Author Topic: Two New Internet Explorer 7 Reviews (Read 33428 times)

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:37 AM »

I think you are missing the point - most of IE is loaded into memory all the time - that's why you can view help pages (in a lot of applications which rely on MSHTML) and webpages in a lot of applications which just hook directly to the IE code. For exampl if you use Microsoft Office applications (esp. 2003) it uses the IE rendering engine to view all of the help pages etc. and you can browse the internet within the Outlook application (there is even a web toolbar) - the only difference in Outlook is that it defaults to a more secure zone than IE.

When you load IE specifically it is really only loading a frontend (just like Maxthon etc) onto code that is already in memory. The fact that it isn't list as such in the task lists doesn't mean it isn't there!

f0dder · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:54 AM »

HtmlHelp is loaded on-demand - so just starting an app that uses HH for help doesn't get the HtmlHelp code loaded automatically, before you actually use the help functionality.

I think I'm gonna make a little program that enumerates which DLL files are loaded in memory, would be a fun little project and might show some interesting results as well...

dk70 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2006, 11:43 AM »

Firefox has never been quick to load - even fanboys say that

Should be a bit improved with 2.0 they say. The usual advice when people complain about this is to limit extension pack, clear history, downloads. Sometimes too many Live bookmarks can tease as well. Matter of few seconds on fast computer no matter what - dont think it can be an issue for average computer unless there really is a problem. I have 2.5mb bookmark files, mile long history, changed GUI, many extensions, plugins and would not call it slow, not fast either

A clean/empty profile will be fast. May be not much to do until they transform all bookmarks, history into sqlite format.

If I remember correctly the pre-loader thingy for Firefox is not without problems, not sure - might have been fixed. Look it up at Mozillazine if it feels wrong.

2.0 is out tomorrow btw. RC3 is same as Final, same procedure as before. Available now it seems ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0 or http://releases.mozi...irefox/releases/2.0/

Josh · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2006, 03:01 PM »

What I still dont understand is how firefox can be so slow at startup and use so much memory when opera has managed to be fast to start and use less memory on ALL PLATFORMS (Windows, *nix, BSD, Solaris, HP-UX). As I said above, the whole "IE is preloaded" argument doesnt hold any water anymore. Its been disproven time and time again. Opera has managed to start as fast, if not faster, than IE on the windows platform. Why firefox has not optimized its code is beyond me. Bugs that have existed in the firefox browser since .1, are still existent and dont show any signs of being fixed. That doesnt inspire much confidence in a browser to me. Anyways, I am on maxthon now with IE7. Works great, fast, and all my plugins and addons work.

JavaJones · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2006, 03:09 PM »

Yeah, the efficiency and resource use issues of Firefox have always really bugged me. Sure I have 3GB of RAM, but my browser shouldn't have to use 200MB of it.

The cross-platform argument really doesn't hold water, as you said - Opera is on at least as many platforms as Firefox and it's low resource using on all of them, *and* it has a bundled email client (and now bittorrent support, etc.).

- Oshyan

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #30 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:40 PM »

2.0 is out tomorrow btw. RC3 is same as Final, same procedure as before. Available now it seems ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0 or http://releases.mozi...irefox/releases/2.0/
-dk70 (October 23, 2006, 11:43 AM)

Yep 2.0 is available now and it seems to work fine.

Breaks quite a few extensions though but overriding compatability checking meant all my extensions worked fine except for RoboForm - but there is a FF2.0RC Roboform extension on the roboform website (update in FF does not find it).

They have changed the name of 'extensions' to 'add-ons' - which made me double-take in the tools menu for a while! Why ?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2006, 05:40 PM »

I have reverted to IE 6 SP2 - since I installed IE 7 I have been experiencing random reboots and system freezes (necessitating the use of the reset button). Anyone else experienced anything like this?

It may be a coincidence - time will tell, but at least as far as I can tell the roll back to IE 6 seems to have worked OK.

Robert Carnegie · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2006, 06:00 PM »

I've been trying to remember why I was under the impression I didn't want to install Internet Explorer 7. Perhaps because I think it was said to depend on the Windows Genuine Advantage - that's the thing that kills your Windows installation if it suspects it isn't genuine - or else it might have been something about DRM. Or just a change in the licensing - they get to scan your hard disk for programs that they don't like, such as if they decide that Linux violates Microsoft patents on FAT disk format then they unilaterally delete -that- for you. But anyway, I have a definite impression they were going to pull -something- on us here - I just don't recall what.

I have been deliberately avoiding WGA since it started showing up disguised as a critical security update to Windows. I guess that it will eventually become compulsory, both with Vista when you can't get XP any more and your hardware dies, and before then probably there'll be the Sucker-2007 virus and before Microsoft will allow you to patch the bug that it uses, you must install WGA. But for now I'm a rebel. I'm not planning on becoming an outlaw, but, y'know, live free or die.

I suppose I could buy a Mac. I actually can afford one.

I'm also a very happy Opera user. I even paid for it.

f0dder · « **Reply #33 on:** October 23, 2006, 06:11 PM »

dk70: since I tend to close and re-open my browser, "a few seconds" means a whole lot to me - and my computer isn't exactly sluggish

. And it's a bit silly when people say "omfg n00b just cut down on the extensions then", since FF sucks without extensions. (And even without any extensions, it's still noticably slower to load than both IE and Opera).

About FireFox use... it does seem to use suboptimal data structures. Try loading a complex website (or a "malformed" one, like what the picture->html converters produce). That should of course be fixed. But on the other hand, I don't think it's wrong to use a bunch of ram for aggressive caching and history - I personally like snapback tab and it's speed a lot. But don't kid yourselves, a big part of the memory bloat of FF is because, well, suboptimal code.

dk70 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:02 PM »

I only found out few days ago but those 2-3 extensions allowing non compatible installations are not really needed. Look for extensions.checkCompatibility in about:config set it to false. May be what you meant. If extension maker have not updated yet or show no activity look for alternative.

Well, I doubt you have a more "dirty" Firefox than mine and it never use 200mb unless there is media involved. Be careful with numbers, look for reasons if "high memory usage" alarm goes off. 6-7 tabs of Eyeball pics and you are up to may be 350mb - minimize oops down to 1x mb. How it goes, takes 1 second at most. Not like Firefox has stolen memory for good. If you only close tabs, compare Firefox with Opera/IE7 and you see big difference. Goes for all pages I think, still not stealing but it does not want to let go easy and always takes a long time. So level is high because of crap code or because it is aggressive by nature when using memory? Both? For example default setup will not page out memory by minimizing (speed is top priority not low memory usage), opposite most other software.

I also use a lighter Firefox edition on a computer 1/4 as powerful as this one. Dont think Ive ever seen 100+mb, more like 50-60mb with a handful of tabs. Those numbers say nothing other than you have to know conditions in details. That Lifehacker "test" and most complaints shows the same. Only interesting is extensions and pages visited. Numbers alone dont say much. I dont know if you expect 10mb or something but lets say 50-75mb on a 512mb then? I find that reasonable and only notice because I monitor it. If I can run Firefox for as long as I please with no slowdowns or lockups then I dont think a (other browser)79mb vs (Firefox)102mb is something to cry about - should that be the case. I dont use Firefox because it use less memory than the other 2. Sure developers get lazy if no complaints and sure they are not done with optimization. Take a look at Bugzilla. Im not saying Opera does not use less memory in general but that you cant make direct comparisons from what is seen at a certain moment - which is what most do. Im also saying I dont buy the diesel tractor image some paint, heh - or that 200+mb is something you have to live with. There will be reasons or Mozilla close shop tomorrow. FF by itself is a hog? That is an oppinion about what is too much again but still does not change the fact most complaints in this area can be explained and fixed. As with MSN tab browsing or the old Adblock for Firefox it only take 1 bad add-on to change situation.

The way things goes there was never a chance to get a 100% perfect 2.0 much the same way as 1.5.x.x would never be perfect. They move on when they consider code stable. Just the way it is. Would be nice with a cleanup/maintaince/tuning 2.1 version with zero new gadgets but you wont get it. Ive seen that suggested even on Mozillazine. For each X version they should make 1 cleanup version. But, you think that would solve your problems? May be 3.0 will be less "who cares" about reclaiming used memory. They already lowered cache defaults in 2.0. Easy trick, but 1.5.x.x defaults were also quite high.

A clean Firefox on a not sluggish computer takes forever? You have timed it? Well ok, annoying if you have to restart over and over. If that annoying you will stop doing that

or use other browser. I imagine this could drive some crazy and others will shake head, Im in last category but also have Firefox open for hours and hours, can even be days - cant break it

I have same relation to XP bootup time. Im not completely satisfied with Firefox either but cant have it all. If it was strangely unstable as some dev. builds have been I would scream but memory usage bahhh, under control

I know exactly how an unstable Firefox feels, often connected with high cpu/memory usage. Unacceptable of course. Solve problem or get rid of it.

Btw, are you restarting Firefox for a particular reason? Cant stand to look at high numbers? Use Auto Reset Browser Extension http://extensions.he.../Auto+Reset+Browser/ For the very interested, heh. Works on 2.0 and does what it says.

Much Firefox/Opera on a thread about IE7!

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #35 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:24 PM »

For comparison I opened FF2 and IE7 with the same set of 5 webpages in tabs.

FF2 took 81Mb of memory (and worked fine)

IE7 was up to 65Mb (and hadn't finished opening pages when it froze my machine).

I don't think that FF2 looks too bad alongside IE given that there is probably at least 15Mb of IE in memory before you click on the IE icon. FF2 also feels quicker to load to me too than FF1 - but still slower than IE.

dk70 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:52 PM »

I tried a clean profile for once, I would estiamate startup time to be about 2 seconds, maybe 1.xxxxxx

You could put Firefox on a ramdisk perhaps? Tell it to save bookmarks, cookies, forms on hd and it should work ok as permanent solution. Will have to do some boot magic but there are guides for this.

Try this strange page for a Firefox extension http://www.rjonna.com/ext/gspace.php simple but eats 90mb and I think 30mb on IE7. Dont know about Opera. Buggy page or what is going on. Hard if not impossible to set up fixed comparison, best to live with monitor tool for a while doing same browser patterns to get a "feel". Have to look out for the odd page.

Remember to disable session/undo feature of Opera/Firefox when comparing to IE7 - or better install such an add-on for it. Then you will not see exact same numbers. Other things to be aware of I think would be phishing filter. Active vs passive vs disabled. Opera has none yet.

f0dder · « **Reply #37 on:** October 24, 2006, 01:38 AM »

dk70: 2 seconds (or "counting to two") is a loooong time for me - and about the time FF takes to load. With IE6, I can't even count to 1. Of course the comparison is not entirely fair, since IE6 is pretty Vanilla... But Maxthon loads just as fast, and has a lot of the features the FF brings. And this is second-time launches, when program code is in filesystem cache.

Why do I close my browser? Well, when I don't use it, I dont' see any reason it should take up screen space, nor a place in the task bar or a little icon in the tray. Nor sit in memory, for that matter. Perhaps somewhat of a pedantic thing.

The sluggish load time of FF is just one of those small annoyances - not something I'm going to bother setting up a ramdisk to solve - and sure is a smaller annoyance than the much-more-often-targetted exploits in IE >_<

dk70 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:59 AM »

Minimize trick must always lower memory to 10-15mb. If machine is not sluggish it probably have 1gb or more so little price to pay. May be you have a tool which can hide minimized window and pop it up with hotkey/mouse gesture.

I see why you dont like ATI .net drivers now

f0dder · « **Reply #39 on:** October 24, 2006, 05:23 AM »

2gig ram, amd64x2 4400+, 2x160gb maxtor sata disks in mirror (not the fastest disks these days, but not shabby either). KAV6 with on-demand scanning. Launching something that should be "small" or "trivial" (like display driver config or a humble web browser) should be done in less than one second, otherwise it annoys me.

Certainly isn't the case with ATI .net driver panel, nvidias panel (even the "old" one), firefox...

Robert Carnegie · « **Reply #40 on:** October 25, 2006, 08:08 AM »

I have been deliberately avoiding WGA since it started showing up disguised as a critical security update to Windows.
-Robert Carnegie (October 23, 2006, 06:00 PM)

Let me correct myself - "important" update, apparently. The rest stands. The primary function of WGA is to deny, from time to time, access to some or all functions of software for the privilege of using which I have paid in full according to Microsoft's own terms, it -has- gone wrong for other legitimate users and closed them down, and allowing it to run is like playing "Russian Roulette". On a bad day it's like the "real" Russian Roulette (which I think was fictional to begin with, I think I read about it someplace) where you load five bullets in six chambers of a revolver.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #41 on:** October 25, 2006, 08:14 AM »

I have reverted to IE 6 SP2 - since I installed IE 7 I have been experiencing random reboots and system freezes (necessitating the use of the reset button). Anyone else experienced anything like this?

It may be a coincidence - time will tell, but at least as far as I can tell the roll back to IE 6 seems to have worked OK.
-Carol Haynes (October 23, 2006, 05:40 PM)

Follow up - I haven't had a single freeze or random reboot since removing IE 7 ....

Josh · « **Reply #42 on:** October 25, 2006, 08:45 AM »

Just a note, I havent had a single freeze or lockup since INSTALLING IE7. Been running very smooth and IE works a lot better for me.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #43 on:** October 25, 2006, 10:25 AM »

I think I spoke too soon ....

Must be a conflict or corruption of some sort!

Anyone any idea how to troubleshoot freezes and random reboots that give no log entries in the Event Viewer ?

wr975 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 25, 2006, 11:49 AM »

@carol

One thing would be to go in control panel / system and disable the automatic reboot, so you see the blue screen.

Freezes are pretty nasty. They're usually hardware related. Get the Ultimate Boot CD and use it to check your memory / hard disk(s).

dk70 · « **Reply #45 on:** October 25, 2006, 12:32 PM »

Yes, run Memtest86. Will probably fail fast if memory is faulty. XP can be forgiving about memory errors, not all programs are.

Could be dying power supply, motherboard - guessing. Remember to run sfc /scannow. Is there a repair IE component hidden somewhere?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #46 on:** October 26, 2006, 03:16 AM »

@carol

One thing would be to go in control panel / system and disable the automatic reboot, so you see the blue screen.

Freezes are pretty nasty. They're usually hardware related. Get the Ultimate Boot CD and use it to check your memory / hard disk(s).
-wr975 (October 25, 2006, 11:49 AM)

The problem is there is no BSOD - it is true freezing (rock solid) or spontaneous reboot. I have automatic reboot disabled.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #47 on:** October 26, 2006, 03:18 AM »

Yes, run Memtest86. Will probably fail fast if memory is faulty. XP can be forgiving about memory errors, not all programs are.

Could be dying power supply, motherboard - guessing. Remember to run sfc /scannow. Is there a repair IE component hidden somewhere?
-dk70 (October 25, 2006, 12:32 PM)

I have run memtest.

I think it might be related to hard disk filesystem errors - I have done a full chkdsk of drive C (including checking data areas and free space). There were no problems with hard disk faults but there were a few errors in the file system. CHKDSK seems to have fixed them so we shall see.

Of course it may be that the errors were caused by dirty restarts !

Josh · « **Reply #48 on:** October 26, 2006, 04:02 AM »

Did you run chkdsk /r? that locates bad sectors.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #49 on:** October 26, 2006, 04:25 AM »

I ran chkdsk c: /v /r /x from a separate windows installation.