Is IE8 really fat and slow?

In sharp contrast to certain dimwitted bloggers out there, no one can ever accuse Ed Bott of "false misunderstanding." The guy grabs on to a topic and shakes it until it squeaks, and for this reason, he'll always be the voice of reason in our industry. The topic du jour: Reports that IE 8 is slow and a memory hog. Take it away, Ed:

Two criticisms have come up repeatedly that can be measured empirically, so I thought I would do that here. One is the burning question of whether IE8 is faster or slower than its competitors; the other is whether it makes reasonable use of system resources.

A series of independent tests performed by PC World, which concluded that IE8 really is faster than Firefox ... On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg reached the opposite conclusion in his review ... I was baffled by Mossberg’s results. [As was I, sort of. I mean, it's Mossberg. --Paul] When I tried the same tests on several PCs here with IE8, Firefox 3.0.7, and Google Chrome, I got the same results as PC World. In general, all pages loaded so quickly in all three browsers that detecting any difference with a stopwatch was nearly impossible.

Ed highlights an amazing potential fix for people who are experiencing trouble with IE performance. Check out his post for that fix. As for RAM usage...

Microsoft’s browser using more RAM than its rivals. Are those reports true? The answer, it turns out, is a qualified yes.

Firefox and IE7 use a single process that hosts as many tabs as the system can stand. That means the browser and its supporting files only have to be loaded once, and each tab can share those resources. That explains why Firefox and IE7 are so sparing with memory usage.

Unfortunately, the side effect of that single-process model is that one crashed tab can bring down the entire browser. To work around this major annoyance, IE8 and Chrome use multiple processes.

Tab isolation requires more memory, whether you use IE8 or Chrome. If you’re bound and determined to use less RAM, use Firefox – and pray that you don’t have a crash.

I would just add one point here. Application memory consumption is not an issue on modern Windows versions unless that app slowly eats up RAM over time for no reason (Firefox, cough) or doesn't give up the memory when you close the application. Folks, memory is cheap. And let's be honest: Tab isolation/recovery is more than a fair tradeoff for some RAM consumption. And how much RAM are we talking, exactly? In Ed's test, he loaded up 12 tabs. That takes up just 256 MB of RAM on a 4 GB system. Come on.

As always, the truth is so much less sensational then the headlines (and reports) that Ed is skewering here.

Discuss this Article 37

yert
on Mar 27, 2009
Yes, but before this he talks about it reacting faster, and goes on to say that Chrome takes up a fair amount itself, reaching the conclusion that the main source of the RAM usage is tab separation. Tab separation is a great feature on machines with a full gigabyte of RAM, but run Chrome (haven't tested IE8 well enough on such a configuration to say anything) on half a gigabyte with integrated graphics and a two-four year old budget processor, and the speed increase is debatable. The answer in this case, is of course to have better spec'd computers, as more advanced browsers tend to use their resources better. Maybe five-ten years ago empty RAM was a good sign, but the metric today has to be application responsiveness and dynamic RAM usage over total RAM usage.
holybrother
on Mar 27, 2009
I really don't notice significant performance differences between IE, chrome, and firefox. Most of my performance woes come from having only DSL speeds... :( Having a slower 'high speed' connection may mean I don't appreciate the browsers at their best, but since the browser isn't the limiting component, it also means I am free to use the interface I prefer. :)
tayme
on Mar 27, 2009
@Paul - "(Firefox, cough)" Per mikegalos, and maybe even MS since he represents them (just kidding), "If you're feeling sick perhaps you should have just stayed home?" --tayme
cesjr
on Mar 27, 2009
Is IE8 really fat and slow? Yes, when it comes to Javascript. That's the speed issue that all the Microsoft Apologists (eg. Paul, Ed Bott) keep dancing around/ignoring. I've not seen any refutation of the data showing IE 8 to be a DOG on javascript. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/27/ie8s_javascript_performanc... And even as to general speed, Mossberg is (in Paul's eyes) crazy because he ran into a speed problem that requires some obscure command line fix (as described by Bott)? You geek guys will NEVER get it. Mossberg writes for a non-technical audience. Which is like 95-98 percent of the population.
Ocean
on Mar 27, 2009
Firefox crashes on me about as often as Paul comments on the Wii. As for the "software attachment rate" mentioned in the other thread, thats what you do when you're losing in the stat you so badly wanted to win in: you find another to crow about.
Ocean
on Mar 27, 2009
Here is the summary of Mossbergs IE8 review: >>Internet Explorer 8 is a well-done advance on an important product used by most people to surf the Web.<< You'll never hear Ed or Paul echo that line. They want you to think that they think differently from Walt Mossberg.
Ocean
on Mar 27, 2009
>>Mossberg is (in Paul's eyes) crazy because he ran into a speed problem that requires some obscure command line fix (as described by Bott)?<< Paul believes that he deserves Mossbergs position and reach among general consumers instead of appealing only to the technologically geeky. Why Paul? It seems to me that you have a good life.
EricBPhoto
on Mar 27, 2009
I personally really like the new IE8. Seems very speedy to me but that could be because there is no Flash support for the 64bit version of the browser. That is the only thing keeping me from using it.
Ocean
on Mar 27, 2009
Here is an area MS can focus on: >> Mobile 3D gaming revolution leaving Wintel behind As Ben Kuchera is gearing up to report at Opposable Thumbs, one of the themes for this year's GDC is mobile gaming—and iPhone 3D gaming, in particular, is red-hot. And for good reason: some of the demos so far are amazing (I'll let Ben tell you about them as the embargoes lift), and it's nuts to think that this level of 3D performance is taking place on a tiny mobile device. But as I watch the mobile 3D action this week, one fact above all others bowls me over: this is a mass-market 3D revolution, with an installed base of millions—and it involves neither Intel nor Windows. << http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/03/mobile-3d-gaming-revolution-l...
EricBPhoto
on Mar 27, 2009
Wow Ocean really likes to post "stuff"
tayme
on Mar 27, 2009
@EricBPhoto - Yes, Ocean really needs to get his own blog instead of trying to hijack Paul's to post his unrelated links to other people's work. --tayme
techfan
on Mar 27, 2009
I'm in both camps Ed Bott mentioned: I think IE8 is great (though it still needs improvements) and think IE8 is too cluttered. Improvement-wise, IE needs features (spell checker, download manager) available out of the box in other browsers. In terms of "clutterness", IE8 needs a better layout, one that is more inline with other browsers layout. I hate that I have to move the Command Bar (just one Delicious.com Tag button) to the Favorites Bar so that the Tabs bar is only used for tabs. If I remove the Favorites Bar, the Favorites Center is placed on the Tab bar but the Command Bar stays in the Favorites Bar. Aside from that, I'm happy/okay with IE8. I'm on a 6.0MB line and pages and files download at a good/great speed. Compared to IE7, Gmail loads fast.
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
@Eric: You can use the 32-bit version of IE8 in 64-bit versions of Windows. You can then use Flash. Windows normally uses the 32-bit version if you set IE as your default browser anyway, so most users will be using that version. Java is supported natively in both flavours of IE8, but you have to install each version of Java separately as each version has a unique download package.
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
Um, the Wii article is closed and I was trying to post this on the Wolfenstein article: Has anybody seen this: www.onlive.com Looks interesting. I'm not skeptical about the quality of it and the benefits to gamers. What I'm skeptical about is the overhead required in the datacenters and the relative availability of the service. Do they expect to deploy multi-million dollar datacenters everywhere to support it? I just don't see this being easily scalable without a huge investment in infrastructure. I'd bet the company would be looking to be bought out though, and Microsoft should probably be the one to do it. They'd lost money on unreliable hardware, so this looks like a saviour. Being that they're a software company, a service like this would be a good acquisition. They'd be able to integrate something like this with their existing datacenter plans - both companies use cargo container-style hands-off datacenters. It would be something that coincides with their existing plans for Zune too - that is, spinning off the branding into a multi-platform service. Bringing an Xbox (or other) gaming brand to PC and Mac would be an option there. Technically, they could bring the service to existing Xbox hardware by just adding support for another custom client agent program. I'll laugh when I see Crysis running on an Atom netbook.
stevejobs
on Mar 27, 2009
Now now. Compared to Waethorn's mother, nothing is *that* fat and slow.
DavidR91
on Mar 27, 2009
"Application memory consumption is not an issue on modern Windows versions unless that app slowly eats up RAM over time for no reason" Try running multiple instances of Visual Studio, VMWare, and an instance of FF or IE, and say that again. How precious your RAM is depends entirely on what you're doing with it.
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
Re: OnLive Hmm....looking at this technology, this could be possible with any hardware. Console makers could make unique hardware choices, so long as the service works well. Hardware makers wouldn't like the lack of exclusivity, but from a business perspective, they could collect royalties from game purchases off of the service. Game developers don't need to pay for developing for specific hardware anymore, and if the service is equal across all platforms, a "PS3 Game" would become equivalent to the same game on an Xbox, so the console developer no longer needs to develop gaming-specific features into the processing capabilities. If there were a "PS4" with OnLive, it would essentially turn into an internet-connected Blu-ray player with a media server. Gaming hardware R&D in the core unit would be irrelevent and unnecessary. Interesting....
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
So "stevejobs".... You actually have enough strength to dribble your fingers on your keyboard after lurking out of your coffin? Oh look: the sun's up! Better get back in there.
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
"How precious your RAM is depends entirely on what you're doing with it." ....and how much you have for that designated workload. RAM is still cheap (DDR2 is anyway, which is by far the most common right now....that's slowly changing to DDR3 though). That's the underlying fact that Paul was stressing.
stevejobs
on Mar 27, 2009
Your mother was pretty tired after last night too, Wae.
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
"Your mother was pretty tired after last night too" Don't confuse a yawn for tiredness. When you're present, it's a result of ennui. *YAWN*
stevejobs
on Mar 27, 2009
And when you're present, it's the result of defective latex.
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
"it's the result of defective latex." ....from what I hear, latex is something you have no need for - ever.
stevejobs
on Mar 27, 2009
>"....from what I hear, latex is something you have no need for - ever." Um, does that comment make any sense to anyone? Is this some sort of Canadian humour I'm just not getting? I'm sure in your culture, this is a stinging and zesty bon-mot. Touche.
stevejobs
on Mar 27, 2009
Good sir, I question your requirements for latex! ... Zing!
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
"does that comment make any sense to anyone?" Only your ex-girlfriends who find you inpotent.... "....I'm sure in your culture, this is a stinging and zesty bon-mot." Speaking of stinging, your ex'es said not to come near them with that rash of yours. "Is this some sort of Canadian humour I'm just not getting?" Joke's on you. Or rather, the joke is you. I do hereby apologize to robertsjoe for the following: clearly "stevejobs" can't give you that dental plan you always wanted. "Teeth-whitenings" are impossible. Sorry, dude!
subzerohitman721
on Mar 27, 2009
Paul, You might as well renamed this blog the Supersite comedy hour. Some of the comments are just cracking me up. Not only for the ridonkulousness, but that we've got "Steve Jobs" here too. Did Bonch get an account again? Paul, seriously. Moderate the boards. Please? Seriously!
tayme
on Mar 27, 2009
@Waethorn - Just to join in on this Friday afternoon action - You loose a point...inpotent is not a word...sorry. I think that you were meaning impotent. --taylor
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
"I think that you were meaning impotent." Yes, it was a typo. The "n" key on a Microsoft Wireless Laser Keyboard 6000 is twice as wide as the "m" key. I'm not "cool" enough to be in the turtle-neck crowd and have a spell-checker for my browser. See if I care though. :| <- me See?
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
"--taylor" <- YOU'RE NOT DOIN' THAT RIGHT!
tayme
on Mar 27, 2009
My browser does have a spell checker and that is how it re-spelled for me...my mistake. Honestly - I was just playin' with you Wae...not a personal attack!!! Whoever is posting as "stevejobs" is obviously an idiot. Don't stoop to their level - you are better than that, although a little onesided. --tayme <-- Got it that time!
Waethorn
on Mar 27, 2009
"Whoever is posting as "stevejobs" is obviously an idiot." Whenever he wants to play mind games, he'll always be the one with the handicap. "you are better than that" It doesn't take much.
robertsjoe
on Mar 27, 2009
No tests against Safari? Worried about the results?
robertsjoe
on Mar 27, 2009
"modern Windows versions unless that app slowly eats up RAM over time for no reason (Firefox, cough) or doesn't give up the memory when you close the application. " All applications give up the memory when the application closes. If the process goes away when the application is closed, the memory is always returned. The OS guarantees that. Now, if you close the application but the process is still there, then it hasn't gone away and then you may not get the memory back.
boyreinvented
on Mar 27, 2009
I'm giving up on this site and finding myself a real journalist to follow.
Victek
on Mar 27, 2009
Regarding reports of IE8 starting up very slowly, this is in fact the case if you have a very long list of addresses in the restricted sites zone. Many people use the "Immunize" feature of Spybot S&D which adds blocked sites to the restricted zone and now that the list is well over 10,000 the browser struggles. There is also a question about the impact of Spyware Blaster, but I haven't tested it. I did remove all entries from the zones lists using a file called DelDomains.inf and IE8 startup speed improved dramatically. Check it out...
whiplash55
on Mar 27, 2009
@boyreinvented Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. @techfan IE7 Pro works on IE8 and will give you the download manager and spell check as well as add blocker. Still no "No Scripts" but I always end up turning it off cause its a pain.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use