RSSInternet Explorer slows down again: Is Microsoft messing up IE's JavaScript?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 3, 2009, 12:39 PM
Over the last several weeks, but especially with the last round of Patch Tuesday updates, we've been noticing a severely downward trend in Microsoft's Internet Explorer performance -- a trend we were able to confirm in our most recent tests. It seems that with each security update, IE8's performance was cut in half.
This morning, Microsoft issued what its engineers describe (though without using the term directly) as a bug fix for one of last Tuesday's updates: a patch that addresses two newly discovered issues. One of those issues is a type mismatch error that would appear to become a potential security threat. If it's not a threat yet, then it could at least partly explain some of the severe performance issues we'd been seeing in recent days -- or at least so we thought.
This morning's support bulletin from Microsoft links to a patch for the patch, which Microsoft warns should not be applied unless the first patch has already been installed. This may be one reason why the new fix is not yet available on Microsoft Update and must be applied manually. We verified that the original 974455 patch was installed before applying patch 976749, and we hoped to see some verification of our theory that something bad was going on and that Microsoft was remedying it.
But the remedy may be worse than the problem, at least from a performance standpoint. After applying Microsoft's latest fix, we were shocked to find that IE8 performance on Windows 7 was only marginally faster overall than the performance of IE7 -- by most accounts, the slowest browser ever made -- on Windows Vista -- by most accounts, one of the slower platforms Microsoft ever produced (relative to the speed of hardware, Windows Me was probably slower). However, this was before we applied the new fix to IE7 on Vista -- yes, there are versions of the fix that go all the way back to IE 5.01.
Compared to the unpatched IE7 on Vista SP2, IE8 on Windows 7 was only 8% faster at rendering complex pages using DOM, 78% faster at rendering a non-CSS Web page ordinary HTML (at one time it was better than triple IE7's speed here), and 28% faster at managing complex page elements using JavaScript libraries and CSS selectors. The patched IE8 on Windows 7 was also 2% slower at rendering large tables, and 31% slower at rendering simple geometry.
In all, performance from Internet Explorer 8 on Windows 7 was 42% slower after applying the bug fix, than before the fix just last Friday. This estimate was made using Betanews' Comprehensive Relative Performance Index benchmark collection, which rates 69 different data points with respect to IE7 on Vista, which we use as our index browser.
Windows XP SP3 should be the fastest of Microsoft's three most recent Windows platforms, due mainly to the fact that the many additions that have greatly improved Windows security since the XP era did come with a speed cost. But our tests this morning after applying the 976749 patch showed IE8 was only 2% faster than IE7 on Vista SP2 at rendering pages using DOM, 48% faster in executing classic benchmark algorithmic tests, and 28% faster in executing common JavaScript instructions and methods. But it proved to be 26% slower at rendering simple geometry, and 16% slower at generating and manipulating large HTML tables.
Betanews tests show IE8 performance on Windows XP SP3 to be 38% slower after the bug fix was applied, than before.
Vista, ironically, was the least suffering platform of the three, with overall IE8 performance slipping only 15% after the bug fix was applied. In fact, many of IE8's best scores now show up on Vista rather than Windows 7. If we were to omit the bug patch for IE7, IE8 on Vista would score a 1.20 in our tests versus 1.17 on Win7. And our overall CRPI score, taking all three platforms into account, would be a 1.17 for IE8 today versus a 1.54 just last Friday -- a decline of nearly 25%.
However, we now expect that the same bug fix applied to IE7 to slow that browser down as well. As a result, our final adjusted scores may turn out somewhat similar to last week's since IE7 is our index browser -- they wouldn't reflect the degree to which IE7 slowed down. But the numbers for all the major independent browsers -- Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera -- would probably rise. At least that's our expectation, and we'll be testing that theory next.
2:15 pm EST November 3, 2009 · As we suspected, Internet Explorer 7 performance is now somewhat lower as a result of implementing Microsoft's bug fix published today. But the performance gap between IE7 and IE8 was not restored by as much as we expected:
Prior to the bug fix, we measured the performance gap at about 17% overall. With the fix in place and with IE7 slowed down even more, the gap is now 35%. Vista is now the fastest platform for IE7, but not by much: about 2% over Windows 7, which is itself about 2% over Windows XP. It's completely counter-intuitive, but it's the new reality.
The other new reality is that the CRPI scores for all the other browsers scale up. They didn't all get faster all of a sudden; and the proportions between them remain the same. When you're figuring out which one is faster than the other, that's most important. But now Mozilla Firefox 3.6 Beta 1 posts a CRPI score above 15, at 15.02, whereas it was only 11.73 relative to IE7 in Vista just last Friday. Meanwhile, Google Chrome 3's score rises to a 26.48, again in proportion with the rest of the field.
Compared to the 13-inch MacBook Pro ( Macworld rated 4.5 out of 5 mice ) with the same 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo processor, the results were mixed. Many of the tests were very close, with the MacBook's Photoshop, Cinebench, iTunes, and Parallels test times coming within a second or two of the 13-inch MacBook Pro
http://www.bestlaptopbat.../dell/inspiron-630m.htm
http://www.bestlaptopbat.../dell/inspiron-640m.htm
Score: 0
|So...
1) MS reduces security risks in JS
2) The difference between JS in IE8 and JS in the fastest browser is less than a human can perceive.
3) Firefox releases a mass patch of security fixes and has real internet threats, including JS issues.
4) You use arbitrary tests, that are not even fully based on performance.
5) Even the makers of some of the tests you use petition you to STOP using them, as they are bad and not reflective of real performance.
And still you have the nerve to make an issue out of this? Really?
How about noting IE8 runs in protected mode on Vista and Win7, and is significantly more secure than Firefox, and actually do your readers a service instead of curtailing to their 'beliefs' that Firefox solves their problems, when it right now is the most insecure browser on any platform? Yes these are FACTS, you should be noting and SHARING with readers.
I can understand some concern that MS's quick updates/fixes are reducing performance, but I imagine the engineers at Microsoft probably understand this more than you and have some significant reasons for the reduction in performance, especially if it is for security reasons.
Score: 5
|Less than humans can perceive...in individual instances. Milliseconds multiply -- they add up to minutes, which add up to hours. You can improve overall efficiency tremendously by tuning up in units of milliseconds.
-SF3
Score: -2
|Cant we use any other way of scoring rather than this?? Like find out how fast a browser is in particular aspect(in % or times) , and then find mean of all the results. For eg , chrome is 10% faster in JS than Safari , and 20% in DOM , so it is 15% faster ... Though u will have to do lot of calculations , but we will get a better result :)
Score: 0
|Well...we do. We periodically provide categorical breakdowns. And yes, I have to do a lot of calculations -- 69 for each browser on each platform. So that's why I can't provide the full breakdown every day.
But when we started this series with categorical breakdowns, many of the comments I received were, "Can't you _please_ boil it down to one number because this is too confusing?" Thus the CRPI number.
-SF3
Score: -1
|Well i believe its time to move on....
seeing the results for the other NON IE browsers
it might just be the right time to consider IE 8 as the slowest and then compare the others
otherwise the charts may seem to get out of control...
FIREFOX on 15 now if i remember well a month ago it was just trying to reach 10 and with a .4 - .5 increase a week it seemed like it would take a lot of time to reach 10 but now it going on a pretty 15.
May god bless IE 7
Score: 0
|siryak "I switched to FF a LONG time ago."
Well a big thank you for sharing that riveting bit of news with the forum.
gawd21 "In W7 Pro 64bit IE 8 is nothing but junk. Most pages won't load right and have mad errors."
Works fine on my machine,your comments suggest it's your computer that's not up to the job, not Windows 7 which is awesome.
bigsexy022870 "ENOUGH ALREADY!"
Lovin' your use of capitals, certainly caught my eye. Your posts always have that little something extra I find, probably the capitals. Will you be using capitals again for your next offering ?
Opera rocks bro.
Score: 0
|Yeah, it's my computer alright... What a moron. I have seen this on every install of W7 64 bit.
Score: -5
|Suer you have...that's why there's this huge groundswell of trolling about how badly MS messed up IE8 in Win7...
...oh wait...there isn't. Amazing, isn't it?
Score: 2
|Not mine you ain't.
Score: 0
|I switched to FF as it is more platform independent, but I am pretty sure the boys at MS will get it right sooner rather than later. Nobody likes to be last!
It is a bit of a stab that chrome is +- 20 times faster.....this is not a small difference in anybody's book.
Score: -1
|Meh...I haven't used IE in years. I switched to FF a LONG time ago.
Score: -1
|In W7 Pro 64bit IE 8 is nothing but junk. Most pages won't load right and have mad errors. They load fine in FF, and faster.
Score: -2
|Funny. I've had *zero* problems with both the 32bit and 64bit versions of IE8 included in Win7...
My anecdote cancels yours. Your move.
Score: 1
|For the average stupid Windows user, using IE8 is akin to playing Russian roulette.
Score: -2
|Internet Explorer is dead... move on.
Score: -1
|You've got that reality-denial filter working flawlessly! Please tell us how you got it working so well!
Score: 1
|WHO CARES ABOUT THIS TOPIC. IT SEEMS WE GET A UPDATE EVERY DAY ON THIS FROM BETANEWS. ENOUGH ALREADY!
Score: -1
|So...who's got the gun to your head? Seriously...
Score: 2
|YAWN!!!
Score: 1
|Oh my god the world is going to come to end cos of the 0.1 seconds i just lost opening this page!
Real world check - a few milliseconds difference in rendering the webpage doesn't make a heap of difference to most peeople. Most people use IE because it comes with their copy of Windows and don't care about other browsers unless there is a real 'woo hoo' feature that an alternative to IE has under it's belt.
Score: 9
|Real world check from the real world: Internet Explorer is the default platform for Web applications intended to run on Windows. Thus it is the applications platform for a great part of the world. Someone just reached into that platform this morning and made it one-third slower.
If somebody reached into your computer and made it slower overnight, I would hope you would complain about that. Oh wait...Someone did. And it's not the end of the world for you, I guess. Your car gets 35% worse gas mileage overnight. Who cares, it's not the end of the world. Your light bulbs burn out 35% sooner. Big deal, the hardware store is down the street. Your Froot Loops box comes to you 35% emptier. So what, it just means you buy six instead of four.
I live and work with most people -- the most people who give a damn. And the sad news is, your not giving a damn doesn't really make a hell of a lot of difference to them. Ignorance is a choice, not a condition.
-SF3
Score: -3
|I adore your bad analogies.
What it's actually like is a boat with a hole.
Essentially, what this update has done is trade speed for a plug for the hole.
Which would you rather? Die after 30 seconds of attempting to cross the ocean at breakneck speed (which of course it wasn't in the first place), or actually reach the other side one day?
Score: 2
|Now _that's_ more like it. When viewed in that light, I can always side for "safer" rather than "dangerous;" and on that note, there's a case to be made for patching type mismatch problems as soon as possible. But now we have to face the consequences: There's a huge architectural problem that underlies this patch, having to do with the bigger Type Mismatch problem explained at the last Black Hat conference. And there's more of these Type Mismatch problems to patch -- places where the use of variants in interfaces between components can lead to exploitable deficiencies.
The big solution to this problem, if there is to be one, is going to have to be something called IE9.
-SF3
Score: 2
|RE: Reality Check
Well said Scott. I don't know whether it's ignorance or blind allegiance to the mother ship. A quick look at the scores shows the voters are more afflicted than the commenters.
Score: -1
|RE: Boat Analogy
I would sell my wood boat that leaks at the joints, and buy a new fiberglass boat that was safer, more reliable, and faster. If I was nostalgic, I'd keep the wood boat for the 4th of July parade around the lake.
IE8 was supposed to be the big solution. It didn't quite make it. It still the least compatible of all the leading browsers. Compatibility mode is a hack that failed to address the real problem; what are we going to do for the IE6 users? XP Mode is a very expensive solution to that problem.
Score: -2
|"what are we going to do for the IE6 users?"
Um...nothing? IE6 is ancient. No OS has shipped with IE6 in 8 years.
I understand a lot of people still use it. Perhaps Microsoft *should* force the "upgrade".
Score: 0
|That's the problem Tool. The corporate world invested heavily in IE6. Now they are running out of options. Web developers would love Microsoft to force an upgrade. The corporate world response is, OK, we'll stay on XP. Microsoft should never have included XP Mode in Windows 7. IE6 is the most popular browser in the world. Scary thought, isn't it?
Score: 1
|"IE6 is the most popular browser in the world. Scary thought, isn't it?"
Scary thought, but wholly untrue.
Firefox just surpassed IE6.
http://arstechnica.com/m...-finally-passes-ie6.ars
And while I don't doubt some will use XPM for IE6, I highly doubt it will be the case for the majority of corporations.
Score: 0
|Reread the article Tool. All Firefox versions combined passed IE6, but IE6 is the biggest piece of the pie. IE6 is 23%, IE7 and IE8 have 18% each, Firefox 3.5 has 14%, Firefox 3.0 has 9%. http://marketshare.hitsl...rket-share.aspx?qprid=2 is the source of the information. It's interesting how Ars Technica specfic data shows a much smaller use of IE. Even Safari is more widely used than IE. I have seen other technical sites with data quite similar to this. People in the know don't use IE unless they have to.
Score: 0
|Here's some data that will back up your claim:
http://gs.statcounter.co...ww-weekly-200935-200944
Score: 0
|Meh... I saw it on Ars. Thought it would spice things up a bit.
Regardless of it's veracity, I really do not think IE6 is long for this world at this point. I can only hope that I am correct, and I really don't care how it happens....
Score: 0
|The only reason I still use Internet Explorer 6 is because my company still has some ActiveX components incompatible with any other new version.
I concur with many people as for upgrading their Web browsers, and while I personally use Firefox and Internet Explorer 8, the thing is, for example, for companies like mine, there is NO reason to upgrade. Not only don't we have any incoming connections from Internet that could breach our security, but we'd have to upgrade our own software, which economically speaking, it's plain unnecessary.
Score: 0
|Word up.
Score: 0
|@ InfoDave:
http://statowl.com/web_b...ra&limit[]=netscape
Score: 0
|I disabled the 'Java 2 SSV Helper' plugin and IE is faster than before. Tabs open much faster and overall I can notice a performance gain.
Score: 6
|Microsoft does this to themselves about twice a year. Usually means they've found a major hole that they don't want to publicize (which is smart) and their putting out some rough and unoptimized code to fill the gap. Give em' a couple weeks, they'll straighten it out..probably roll it into the next major updates for IE 7/8.
Score: 1
|IE8 is for suckers
Score: -4
|IE8 works great for what I use it for. Firefox works decently for what I use it for. Chrome works great for what I use it for.
People who use what works best in the situations in which they work best are suckers now, eh?
Score: 0
|@PC-Tool
Actually, I'd be interested to learn about the three "what I use it for" reasons for which you make the decision to use each of those browsers. Just interested to hear about the strengths & benefits from your POV.
Thanks ;)
Score: 1
|"IE8 is for suckers"
No... IE6 is for suckers. Internet Explorer 8 is for anyone who actually gives a crap about what Microsoft has done to correct numerous problems and address years of criticism with regards to web browser security.
Score: 3
|@ Straspey:
He doesn't like giving one browser preferential treatment over the others. He's afraid one browser's going to get jealous. =)
Score: 0
|@PC_Tool. Geeez dude will you relax! It's for suckers, meaning if sucks compare to the competition shown in the chart.
Score: -3
|@Straspey:
Firefox: Sites that must be reloaded often and that I visit frequently. Good for daily browsing. Updates annoy the hell out of me.. All other browsers update in the background...why can't Firefox?
IE: Vendor sites and occasional "real" news sites. Every other browser seems to implement field-tabbing horribly by comparison. Neither FF or Chrome will tab through our vendor site's entry fields properly. I don't really care why as I have no say in how they design their sites.
Chrome: Pandora (paid). Really, that's it. It sits in the lower right of Monitor #2 all day and doesn't pester me or annoy me. Can't use it for daily browsing because of the almost complete lack of community developer support for extensions and Google's inconceivable lack of support for the same within the browser itself. No content-filtering? What is this...1995?? I suppose I could use FF or IE for this, but chrome loads the site faster than both and responds to skip/pause faster.
@Morsel: Generalized comments such as the one you made are one of my biggest pet peeve's. If you did *not* intend to call all IE users "suckers"...why did you?
Score: 0
|Do you use IE8 anything not requiring a Microsoft specific solution?
Score: 0
|@InfoDave: Depends on what you would call a "Microsoft Specific Solution". The sites I use IE on work better with IE. They "work" with FF and chrome...just not as well. I cannot say I've looked into it...as I stated before, I really don't care. IE works better on those sites, so I use IE.
I like Firefox because it's extension support is superior. I like chrome because it's basic. I like IE because it works better on some sites. I hate Firefox because it is bloated. I hate Chrome because it's extension support is brain-dead. I hate IE for the same reasons I hate Chrome.
None of them are perfect. None of them are unusable.
Score: 0
|@PC_Tool
Thanks for taking the time to post your helpful reply. I'm still running XP Pro on an old box and use the machine for very basic daily chores, such as browsing, email, some business, etc. (My wife is up to speed on her big Vista PC) I will probably buy a new computer with W7 sometime next year, although I read on the TweakXP forum that MSFT is already planning SP1 for W7 sometime early in the new year; so like many "home users" I may wait at least until that happens.
I stopped using IE years ago...back in the days of Netscape 4.x, and switched to Firefox once the developers abandoned Netscape. FF has an add-on called "IE Tabs" which can replicate the IE engine and work on sites which require IE, such as Windows Updates.
My concern is more for security rather than speed and if IE8 proves to be more safe and secure than FF, then I might consider making the switch.
Thanks again for the serious reply to my question.
Score: 0
|I suppose I could use IETab...but why? IE is there and ready to go.
*shrug*
Never saw the point of that one.
Score: 0
|@ PC_Tool: When *you* call Mac users "Mactards" do you really mean that everyone using a Mac is a retard??! I'm assuming no and it probably mean you just prefer Windows, right? Well same for me - I prefer anything else but IE.
Score: 0
|*laughing*
Nice logic there. Utterly flawed and wrong....but nice. Well, amusing anyway.
I have called several posters here idiots. By your logic above that must mean I think everyone who posts here is an idiot...and I post here.
"I'm assuming no and it probably mean you just prefer Windows, right?"
I prefer Windows for what I do. If I had to use Adobe CS4 day in and day out? Guess what? I'd be a Mac user.
"IE8 is for suckers"
is a bit different than:
"internetworld7 is a MacTard...ignore him." (No offense, iTard7) ;)
If you cannot see it, it's a shame, but continuing this is pointless either way.
Score: 0
|It was pointless from the start...but you had to come up with smarty questions then all hell broken loose!! :-p
Score: 0
|