Why do people say IE is slow?

[Dark Nova Gamer]

I don't run benchmarks because they don't reflect real-world usage

+ 1

Ironically loading this page in Chrome brought it to a crawl, whereas I just loaded it in IE8 and it was as smooth as silk.

Yeah, but anything can cause that. Internet having a hiccup, the load on the site at the specific time, etc.

 

[veii]

Why? This has probably been said already in this thread, but to put it to bed:

Maybe they've used many browsers on many different platforms e.g. Firefox, Chrome ,Bon Echo, Opera, Konquerer, Seamonkey, Epiphany, Shiretoko, ON: BSD, Linux, Solaris, Mac OS, Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7, and have reached the conclusion all their own that Internet Explorer is the slowest, least standards compliant browser out there. And a nightmare to design for.

Web Browser Standards Support Summary

 

[xXSevenXx]

Since IE8 seems to work perfectly, and very quickly here, it makes you wonder where the problem actually was.

How does it make out here though?

Here are the results of my "Acid Test"
IE8 on the left Firefox to the right!

 

[Digerati]

As noted, the Acid 3 test results are widely published - of course by those who wish to tout the advantages of their favorites, or to disparage IE. But once again, benchmark tests, including the Acid 3 test, don't reflect real world usage. I have asked for those who keep referring back to the Acid 3 test to provide real world examples of sites not working with IE, but none have been presented. If it such the problem, why not? Examples should be aplenty.

If a Lamborghini can beat a Porsche to the finish line on a drag strip, does that make it a better car? If a Rolls Royce offers a smoother ride than a Lexus on the Autobahn, is the Rolls a better car? If a BMW corners better than Mercedes, is BMW a better car?

I have personally not found one site that I cannot view with IE - including my banks for Bill Pay, credit union, or my Government accounts for my retired Air Force and health insurance business - some of which did not allow access to FF last time I tried. And there have been several comments in this thread from some of you who report you "only use IE when FF does not work." Does not work? How does that make FF better? Perhaps the occasional site failing with FF is not problem for you, but for me, it would be a problem, and since I am very happy with IE's speed, FOR ME, IE is better.

I refer back to my link earlier to PCWorld's Browser Showdown test. It did not use "benchmarks" to compare. It used,

...nine popular Web sites: Amazon, MySpace, Yahoo, PC World, YouTube, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Wikipedia.

We loaded each site ten times in each of the browsers and repeated the process the following day to rule out any network traffic or server issues. Prior to each test run, we cleared the browsers' caches as well. We also repeated the load tests to ensure that we had sufficient data to identify loading speed trends. To ensure consistent results, we performed testing on a fresh Windows Vista installation, and we reinstalled the operating system before each round of testing. Additionally, we removed the two best and two worst scores for each page load test to produce more consistent results.

These are about as "real world" as you can get. The conclusion,

By and large, we found that Internet Explorer 8 performed well, and beat out Firefox 3.0.7 in the majority of our time trials.

BUT

In practical, everyday use, you likely won't notice much of a difference between IE 8 and Firefox 3. Due to the fact that broadband connections are so commonplace today, and the fact that browsers in general can load pages faster than they could even a couple years ago, the page load time differences between the two are relatively moot.

 

[dave1812]

As noted, the Acid 3 test results are widely published - of course by those who wish to tout the advantages of their favorites, or to disparage IE. But once again, benchmark tests, including the Acid 3 test, don't reflect real world usage. I have asked for those who keep referring back to the Acid 3 test to provide real world examples of sites not working with IE, but none have been presented. If it such the problem, why not? Examples should be aplenty.

If a Lamborghini can beat a Porsche to the finish line on a drag strip, does that make it a better car? If a Rolls Royce offers a smoother ride than a Lexus on the Autobahn, is the Rolls a better car? If a BMW corners better than Mercedes, is BMW a better car?

I have personally not found one site that I cannot view with IE - including my banks for Bill Pay, credit union, or my Government accounts for my retired Air Force and health insurance business - some of which did not allow access to FF last time I tried. And there have been several comments in this thread from some of you who report you "only use IE when FF does not work." Does not work? How does that make FF better? Perhaps the occasional site failing with FF is not problem for you, but for me, it would be a problem, and since I am very happy with IE's speed, FOR ME, IE is better.

I refer back to my link earlier to PCWorld's Browser Showdown test. It did not use "benchmarks" to compare. It used,

...nine popular Web sites: Amazon, MySpace, Yahoo, PC World, YouTube, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Wikipedia.

We loaded each site ten times in each of the browsers and repeated the process the following day to rule out any network traffic or server issues. Prior to each test run, we cleared the browsers' caches as well. We also repeated the load tests to ensure that we had sufficient data to identify loading speed trends. To ensure consistent results, we performed testing on a fresh Windows Vista installation, and we reinstalled the operating system before each round of testing. Additionally, we removed the two best and two worst scores for each page load test to produce more consistent results.

These are about as "real world" as you can get. The conclusion,

By and large, we found that Internet Explorer 8 performed well, and beat out Firefox 3.0.7 in the majority of our time trials.

BUT

In practical, everyday use, you likely won't notice much of a difference between IE 8 and Firefox 3. Due to the fact that broadband connections are so commonplace today, and the fact that browsers in general can load pages faster than they could even a couple years ago, the page load time differences between the two are relatively moot.

Could you please provide a link or two to sites that won't work on FF? I do all my banking on line, and access no less than 6 financial institution sites, using FF. Not to mention I'm on line many hours a day, on countless sites and haven't encountered sites that don't function. I'm not disagreeing with you, but rather would like to see some examples. Thanks!

 

[xXSevenXx]

As noted, the Acid 3 test results are widely published - of course by those who wish to tout the advantages of their favorites, or to disparage IE. But once again, benchmark tests, including the Acid 3 test, don't reflect real world usage.

I didn't post the results to disparage IE, or to tout the advantages of my favourites.
The fact is that IE8 faired poorly versus FFox.

BTW IE8 also had to D/L an 'add in' to view that site.

 

[Digerati]

Could you please provide a link or two to sites that won't work on FF? I do all my banking on line, and access no less than 6 financial institution sites, using FF. Not to mention I'm on line many hours a day, on countless sites and haven't encountered sites that don't function. I'm not disagreeing with, but rather would like to see some examples. Thanks!

How about you too since (1) I suggested the same thing with IE days ago in post #19 in response to Qdos reporting in #18,

some sites iE7 and iE8 hang badly

And (2) where I asked specifically again for examples in post #23 - and (3) in light of your own post #7 where you agreed FF has some issues, if rare,

To each his own--I DETEST using IE and only use it in the very rare instance when it's required.

I don't have any alternative browser loaded and have no desire to download one now and start hunting for sites that don't work. I said, "last time I tried". I should have clarified that with "a couple years ago" and I apologize for not doing so. But at that time, there were plenty, as evidenced by the several websites that were dedicated to listing sites that don't work with FF - they are still around, although I have no doubt they are in need of updating - here's a couple:

ListAfterList.com - Websites that Don't Work in Firefox
Gripes about Web Sites That Don't Work Well With Firefox

And of course, why would there be IETab if not needed?
****

That said, there are still some on-line security scanners that report to accept IE only - I say "report" because I don't have any alternative to test with, but I have no reason to doubt the sites own published system requirements:

BitDefender Online Scanner - Click on FAQ
Symantec Online Scanner - Click on the two Learn More links
WindowsSecurity Online Trojan Scanner

Let me repeat something I said earlier in post # 4 and in post # 12

FF is an excellent browser.

***********

The bottom line, however, is EVERY web page should be browser independent.

 

[dave1812]

ListAfterList.com - Websites that Don't Work in Firefox

I tried 8 sites, randomly, from that link...they all worked fine.

Since IE 5 was mentioned, I'll assume the info on that link is ancient.

 

[pezzonovante]

IE8 has the best UI of all browsers. Plus it has protected mode which makes it the safest. Just install Simple Adblock and you are ready to go. So IE8 ftw.

 

[dave1812]

IE8 has the best UI of all browsers. Plus it has protected mode which makes it the safest. Just install Simple Adblock and you are ready to go. So IE8 ftw.

IMO, ALL versions of IE suck. I HAD to say that since you phrased your post like it's gospel.

 

[satchmo]

All I know is that I used Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome. I used all three extensively.

And for me, the winner is clearly Chrome. Back before IE8 and FF3 even existed, Chrome was kicking butts.

 

[rokudan]

1. They hate Microsoft,
2. They heard from somebody who heard from somebody else that years ago it was slower,
3. They are Firefox (or Chrome - or basically anything not IE) fanatics,
4. They are biased, unprofessional IT media seeking and exploiting sensationalism.
​

QFT!

 

[bcmalloy]

IE is usually considered bad because of it's historically bad security record it has little to do with speed or anything else. IE is usally targeted by hackers because every windows os has IE installed. that reminds me I have to uninstall it from windows 7 THE FIRST windows you have this option

 

[Digerati]

So in other words - for no apparent reason at all!

IE8 is not IE6 and as you said - IE's history on security has nothing to do with people complaining about speed. And the fact it is targeted by bad guys does not either.

But let's be realistic here. FF is not without it's "growing" share of known vulnerabilities either (11 new "critical" vulnerabilities just this last October), and is more and more a target as its popularity grows too. How about this for an eyeopener: Firefox tops list for reported vulnerabilities in 2009!. And talk about biased reporting - see how the reporter "spins" this abysmal statistic into a... ..."good" thing?

It is relayed biases through comments like yours that turn people away from a perfectly good product. Let's not forget there are nearly 1 Billion Windows computers out there, with the vast majority running just fine, infection free with Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, IE7 or IE8, AVG Free (or something similar), and with Windows Update on full automatic.

 

[dave1812]

IE is usually considered bad because of it's historically bad security record it has little to do with speed or anything else. IE is usally targeted by hackers because every windows os has IE installed. that reminds me I have to uninstall it from windows 7 THE FIRST windows you have this option

Let's not forget the UI sucks (comparatively, if not simply when taken on it's own), and a lack of customization certainly provides no benefit to IE lovers.

 

[Digerati]

Let's not forget the UI sucks

Oh yeah - that not biased. You are just slamming to slam! That's not a benefit to any user.

Your opinion is like rear-ends - everyone has one, and they all stink.

Oh, and for the record, you are wrong anyway. IE allows for many customizations - perhaps not as many as some other browsers, but that has nothing to do with speed, or security. Let's stick to objective facts.

 

[dave1812]

Let's not forget the UI sucks

Oh yeah - that not biased. You are just slamming to slam! That's not a benefit to any user.

Your opinion is like rear-ends - everyone has one, and they all stink.

Oh, and for the record, you are wrong anyway. IE allows for many customizations - perhaps not as many as some other browsers, but that has nothing to do with speed, or security. Let's stick to objective facts.

LOL! I was wondering when someone would complain about that! LOL! I wrote that a bit "tongue in cheek" because of all the chevy/ford-type comments that browser wars bring out! LOL!!! Not to mention I offered no specifics of why I think the UI "sucks".

 

[bcmalloy]

Let's not forget the UI sucks

Oh yeah - that not biased. You are just slamming to slam! That's not a benefit to any user.

Your opinion is like rear-ends - everyone has one, and they all stink.

Oh, and for the record, you are wrong anyway. IE allows for many customizations - perhaps not as many as some other browsers, but that has nothing to do with speed, or security. Let's stick to objective facts.

No your fractaly wrong if IE is so great what possible explanations do you have why millions of people spend the time and trouble installing new browsers over IE and often stick with them? The real question is why can a bunch of people can make a product for free and give it away that is Superior to a supposedly professionally produced MS product?

 

[severedsolo]

i just like firefox... i know people say tis quicker to load, but not really, its just IE does its loading AFTER opening the window, so it looks like its crashed, but FF does it before hand so your waiting 10 seconds before your window appears, but i like FF's add ons, and i just have this little nagging feeling, 60% of the worlds browsers are IE which one are people going to try and virus? (im aware im living in a false sense of security, FF is probably just as vulnerable as its almost as popular,) if you like IE use IE, i just happen to like FF so i use it, i tried Opera for a bit, quite liked it, but there are too many quirks, and when im online, i just want to find my site and get on with it, not deal with Opera occasionally throwing a paddy, (having said that IE7 did that too... i dont know about 8, all i use it for is downloading stuff from MS and installing Firefox, but Firefox has crashed on me i think... twice in a whole year, which isnt bad) and i prefer the way FF looks, i just wish it had jumplists

 

[Digerati]

No your fractaly wrong

You demonstrate the same biases but you don't even present a valid argument - in fact, you didn't present any facts. The charge was IE sucks and that it is not customizable. Well, "IE sucks" was not cute, original, or informative the first time he said it. The second time was even less so.

You justify your comments with nothing but subjectives. The "FACTS" are 100s of millions of people are very happy with IE. The FACTS are IE6 had lots of problems and FF offered an alternative that (AT THE TIME) was not targeted by bad guys and now IE8 is still fighting that stigma and FF now has the honors of more identified critical flaws for 2009. The FACTS are no product is perfect and it is those imperfections, as perceived by each individual, as well as the rhetoric they hear that entices them to seek alternatives. There is no, nor will there ever be one browser, one OS, one word processor, one CPU, one graphics engine, or one brand of pickup truck that is perfect for everyone.

And note your own statement, "and often stick with them?". Often, yes. But often too, after trying those alternatives, they discover the grass really isn't greener on the other side and they come back.

i just have this little nagging feeling, 60% of the worlds browsers are IE which one are people going to try and virus?

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.