|
|
Alright, the other thread got kinda cluttered with stuff that didn't relate to Internet Explorer, or web browsers in general, for that matter. Anyway, the IE9 Beta is now publicly available. It can be downloaded here: windows.microsoft.com/ie9?os=win7&arch=b&browser=otherI have used it and am thoroughly impressed. It's not as fast as I was hoping. It trails behind Minefield (nightly builds of Firefox 4) by around 900ms in the SunSpider benchmark, so it obviously does have a ways to go. HTML5/CSS3 support seems to be pretty solid. I can't figure out how to do text-shadows and CSS gradients with it, but I could probably learn it with a bit of research. Basic rendering of pages is also far better than before. My coding of a simple table actually looks correct in IE9beta (it was HORRIBLY wrong in IE8). Other info: Overview of some features: Neowin ArticleInfo on utilizing new features: Neowin ArticleSunspider benchmarks (my computer): Minefield x86 (9/14 build): Click hereInternet Explorer 9 x86 Beta: Click HereInternet Explorer 9 x64 Beta: Click HereNOTE: Please keep the "I hate IE!" arguments away from this thread. Judge the beta by its performance, not your general idea of Internet Explorer. Microsoft is starting to do good. Please acknowledge that.
Last Edit: Sept 16, 2010 7:44:16 GMT by Scorpian
|
|
wat
|
|
|
newfieldgrafix
Guest
|
|
Yup, that's confirmed all of my theories. MS are actively minimizing their UIs. I would like to see this as the "turn-around" browser.
I know, you've said that past IEs are exactly that, but I feel this is relevant.
I think this is where IE will change everything. Old IEs are not this.
|
|
|
|
|
IE9 x64 was about 200ms faster on my computer. IE9 x86, however, ran the test in 283ms. You shouldn't really run the test with the 64-bit version. For one, 64 bit isn't always better  . But for two, you can't compare a 32-bit piece of software to a 64-bit piece of software. Here's numbers to compare. Opera 10.62 - 222.2msIE9 x86 - 283msIE9 x64 - 1000msChrome 6.0.472.59 - 225.4msFirefox 3.6.9 - 606msSafari 4.0.5 (531.22.7) - 347.4ms
Last Edit: Sept 15, 2010 22:08:39 GMT by Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you can't compare a 32-bit piece of software to a 64-bit piece of software. Yeah, it occured to me as I was posting the results that I didn't have an x64 build of Minefield installed anymore. So those results are a little misleading. I still don't see how the results should be THAT far off though. I can understand two or three hundreed milliseconds, but nine hundred? Very interesting... Were you able to install both the x86 and x64 versions? If so, I'll just try that.
|
|
wat
|
|
|
|
|
you can't compare a 32-bit piece of software to a 64-bit piece of software. Yeah, it occured to me as I was posting the results that I didn't have an x64 build of Minefield installed anymore. So those results are a little misleading. I still don't see how the results should be THAT far off though. I can understand two or three hundreed milliseconds, but nine hundred? Very interesting... Were you able to install both the x86 and x64 versions? If so, I'll just try that. I installed the 64-bit version, but the 32-bit comes packaged with it.
|
|
|
|
|
