Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Microsoft > Internet Explorer

September 27th, 2008, 11:52 GMT · By

IE8 Performance vs. Google Chrome and Firefox

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


IE - Firefox - Chrome
Enlarge picture
With Microsoft making headway towards the gold build of Internet Explorer 8, the Redmond company has to face an ugly truth. Performance-wise, with emphasis on JavaScript performance, the software giant is getting ready to release a browser inferior to what is already available from rivals Google and Mozilla. Microsoft's aim is to make the next iteration of IE superior to what Internet Explorer 7 brought to the table back in 2006 on Windows XP and the start of 2007 on Windows Vista, and in this regard the company is on the right track. However, there is little focus on shifting Internet Explorer 8 into high gear and making it outrun Firefox 3.1 and Chrome. 

When he launched Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 back in March 2008, Dean Hachamovitch, general manager Internet Explorer, revealed that "some of the tests we have done show pure JScript performance improvements up to 2.5 times. We also measured the performance gains on common Gmail operations, like loading the inbox (34%), opening a conversation (45%) and opening a thread (27%) compared to IE7."

The fact is that, with Google and Mozilla praising the JavaScript horsepower under the hood of Chrome and respectively Firefox 3.1, Microsoft cannot afford not to make "speed of the essence," although this is exactly what the company is doing. Stephane Kimmerlin, product marketing director, Windows client business group, Asia-Pacific, Microsoft, told ZDNet at the beginning of September that "when we designed IE8, we did not start with performance in mind."

Christian Stockwell, IE program manager, said at the end of August 2008 that Microsoft would not be joining the chorus of browser developers trumpeting their product as the fastest in the universe. And believe it or not, there's a good enough reason why Microsoft is not applauding the performance superiority of IE8 over that of its rivals... because it's simply not there.

The need for (JavaScript) speed

The fact is that Microsoft has so far managed to avoid making their JavaScript benchmarks for Internet Explorer public. While Google has the V8 Benchmark Suite, the WebKit Team has SunSpider and Mozilla is offering Dromaeo, the Redmond company continues to remain loyal to its proprietary strategy with IE. In this regard, the conclusion presented by Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's community coordinator in the past, is that Microsoft is simply falling far behind the developers of open source browsers when it comes down to speed. Dotzler noted that Microsoft simply "can't keep up" with open source projects and that it's "a shame that they're falling so far behind" with IE.

Is IE8 evolving in terms of JavaScript performance? Undoubtedly. Just as undoubtedly as the fact that Google Browser (Chrome) and Firefox 3.1 have already evolved past the stage where the next version of Internet Explorer is now. Whether Microsoft likes it or not, Chrome and Firefox 3.1 are “state of the art” in terms of JavaScript performance, while IE8 is lagging behind, with no consistent push from the company to make the browser measure up to the standards of its rivals.

What did Microsoft do with IE8?

"When we took a hard look at our goals and considered what we could do to build the best browser we were presented with a quandary. On the one hand, we could focus very narrowly on scripting performance, trusting that our investment would noticeably improve our users’ browsing experience. Alternatively, we could invest more broadly in realistic scenarios, measuring heavily-used subsystems and investing our optimization effort accordingly. We opted for the latter approach," Stockwell explained.

In translation, Microsoft abandoned the idea of focusing on boosting JScript and JScript alone and went a different way, namely optimizing the browser for top usage scenarios. But in this context, Microsoft has left itself wide opened to a perception problem. And make no mistake about it; just as it was the case with Windows Vista, while poor performance is survivable, the generalized consumer perception of poor performance however acts as a deal breaker.

Firefox 3.1 TraceMonkey

For Firefox 3.1, the successor of Firefox 3.0 and the next iteration of its open source browser, Mozilla introduced native code compilation JavaScript engine ("SpiderMonkey"). Just make sure to remember the key phrase “native code compilation." This created TraceMonkey. It's rather simple; Mozilla is cutting down significantly on the interpreting aspect and is increasing the focus on native code. The next generation JavaScript implementation in Firefox 3.1 uses a trace as the compilation unit.

By turning to traces in order to compile JScript "just-in-time" and renouncing to utilize functions or code files, Mozilla ensures that the JavaScript engine performs less interpreting and executes JS applications directly in native code. The raw beauty of the new "trace trees" technique and tricks that evolved SpiderMonkey into TraceMonkey is the loop optimizations made possible by the trace (sequence of instructions) for patch executed repeatedly which are no longer interpreted. Mike Shaver, Mozilla's chief evangelist pointed out that Firefox 3.1 is competing directly against native code.

Google Browser Chrome V8

Remember the "native code compilation" key phrase for Firefox 3.1 and TraceMonkey? Guess what?! The same is valid for Google Chrome. In fact, Lars Bak, software engineer, revealed on the launch of Chrome that one of the cornerstones of the browser was the fact that its JavaScript engine was capable to compile source code directly into "native machine code." In this context, while Firefox 3.1 still performs some interpreting in addition to using traces, Chrome has no interpreter; compilation is done directly in native code. In addition, deploying virtualization and turning to "hidden classes and inline caches," Chrome delivers additional optimization, as the dynamic hidden classes streamline access to JavaScript objects.

Swimming in Native Code

This is what Microsoft needs to make Internet Explorer do, although it looks like it's already too late for IE8 with a reported Release to Web deadline set for November 2008. Microsoft's Christian Stockwell touted Jscript performance gains of 400% with IE8 compared with IE7 as far as the SunSpider benchmarking suite is concerned. The Redmond giant did introduce optimizations when it comes down to JavaScript-DOM and JavaScript Object Notation. But at the same time, while the company too should have focused on native code, it didn't.

Microsoft has indeed worked on IE8 performance, from runtime to memory optimization, but also on taking the AJAX subsystems a step forward, and the actual evolution of the existing JavaScrip engine of the browser. However, this does not change the fact that Internet Explorer needs a native code compiler so as to at least keep the same pace as its rivals.

Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2 is available for download here.

Google Chrome is available for download here.

Firefox 3.1 Alpha 2 for Windows is available for download here.
Firefox 3.1 Alpha 2 for Linux is available for download here.
Firefox 3.1 Alpha 2 for Mac OS X is available for download here

 
What's New for JScript in IE8?

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

62,892 hits · 41 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Internet Explorer 8 Application Compatibility

Tweak and Customize IE8 Beta 2 (Even the Localized Versions)

Building Firefox 3.1 Beta 1, 3.0.2, 2.0.0.17

Download IE8 Beta 2 Wave 2 for Vista SP1 and XP SP3

IE8 Beta 2 Search Enhancements

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Heathen on 27 Sep 2008, 14:10 UTC reply to this comment

Why have you always neglected Opera browser in your comparative reviews and still is doing it???
Opera is an advanced software and standard establisher among browsers, so why not include it in Softpedia reviews?
Is it anti-Opera conspiracy???


Comment #2 by: Sebastian on 27 Sep 2008, 16:42 UTC reply to this comment

I have to agree with Heathen, Opera was and still is trendsetter in the industry, many of the features we see in Firefox, IE... and now Chrome come from Opera.

I've always used Opera, and for the experienced users this is the mother of all browsers...


Comment #3 by: me on 27 Sep 2008, 17:20 UTC reply to this comment

You (nr -Softpedia) included Google Chrome in this review and left out Opera & Safari... How much is Google paying Sofptedia for this review? :>


Comment #4 by: e-t-c on 27 Sep 2008, 18:19 UTC reply to this comment

This browsers are O.K. - for the "mass processing"

"Real People" can use OPERA ... ;)


Comment #5 by: b727plane on 27 Sep 2008, 18:53 UTC reply to this comment

I also ave to agree about including Opera reviews. I have used it for many years on both on Windows and now Linux. I get all my email, IM's and do most of my browsing there also. You should include it in your reviews to be fair and open.


Comment #6 by: mayajaal0077 on 27 Sep 2008, 19:23 UTC reply to this comment

yes i am agree with you,opera is the best browser


Comment #7 by: Mayajaal0077 on 27 Sep 2008, 19:32 UTC reply to this comment

yes, I am agree with Heathen. Opera is the best browser. ther are many
resons. It's give us better performance.it's very easy to use. and i am already using opera since two yeas.


Comment #8 by: Stefan on 27 Sep 2008, 21:31 UTC reply to this comment

I cannot believe Opera is not included in the article. Opera has come up first with many features the big browsers advertise, like having the address bar inside the tab as opposed to Firefox, speed-dial = the clickable visual bookmarks on an empty page etc.

Moreover, Opera participates heavily in defining the web standards at W3C so it is that more important a browser.

I cannot believe the journalists are so badly informed.


Comment #9 by: M.M. on 27 Sep 2008, 22:59 UTC reply to this comment

Me: Opera is virtually non-existent (less than 0.5% of the market, and Safari is native to the Apple Mac OS, this review is intended for those using the Windows platform which are dominant figureheads in their industry /OR/ with revolutionizing JavaScript capabilities i.e. Google Chrome.


Comment #10 by: mr. Q analyzer on 27 Sep 2008, 23:40 UTC reply to this comment

i dont care with those 3 weak browsers competiting them self... OPERA is the best among the rest.


Comment #11 by: RK on 28 Sep 2008, 02:46 UTC reply to this comment

Google chrome is best web browser than ever also opera is the best for it


Comment #12 by: Joe on 28 Sep 2008, 03:46 UTC reply to this comment

I was expecting to see data but instead this is just a bunch of opinion. If you're going to title an article along the lines of "{foo} versus {bar} performance" you should have data to back things up. (Not data from external quotes.)

PS
Opera kicks ass. :)


Comment #13 by: bt on 28 Sep 2008, 04:19 UTC reply to this comment

I agree with the above posters, to eliminate Opera makes this article look very shortsighted.


Comment #14 by: budmaster11 on 28 Sep 2008, 04:29 UTC reply to this comment

Sound more like an IE8 bash then an actual browser review. Where are the benchmark results? I like firefox the best (although biased as I have not tried chrome or opera) but you should at least show some non-biasedness when reviewing.


Comment #15 by: 956 on 28 Sep 2008, 04:54 UTC reply to this comment

This is why IE sucks, and Microsoft is going down,,,


Comment #16 by: JM on 28 Sep 2008, 04:57 UTC reply to this comment

Safari was touted as being so great, but when I used it, it was bottoms on my list. Doesn't even rate comparison. I hate Microsoft IE, but would use it any day before Safari...


Comment #17 by: Forrest on 28 Sep 2008, 05:35 UTC reply to this comment

Why is that video using Sliverlight? I sure would love to watch the video but Microsoft decided not to implement Silverlight for Linux.


Comment #18 by: Mereo on 28 Sep 2008, 05:46 UTC reply to this comment

I agree with the other posters, why didn't you include the well established Opera in this article?!


Comment #19 by: Frank on 28 Sep 2008, 06:58 UTC reply to this comment

Opera is a great browser, but let's face the truth: almost nobody uses it, except on mobile phones.


Comment #20 by: Eugene on 28 Sep 2008, 07:05 UTC reply to this comment

Nice summary of the stuff I have read on the net but where are the numbers? Its easy to gather a few snippets of info from all over the place though, for a really good article you have to get the alphas and the betas (and Opera, and Safari - I read latest Safari WebKit build passes acid3 100%) , download sunspider, run acid3, and tell us what YOU have found.


Comment #21 by: too on 28 Sep 2008, 09:49 UTC reply to this comment

As previous posters said, excluding Opera from performance review (because this was not a benchmark) is undiscussably a mistake and reviewer's misinfromation about http(s) protocol implementations and history in general.
I wish you to forget what you've just read including this comment and go on.


Comment #22 by: suppaibeg on 28 Sep 2008, 10:03 UTC reply to this comment

@M.M
You might want to educate yourself on Safari then, or at least the Webkit engine that powers it.

#1 Safari is available for Windows, I believe it has been for over a year at this point actually.

#2 The latest builds of Webkit do have significant Javascript performance increases, better than those in Chrome's V8 and Mozilla's Tracemonkey.

Also note that Chrome runs on the Webkit engine as well, but Google has implemented their own Javascript engine separate from Safari/Webkit's Squirelfish engine.

http://webkit.org/blog/

http://www.satine.org/archives/2008/09/19/squirrelfish-extreme-fastest-javascript-engine-yet/


Comment #23 by: unu on 28 Sep 2008, 11:08 UTC reply to this comment

Opera is by far the best browser, no other browser can match the performance and usability of Opera. Yes, very few use it, I think because of its crappy name and lack of agressive marketing...


Comment #24 by: Jeff Little on 28 Sep 2008, 11:36 UTC reply to this comment

Get over it guys, Opera has such a small percentage of the Market no one but a few wackos cares about it.... Next your going to tell me how great Linux and Ogg Vorbis is..


Comment #25 by: airtonix on 28 Sep 2008, 11:47 UTC reply to this comment

Bash ie8 extole the virtues of firefox then provide a video in silverlight....

I lol'd.


Comment #26 by: CySailor on 28 Sep 2008, 12:48 UTC reply to this comment

Comparing IE8 and Chrome to Firefox and Opera is apples to oranges. Bothe IE8 and Chrome have gone with a processor per tab architecture while Firefox, Opera and Safari for that matter are still running thread per tab.


Comment #27 by: vahid on 28 Sep 2008, 13:49 UTC reply to this comment

i use at 3 browser.IE , google chrome , firefox. but firefox is better


Comment #28 by: Jorge on 28 Sep 2008, 14:34 UTC reply to this comment

@Jeff Little: Solid troll attempt, but Linux users don't need to feel like the underdogs anymore. Keep it up though, some Linux users still live in 1999 and you might still successfully bait them.


Comment #29 by: Kasiman Peranginangin on 28 Sep 2008, 23:19 UTC reply to this comment

Opera not only best browser but Safari is smart.


Comment #30 by: Andy on 29 Sep 2008, 01:06 UTC reply to this comment

@Jeff

If being a "wacko" Opera user continues to provide the smoothest,safest surfing experience then I'll leave the malware drive-by and browser hijacks to you "sane" folks thanks.

As many have said it's a shameful omission not including Opera in this kind of comparison.


Comment #31 by: Mike on 29 Sep 2008, 04:51 UTC reply to this comment

I totally agree that Opera is the em all and dont even get me started on Chrome. I thought it was going to be so hot, alotta hype was more like it. I used opera and it has so much options and is very easy to manuever around in. Face it this article was bought before it was even written..


Comment #32 by: Sakthivel on 29 Sep 2008, 07:30 UTC reply to this comment

I feel that you should do justice by comaring side by side all the browsers available viz IE 8 / Firefox / Opera / Chrome / Safari. Kindly include it in your future comparisons


Comment #33 by: jon on 29 Sep 2008, 11:56 UTC reply to this comment

I don't get why IE should have focused on native JS execution. You say that they should have done but don't say how IE8 actually performs compared with FF or Chrome. If MS have focused on actual usage scenarios rather than benchmark performance maybe we should try and verify their claims before deciding that they looked at the wrong thing. I personally use FF but I understand that there are lots of different ways of looking at performance. The most important one for me is how long it takes to open a page not how fast a benchmark says it performs.


Comment #34 by: Cerin on 03 Oct 2008, 03:12 UTC reply to this comment

Can anyone point out something Opera does that Firefox doesn't? Does Opera have Flash and Ad-Block extensions? Is Opera open source and extensible?


Comment #35 by: dvx on 10 Oct 2008, 12:55 UTC reply to this comment

Would all the opera fan boys calm down?

Sure, its a decent browser and has produced many innovative features over the years, but in terms of performance it has long been surpassed by other browser's.

FF3 and chrome both outperform opera in javascript and actual page load time, and builds of FF3 3.1 with jit implementation and the safari nightly's make Opera irrelevant in performance arguments.

Now, that doesnt mean Opera won't make future builds competitive in terms of performance - it just means that no one is bothered about it now since the opera development team dont talk about future speed enhancements.

So I'm sorry to say this, but Opera deserves to be left out of the article - the days of it being the fastest are long gone.


Comment #36 by: shawn on 02 Nov 2008, 15:33 UTC reply to this comment

I toally agree that the Google can not have any good application, such as Chrome, Gtalk, except Google search.

Google is just a brand for searching application, and nothing.


Comment #37 by: evelyn on 06 Nov 2008, 02:35 UTC reply to this comment

I downloaded Google Chrome expecting a fantastic program, I personally think it is a load of garbage


Comment #38 by: me on 03 Dec 2008, 16:40 UTC reply to this comment

IE 8 is horrible. It is the worst browser out of the mix. Beta 2 is Alpha quality at best. It takes 6 seconds to load an empty tab. Even worse is the search box. If you enable Live Search, it will lock up for about a second for each letter you type.

Standards mode is another horrible thing. Sites that rendor fine in Chome and Firefox rendor incorrectly in IE until you click the compat mode button. End users will have no idea why this is happening.

I like the Google Browser the most. The UI is bare bones but it is the fastest out of the bunch by a long shot. Also, this browser has never crashed on my PC. Flash and Silverlight performance is also amazing. Silverlight runs better on Chrome then any other browser I have tested.

Firefox was great upto the 3.1 release. I have found that lately it has gotten buggy. Also the startup time sucks. It takes 30 seconds to load on my laptop. Much of it can be blamed on bad add-ins but since Firefox does not give any guidance for consumers on the quality of the add-ins, it is difficult to predict what side effects an add-in will cause. My biggest problem with Firefox has been the large number of crashes.

If you compare Chrome to Safari which are both based on webkit, I think that Chrome is still the winner.


Comment #39 by: tw on 25 Oct 2009, 21:06 UTC reply to this comment

"Can anyone point out something Opera does that Firefox doesn't? Does Opera have Flash
and Ad-Block extensions? "

Right click "Block Content". Its built in.
Opera has also had lots of its main features before firefor. (Speed Dial being the most obvious recent one). Inbuilt torrenting is something else obvious it does different.
Oh, and inbuilt sever (Opera unite).
Oh, and the ability to not just view but edit the source code of any site directly. Very usefull when experimenting with table layouts.

"Is Opera open source and extensible?"

Is IE? Is Safari?

Excluding opera -is- stupid as its proformance is light-years beyond IE.

Sure, FF has some things over it...Firebug alone makes FF essential for any developer.
But Opera has been leading the others in terms of features and CSS support for quite awhile.
FF has recently catched up a lot, but thats no reason that Opera should be excluded.

And neither is low market share.
Reviews and features should be what people use to pick a browser, not what other people have.


Comment #40 by: The Net is just another Web on 05 Mar 2010, 13:24 UTC reply to this comment

A significant section of the community is just caught up in all the bells and whistles. Those are not the primary competition parameters for browsers. There is a reason for the words - minimalistic but effective - and there is Chrome!


Comment #41 by: RiskBase on 06 Jul 2011, 11:12 UTC reply to this comment

We've been testing our web-app (HTML 5 / JS) on various browsers. At the moment Chrome is shocking and basically unusable on tablets running newer Atom processors. Safari runs it very smoothly - even though we're using Windows as the OS. Unfortunately Opera isn't Webkit so we can't try on that.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM