is designed to test.
Obviously, there is one factor that no test can be made for... subjective preferences, but that is not necessary, for each of us are qualified for dealing with that. Other than that, Acid 3 is one method of testing, which can be teamed with other objective standards.
Most of us are not programmers or IT pros, and a simple graphic representation such as Acid 3 is quite useful and comprehensible.
You're missing the point. The way ACID is set up, it runs through its tests in a linear fashion. If your software fails at step 22, you score a 22, even if you could pass the remaining 78. If the competitor can complete to 68, it scores a 68 even if it couldn't perform the remaining 32 tests. So one package scores a 22/100 even if it can actually perform 99/100 and the other scores a 68/100, even though it can only perform the 68 tests.
That is the problem with using ACID as a comperative test. As a test, it's fine, but as a benchmark, it fails.
ya really should be doing the full test and not ending when it fails one
-
-
![]()
But the "simplicity" makes it a poor method for comparing, that is the point.
I disagree. Any kind of a test is only going to look at 1 or more aspects of software. I don't know of any test that encompasses every aspect of any software. A test can and should be used to evaluate what it is designed to test.
Obviously, there is one factor that no test can be made for... subjective preferences, but that is not necessary, for each of us are qualified for dealing with that. Other than that, Acid 3 is one method of testing, which can be teamed with other objective standards.
Most of us are not programmers or IT pros, and a simple graphic representation such as Acid 3 is quite useful and comprehensible.
You're missing the point. The way ACID is set up, it runs through its tests in a linear fashion. If your software fails at step 22, you score a 22, even if you could pass the remaining 78. If the competitor can complete to 68, it scores a 68 even if it couldn't perform the remaining 32 tests. So one package scores a 22/100 even if it can actually perform 99/100 and the other scores a 68/100, even though it can only perform the 68 tests.
That is the problem with using ACID as a comperative test. As a test, it's fine, but as a benchmark, it fails.
I think that it is you that have missed the point. Acid 3 is not designed for being a comparison standard in the fashion that you have described...it is pass or fail, anything less than 100/100 is a failure, regardless of the test failed, or any numerical value otherwise assigned.
-
Before this all gets out of hand and turns into a flamefest, let me be clear, I could give a crap what browser anyone uses. I just went through this on another forum. As part of the "challenge", I used Chrome for a week to compare it to IE8.
In the end, while Chrome was faster at one part of my daily usage, but it was slower in other usage. Basically, at the end of the day, a draw. Given that I am far more familiar with IE's UI, and I couldn't stand Chrome's bookmarking features, I stuck with IE.
I've tried FF a few times in the past (1.5, then 3.0) and always found it cumbersome. I didn't use many add-ons so that aspect didn't sell me.
Frankly, I'm really looking forward to IE9.
-
![]()
I disagree. Any kind of a test is only going to look at 1 or more aspects of software. I don't know of any test that encompasses every aspect of any software. A test can and should be used to evaluate what it is designed to test.
Obviously, there is one factor that no test can be made for... subjective preferences, but that is not necessary, for each of us are qualified for dealing with that. Other than that, Acid 3 is one method of testing, which can be teamed with other objective standards.
Most of us are not programmers or IT pros, and a simple graphic representation such as Acid 3 is quite useful and comprehensible.
You're missing the point. The way ACID is set up, it runs through its tests in a linear fashion. If your software fails at step 22, you score a 22, even if you could pass the remaining 78. If the competitor can complete to 68, it scores a 68 even if it couldn't perform the remaining 32 tests. So one package scores a 22/100 even if it can actually perform 99/100 and the other scores a 68/100, even though it can only perform the 68 tests.
That is the problem with using ACID as a comperative test. As a test, it's fine, but as a benchmark, it fails.
I think that it is you that have missed the point. Acid 3 is not designed for being a comparison standard in the fashion that you have described...it is pass or fail, anything less than 100/100 is a failure, regardless of the test failed, or any numerical value otherwise assigned.
Look back at the post I originally responded to (#18). It was a comparison of IE scores to FF scores on ACID. i was just poining out the fallacy of using ACID as a comparison. That's all.
-
-
i personally use FF, i have in the past tried other browsers such as IE, CHROME, OPERA and SAFARI. i always however go back to FF. for no other reason than i like it. it does what i want it to do and that's pretty much it.
-
Never fails, the FF fans always want to bash anything related to IE. I think you made your point guys.
No, not really. I was irritated with FireFox 3.6.3 when I noticed 1.5GB physical memory being used by that process. So I gave IE8 a try for a week. I used the InPrivate filtering for some sense of adblock but the browser kept crashing on me. So I don't use IE8 because it's not stable enough for me.
-
I use Firefox. It's quick with a few settings. One of the big reasons I don't like I.E. is because of all the clutter and I don't feel like jumping through hoops to make it some what like I would like it. Firefox and Google works for me.
Quote