Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IE10: How does it really stack up?

lucidchart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#21

Post by bornhuetter »

monsterix wrote: post #6

Well, let's agree that IE10 does well whatever it is designed to do well. Cool. Now what? We have an IE10 browser that compares well with Google Chrome, Opera and perhaps Firefox too (I don't know the exact details about your tests that were making Firefox crash as often as you've claimed in your article). So is this the point where Microsoft takes on the real challenge? Will it go beyond its typical high-speed sales…

How do you suggest Microsoft goes about convincing the millions of East Asian users running IE6 on a pirated version of XP to upgrade to IE10?

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#22

Post by carlosreyes »

bendilts wrote: post #10
ck2 wrote: post #2

We gathered timing information for the parts of the benchmark that it did complete Which parts didn't complete? Did you try the beta or aurora? Code that can consistently crash firefox would probably be elgible for a security bounty.

Interestingly, the part that crashed Firefox was one of the simpler tests--typing a bunch of text content in, then resizing and rotating the shapes that contain that text. Firefox didn't give any details as to why it crashed. The only thing I could even measure that would lead to a crash is memory usage. I just re-ran the test and watched the process's memory usage. It hovered in the 300-400MB range during the first…

Why not remove the part of the test that crashed it and post results of the rest of the benchmarks? Those are 3 tests out of 16, I would still like to see how it compares in the other benchmark tests.

Seeing "We're sorry. Firefox had a problem and crashed." as well as its exclusion from the performance summary made it feel like there was a bit of a bias against Firefox, where even in your conclusion it's stated that it performs "quite well" - that sentence does not reflect on the rest of the article at all.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#23

Post by ck2 »

bendilts wrote: post #10
ck2 wrote: post #2

We gathered timing information for the parts of the benchmark that it did complete Which parts didn't complete? Did you try the beta or aurora? Code that can consistently crash firefox would probably be elgible for a security bounty.

Interestingly, the part that crashed Firefox was one of the simpler tests--typing a bunch of text content in, then resizing and rotating the shapes that contain that text. Firefox didn't give any details as to why it crashed. The only thing I could even measure that would lead to a crash is memory usage. I just re-ran the test and watched the process's memory usage. It hovered in the 300-400MB range during the first…

resizing and rotating the shapes that contain that text

Maybe it was hardware acceleration in the particular machine with the particular video driver you use?

Can you try the test on an entirely different video setup just to prove it can get through, even if the numbers cannot be compared?

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#24

Post by eliza1wright »

monsterix wrote: post #6

Well, let's agree that IE10 does well whatever it is designed to do well. Cool. Now what? We have an IE10 browser that compares well with Google Chrome, Opera and perhaps Firefox too (I don't know the exact details about your tests that were making Firefox crash as often as you've claimed in your article). So is this the point where Microsoft takes on the real challenge? Will it go beyond its typical high-speed sales…

I think part of the problem is that IE is the browser of choice for the Dept. of Defense. If you've ever worked for the DoD, you know that updates, etc. take forever because of security concerns. I wonder if that relationship informs IE's decision to hold back on their browser capabilities.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#25

Post by pbhjpbhj »

olliesaunders wrote: post #19

Opera used to market itself almost exclusively on how it was faster than any other comparable browser. I just had a look on the Opera website and now it says "Faster & Safer internet" yet it performed worst on this test. As the underdog in the browser market, despite being what has always seemed to me as a pretty nice piece of software, I feel a bit sorry for them. I hope they can do whatever it takes to catch up wit…

>a look on the Opera website and now it says "Faster & Safer internet" yet it performed worst on this test. //

Which page were you on, the front page of the website doesn't say that to me?

My first instinct would be that they're referring to their "turbo" implementation and their large mobile install base, cf http://www.opera.com/browser/turbo/.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#26

Post by thumperama »

bendilts wrote: post #16
emehrkay wrote: post #15

Were all of these tests done on a Windows8 machine? I only ask because the latest version of Safari isnt available for Windows (you may be able to install WebKit nightly as a Windows user though). Id like to see how nightly build of browsers stack up as well.

That's right, these were all done on a Windows 8 machine. We could of course test on Safari 6 on a Mac, but then the numbers wouldn't be directly comparable (since it's different hardware).

The same version of Chrome across both platforms can be a control proxy.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#27

Post by pbhjpbhj »

simonster wrote: post #9

This should really be titled "IE10: How does it really stack up in one benchmark."

Not just one benchmark, but one apparently completely undocumented benchmark run under Windows 8 on a single laptop.

They don't mention how many times the benchmark ran which makes me suspicious that the answer might be one??

Unless they release the benchmarking tool then this result seems pretty worthless to me.

>we’ve developed a benchmark that runs inside of the Lucidchart diagramming application //

So maybe that line for Firefox could as well read "Lucidchart crashed"?

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#28

Post by olliesaunders »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #25
olliesaunders wrote: post #19

Opera used to market itself almost exclusively on how it was faster than any other comparable browser. I just had a look on the Opera website and now it says "Faster & Safer internet" yet it performed worst on this test. As the underdog in the browser market, despite being what has always seemed to me as a pretty nice piece of software, I feel a bit sorry for them. I hope they can do whatever it takes to catch up wit…

> a look on the Opera website and now it says "Faster & Safer internet" yet it performed worst on this test. // Which page were you on, the front page of the website doesn't say that to me? My first instinct would be that they're referring to their "turbo" implementation and their large mobile install base, cf http://www.opera.com/browser/turbo/ .

> Which page were you on, the front page of the website doesn't say that to me?

It's the contents of the tag so it displays on the title bar of the browser you are using to read it with and in the tab if you are using a browser with tabs.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#29

Post by ZeroGravitas »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #13

The real problem is that while there will be a new and better Chrome and in a month and a half, and similar for Firefox, we'll have this build of IE10 for 2 years or maybe more. How they compare at the start of the cycle is not typical, how they compare at the midpoint will be more average, how they compare at the end (where IE7 or IE8 is now) is the worst case.

Yeah, at first I thought, that's impressive that they can catch up so far, even if they fall back again. But then I thought about how much further ahead Firefox and Chrome would be if they'd effectively abandoned their users a couple of years ago and hid in some research lab to plan the next big version. That's a whole lot less testing, bug-fixing, releasing and reworking etc.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#30

Post by mtgx »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #13

The real problem is that while there will be a new and better Chrome and in a month and a half, and similar for Firefox, we'll have this build of IE10 for 2 years or maybe more. How they compare at the start of the cycle is not typical, how they compare at the midpoint will be more average, how they compare at the end (where IE7 or IE8 is now) is the worst case.

Completely agree. IE10 can't even beat Chrome when it's launching once every 2 years. This means Chrome will simply expand the performance gap during this 2 year period.

Now if only Chrome for Android had version/feature parity with Chrome for desktop, because it's a full 5 versions behind right now - and it shows. It's not even competitive anymore on mobile because of this huge development gap. Google needs to take Chrome for Android as seriously as they take Chrome for desktop, if not more so.

Post reply on HN