Why do people say IE is slow?

[severedsolo]

That's an invalid argument now, just as it was with IE6. But you are correct when you say you are living with a false sense of security, but not for the reason you state.

As I told many of my colleagues years ago when they were insisting all IE6 users were insecure and we all need to switch to FF, it is not the vulnerabilities in a browser that causes a machine to get infected, it is poor user discipline at practicing safe computing. When I would asked how many of them STOPPED getting infecting ONLY by switching to FF, none had because they weren't getting infected. Why? Because they used a good AV, a software based firewall, often a router, they kept Windows current and patched, and they avoided risky practices like using pirated software, visiting illegal porn and gambling sites and did not participate in P2P filesharing of copyrighted materials - all the necessary things every user needs to do REGARDLESS the browser of choice.

oh dont get me wrong, i know that the browser alone isnt enough to prevent viruses, im not that naive, but i was under the impression (probably quite wrongly) that because firefox doesnt automatically run programs it downloads (without add ons that is) that it was less susceptible to drive by viruses?

and in fairness, i said it was a feeling, i had no proof to base it on at all... my girlfriend uses IE all the time, and has never had a problem, then again she doesnt really go to the shady bits of the internet,

then again... iv never known IE to decide not to quit properly, start taking up 4 times as much RAM as it should and have to be stopped in process explorer, this is a semi regular occurence with FF

 

[Digerati]

This is what I was talking about with IE8 having to deal with biases and stuck with the stigma of IE6.

IE8 is NOT IE6.

Is Internet Explorer 8 the Safest Browser? - News and Analysis by PC Magazine:

Internet Explorer 8 wiped the floor with the other products in the malware tests, blocking 81% of live threats. Firefox 3.0.11 was closest at 27%, with Safari 4 at 21%, Chrome 2 at 7% and Opera 10 beta at 1%. NSS Labs says that they confirmed that this protection is identical in Firefox 3 and 3.5, as well as Opera 9 and 10.

Now I am not suggesting to be safe everyone should dump FF, Safari, Chrome, or Opera and move back to IE8 - because as you and I both know, staying safe is much more than just the browser. But I am saying it is time to stop holding IE's and Microsoft's history against IE8 (and Windows 7 for that matter too.

 

[severedsolo]

well although i probably gave the wrong impression in my first post, I dont just base my browser on security concerns.... i feel there is too much stigma around this already, certain security software companies deliberately play on peoples insecuritys and lack of knowledge about the threats anyway, (I'm looking at you here Norton) and to be honest, if you play safe, you'll be safe in the 5 years or so iv been on broadband, i have picked up two viruses, 1 nasty little trojan which was a driveby (in IE6 ironically enough) and one a few weeks ago, which my AV flashed up was a virus, i didnt believe it, (i thought it was a program id used previously just from a different site) i told my AV to go away, and wham, i was hit, at the end of the day, the weakest point in the chain is the user, and no browser is going to prevent that, and in fairness, as i said in my original post to this thread, I just like FF over IE, there isnt one particular reason, i was just laying out a couple of examples, its a personal choice, and if IE8 works for people, they should use it.

 

[Digerati]

certain security software companies deliberately play on peoples insecuritys and lack of knowledge about the threats anyway

Good point. And while Norton is a prime example, other security software makers quickly come to mind who played that card to the extreme too. But so did Mosaic. And the IT press/media picked it up and exploited it to the max. They still do. If you look at many reviews today, note how many focus on the positives of the MS alternatives, but on the negatives of the MS products.

MS is certainly not perfect and no doubt has a checkered history - but in terms of security in Windows XP, it was their desire to please the demands of their HUGE corporate user-base to support legacy (DOS era - and insecure) hardware and software (READ: very expensive to upgrade) that motivated MS to weigh legacy support over (the virtually non-existent, at the time) security issues. Of course MS got slammed for that decision even though it was badguys, not MS, who created this security mess.

Now, starting with Vista and continuing with Win7, MS is weighing security and support for current and future HW and SW support over legacy support - but what happens? They get slammed again because people's old hardware and favorite programs no longer work. So MS is wedged between a rock and hard spot, but IMO, they are on the right track as security comes first, even though it did force me to replace all my old hardware.

and in fairness, as i said in my original post to this thread, I just like FF over IE, there isnt one particular reason, i was just laying out a couple of examples, its a personal choice, and if IE8 works for people, they should use it.

And that's how it should be, and in fairness, I was not trying to suggest you were suggesting anything other than that.

 

[smackheadz]

hadn't seen this before,i use internet explorer 8 Broadband Speed Checker - Loading test#

 

[severedsolo]

And that's how it should be, and in fairness, I was not trying to suggest you were suggesting anything other than that.

i know, sorry it wasnt a dig, i was trying to get back on topic, as i felt i was meandering away from browsers a little bit,

IMO, they are on the right track as security comes first, even though it did force me to replace all my old hardware.

I quite agree, and, not 5 words i say very often but to be fair to Microsoft, the Vista launch fiasco, wasn't actually their fault, if the manufacturors had got off their bums and actually developed proper support, it could all have been avoided, i made the rookie mistake of buying a brand new top of the range Vista X64 box, the week after it came out, the amount of headaches i had with that, not just for driver support, but just simple applications! Unfortunately, people look at their brand new Vista PC which wont work with their favourite printer/camera/mp3 player and assume its the OS's fault, when in fact it was the manufacturors, who should have developed drivers, its not like they didnt get enough warning, but then if we didnt have Vista, we wouldn;t have 7, and i think we can all agree, that MS have definitely got alot more good than bad in this OS

woops iv wandered off topic again, my apologies everyone

 

[Digerati]

but to be fair to Microsoft, the Vista launch fiasco, wasn't actually their fault, if the manufacturors had got off their bums and actually developed proper support, it could all have been avoided

I'm so glad to hear someone else say that! Vendors had the code for nearly a year, but as you said, they sat on their bums. Hardware driver developers were some of the worst offenders for sure - but it took ZoneAlarm a year to come out with a Vista version too. Fortunately, many of the vendors felt the heat too as they lost many sales to upgraders.

@smackheadz - that's a good find, before anyone starts posting scores, do not heed the "How it works" instructions concerning comparing your speeds with others as these speeds are affected by your geographical location, right down to the street you live on, as well as your ISP and how you connect. So you can really only compare it with yourself, if you have multiple browsers on your machine, or maybe your next door neighbor.

I do question it's scores however as mine significantly faster for every site than the average times. And running it a second time resulted in significantly faster scores again - which makes sense, since IE cached much of the pages.

 

[smackheadz]

@smackheadz - that's a good find, before anyone starts posting scores, do not heed the "How it works" instructions concerning comparing your speeds with others as these speeds are affected by your geographical location, right down to the street you live on, as well as your ISP and how you connect. So you can really only compare it with yourself, if you have multiple browsers on your machine, or maybe your next door neighbor.
yep thats true,does need people to try different browsers and more than once aswell.

 

[severedsolo]

that's a good find, before anyone starts posting scores, do not heed the "How it works" instructions concerning comparing your speeds with others as these speeds are affected by your geographical location, right down to the street you live on, as well as your ISP and how you connect. So you can really only compare it with yourself, if you have multiple browsers on your machine, or maybe your next door neighbor.

I do question it's scores however as mine significantly faster for every site than the average times. And running it a second time resulted in significantly faster scores again - which makes sense, since IE cached much of the pages.

i found mine was faster than the average times too... even on sites iv never used, and i have a pretty "meh" connection, 4.1Mbps isnt exactly fast.....