How can IE suck so much?

[StageLeft]

iesux.jpg

If that isn't a fail, I don't know what is.

 

[Quiksilver]

Nice proof there showing how they are all doing the same action there.

 

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: Quiksilver
Nice proof there showing how they are all doing the same action there.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Non used memory is wasted memory

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
iesux.jpg

If that isn't a fail, I don't know what is.

I'd call a media player using that much RAM a fail, but hey, what do I know.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Quiksilver
Nice proof there showing how they are all doing the same action there.

Indeed.

The way I'd say to run it: Set each to open CNN.com as the homepage, restart the system to purge any of the programs' DLLs and such from memory, and start each browser.


I've got Firefox going with 2 windows and a total of 7 tabs, and I'm at 180MB. But I've had the process open for at least 30 minutes now, with various sites in memory. If I'm using it for a long time, I can easily push past 500MB.

 

[0roo0roo]

i dunno, i loaded ie7 with cnn and its at 46mb, i minimized it and it dropped to 7mb

now its back to 28mb.

course firefox is using 319mb, but i use a buncha tabs.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Skoorb
iesux.jpg

If that isn't a fail, I don't know what is.

I'd call a media player using that much RAM a fail, but hey, what do I know.

Believe me, I'm no fan of Winamp sucking down over 100 megs to open up an mp3. It's completely obscene. It seems no better to me than than I used it in '97 and I bet to heck it wasn't taking up that much then.

I'm not sure if quicksilver was being sarcastic. I will assume no, so you're welcome

I'm on a different comp at the moment with chrome open and three tabs and 39 megs, woot.

 

[mechBgon]

Try centrally deploying, managing, updating and configuring 1,000 instances of those three browsers in a domain, regardless of whether the users want to cooperate or not. Then report back on which two browsers suck, and which browser made it a total cakewalk (and has done so since version 5.01)

 

[Quiksilver]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Skoorb
iesux.jpg

If that isn't a fail, I don't know what is.

I'd call a media player using that much RAM a fail, but hey, what do I know.

Believe me, I'm no fan of Winamp sucking down over 100 megs to open up an mp3. It's completely obscene. It seems no better to me than than I used it in '97 and I bet to heck it wasn't taking up that much then.

I'm not sure if quicksilver was being sarcastic. I will assume no, so you're welcome

I'm on a different comp at the moment with chrome open and three tabs and 39 megs, woot.

Actually I was being sarcastic, not to say I'm defending IE; it's just what you were showing wasn't really conclusive.

 

[Fardringle]

IE 6 and 7 both use about 35-45 MB to open CNN depending on which animated video/headline is running at the time. If yours actually uses nearly 160MB, I'd say that's an "epic fail" on the part of your computer (or the mass of BHOs/applets you have installed in IE) and not a problem with IE itself.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

ahh, the old and outdated way of thinking FTL

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Try centrally deploying, managing, updating and configuring 1,000 instances of those three browsers in a domain, regardless of whether the users want to cooperate or not. Then report back on which two browsers suck, and which browser made it a total cakewalk (and has done so since version 5.01)

I pushed firefox to 600 users without any problem. MMM zenworks.

 

[ShawnD1]

A better question would be why is Winamp using so much ram? Is it trying to put every single playlist item into memory or something?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Try centrally deploying, managing, updating and configuring 1,000 instances of those three browsers in a domain, regardless of whether the users want to cooperate or not. Then report back on which two browsers suck, and which browser made it a total cakewalk (and has done so since version 5.01)

I pushed firefox to 600 users without any problem. MMM zenworks.

And Zenworks costs...? How do you mandate your security & privacy settings, regulate installation of browser add-ons/extensions, and centrally monitor the fleet for compliance?

Heck, I could probably repack a FireFox installer as a .MSI and deploy it using Group Policy, but it doesn't constitute central management. I'm really at a loss as to why Mozilla remains so uninterested in competing in the central-management arena, but whatever.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Try centrally deploying, managing, updating and configuring 1,000 instances of those three browsers in a domain, regardless of whether the users want to cooperate or not. Then report back on which two browsers suck, and which browser made it a total cakewalk (and has done so since version 5.01)

I pushed firefox to 600 users without any problem. MMM zenworks.

And Zenworks costs...? How do you mandate your security & privacy settings, regulate installation of browser add-ons/extensions, and centrally monitor the fleet for compliance?

Heck, I could probably repack a FireFox installer as a .MSI and deploy it using Group Policy, but it doesn't constitute central management. I'm really at a loss as to why Mozilla remains so uninterested in competing in the central-management arena, but whatever.

VMware Thinapp solves your problem

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Try centrally deploying, managing, updating and configuring 1,000 instances of those three browsers in a domain, regardless of whether the users want to cooperate or not. Then report back on which two browsers suck, and which browser made it a total cakewalk (and has done so since version 5.01)

I pushed firefox to 600 users without any problem. MMM zenworks.

And Zenworks costs...? How do you mandate your security & privacy settings, regulate installation of browser add-ons/extensions, and centrally monitor the fleet for compliance?

Heck, I could probably repack a FireFox installer as a .MSI and deploy it using Group Policy, but it doesn't constitute central management. I'm really at a loss as to why Mozilla remains so uninterested in competing in the central-management arena, but whatever.

VMware Thinapp solves your problem

If I were still cursed with the job of maintaining a fleet that had FireFox installed, I'd be interested to hear how much Thinapp costs to license, and how to use it But I quit that job; it wasn't worth working for the Microsoft-hating zealotard that we had for an I.S. Director.

I still find IE's manageability features useful even on stand-alone systems, though. Too bad those features aren't available in all mainstream browsers.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Believe me, I'm no fan of Winamp sucking down over 100 megs to open up an mp3. It's completely obscene. It seems no better to me than than I used it in '97 and I bet to heck it wasn't taking up that much then.

I'm not sure if quicksilver was being sarcastic. I will assume no, so you're welcome

I'm on a different comp at the moment with chrome open and three tabs and 39 megs, woot.

Try the Winamp Classic interface. I've got Winamp open now and it's using about 11MB. (v5.541)

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Try centrally deploying, managing, updating and configuring 1,000 instances of those three browsers in a domain, regardless of whether the users want to cooperate or not. Then report back on which two browsers suck, and which browser made it a total cakewalk (and has done so since version 5.01)

I pushed firefox to 600 users without any problem. MMM zenworks.

And Zenworks costs...? How do you mandate your security & privacy settings, regulate installation of browser add-ons/extensions, and centrally monitor the fleet for compliance?

Heck, I could probably repack a FireFox installer as a .MSI and deploy it using Group Policy, but it doesn't constitute central management. I'm really at a loss as to why Mozilla remains so uninterested in competing in the central-management arena, but whatever.

Just because you have some crazy needs to control everything your users do does not mean every business does.

We push out security updates. That is it. It's all we need. We manage security and privacy where it belongs, on the front end of our network.

On top of that, after recommending firefox to all students and staff and installing it on all machines that are outside of our direct control (loaner laptops, personal machines, machines where the user needs admin access and takes it home, etc) we have had a huge reduction in support work removing spyware and less alerts from our antivirus.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Try centrally deploying, managing, updating and configuring 1,000 instances of those three browsers in a domain, regardless of whether the users want to cooperate or not. Then report back on which two browsers suck, and which browser made it a total cakewalk (and has done so since version 5.01)

I pushed firefox to 600 users without any problem. MMM zenworks.

And Zenworks costs...? How do you mandate your security & privacy settings, regulate installation of browser add-ons/extensions, and centrally monitor the fleet for compliance?

Heck, I could probably repack a FireFox installer as a .MSI and deploy it using Group Policy, but it doesn't constitute central management. I'm really at a loss as to why Mozilla remains so uninterested in competing in the central-management arena, but whatever.

Just because you have some crazy needs to control everything your users do does not mean every business does.

Not every business does, but it would be nice if the option existed, wouldn't it? I know of only one browser maker that seems to really be aware of that need, and they've been taking care of it since ~1999. Where's everyone else?

As for my "crazy need," all I need to say is "database with 30,000 peoples' private health-care info at stake." HIPAA, heard of it?

We push out security updates. That is it. It's all we need. We manage security and privacy where it belongs, on the front end of our network.

I'd love to see you try to stop malware that's disguised as a .JPG or .GIF image at the front end. My malware collection includes enough samples of these, that I can safely say signature/heuristic detection of them is nearly zero at VirusTotal, which uses about 30 different vendors' scanners. Then there's malware that injects malicious code into HTTP traffic travelling on the LAN, inside your perimeter (yes really).

On top of that, after recommending firefox to all students and staff and installing it on all machines that are outside of our direct control (loaner laptops, personal machines, machines where the user needs admin access and takes it home, etc) we have had a huge reduction in support work removing spyware and less alerts from our antivirus.

And I had a complete elimination of such support work by switching all our users to Win2000 or WinXP with non-Admin user accounts. The only successful infection ever seen on my fleet, was a Win98 box. Now I grant you, the other offices in the organization were a different story... FireFox and all. Because they let users have Admin privileges, for the most part. I did not. It's no coincidence that I'm a very strong proponent of LUA

Don't get me wrong, I support your option to use the browser you like best. But if you want security, you're going to want more than that. And if you want managability, it still looks like IE is the king.

 

[sourceninja]

If you really need security so bad you disallow jpegs from being viewed, I suggest you just move your office to linux where you have no fear of these threats. I used to work for a major medical billing software company. I had access to hundreds, if not thousands of major medical practices. I accessed client data on a daily basis and sent databases to developers directly from clients. Just so you know, we were admins on our boxes with IE wide open. We didn't encrypt your database while we mailed it to our devs. Different legal teams interpret HIPPA differently. For our legal team, it was that we would just not knowingly give out client data. That was the extent of it.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
If you really need security so bad you disallow jpegs from being viewed, I suggest you just move your office to linux where you have no fear of these threats.

The JPGs used to get malware past your perimeter are never actually viewed by the victim. And actually, I already have no fear of those threats myself, they're mitigated several times over, from where I'm sitting. Not by chosing Browser #1 over Browser #2, however


On the original topic, here's IE6 versus FireFox at CNN.com for me, on a Win2000 virtual machine: screenshot :camera: FireFox is using 37MB of memory, versus 26MB for IE, so I'm thinking maybe every browser sucks if you catch it on a bad day

FireFox's initial launch time here was 11 seconds, versus 2 seconds for IE. The slow launch time was one of the top complaints from my users.

 

[gsaldivar]

People still use IE?