SillyDog701

[richard mitnick]

May be reinventing the wheel here.

My ISP removed the problem I had with email addresses in their new build. Now, I type a letter, up comes my address book to those addresses. So, that was my only problem with IE. Like, forever. But it is now a moot point.

So, now I want to give IE9 a new chance to shoot itself in the foot. I want to use it for everything for a while. But I have really never used it on any of my computers. So, it seemed slow. Until I went back repeatedly to the same sites. It dawned on me that it was going to cached pages? Is that correct?

So, if that is correct, then it is never fair to compare any browser one has never used with one used all the time.

Any discussion?

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/5.0)

[James]

The only thing I would add is... when making any browser comparison, always clear the cache first.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[Don_HH2K]

I think a better comparison would be to actually let both browsers' caching methods show their stuff, so to speak, and spend perhaps two to three days letting the browser build up a cache of the various sites you may be visit, then making a judgment when a cache has been obtained. That would likely give you a better profile of the browser's speed in your typical usage.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:2.2a1pre) Gecko/20110329 Firefox/4.2a1pre

[richard mitnick]

Don-

Thanks, that is exactly what I am doing.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/5.0)

[James]

There's no need for this sort of private testing. Besides, it would become so subjective as to be almost useless anyway. Testing has already been done under optimum conditions and the results are readily available. Here is just one of dozens of sites: http://www.techmynd.com/browser-speed-tests/

The fact is, there's so little anymore to separate the major browsers (i.e. IE9, FF, Chrome, Safari and Opera) that it's more or less a toss-up in terms of which suits your individual taste.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[richard mitnick]

James-

I was beginning to finally see what IE9 might have for me. I almost quit before I realized that I needed to give it some time. No disrespect to previous comments, but I am not about to empty the cache from a browser I always use just to qualify a new browser.

I do not give a rat's @@@ for the official testing. They love Chrome, I way do not love Chrome. Period.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0)

[Antony]

I would say that most modern browsers should be relatively fast these days.

In my opinion, the things about browsers these days are how well they handle the websites (the CSS and scripts), and their behaviours, rather than speed alone. The behaviour is an interesting thing, as this can go down to where they a new tab to be opened, or even the order of the right click (context) menu.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.11 Firefox/3.6.16

[richard mitnick]

Yes, Antony.

The one problem I have left with IE9 is how one handles graphics to be copied and pasted into a blog post. And I checked this out in forums. One needs still to go to Properties and literally catch up the URL. That was true in SM, but no longer.

In FF and SM it's a right click and copy in the context menu. No problemo. It is irritating enough that the blog for which I was using IE I had to revert to one of the Gecko browsers. Right now, IE is handling everything else. I doubt ever liking it enough for default. The tabs are too dark and there is no serious theme community.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0