64-Bit Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 Is Dog-Slow!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
for 32-bit use.
And for some reason, this gets the Windows fans really riled up...
Big Steel
The problem is with you dog squeeze, because you have two-bits in your
head that work. The other 30 bits you have shorted-out long ago.
Shoo, fly don't bother people, shoo fly -- idiot.
Ezekiel
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:imrvme$tgc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> That's right, dog-slow. The much-vaunted Firefox/Chrome killer is only fit
> for 32-bit use.
>
> And for some reason, this gets the Windows fans really riled up...
>
So at least you not admit that there is a 64-bit version of IE.
Here they compare IE9 32 vs 64 bit.
<quote>
Internet Explorer 9 Total (ms)
32 bit 133.7
64 bit 87.28
So here you have it, with the exception of few tests, Internet Explorer 9
(64 bit) pretty much destroys its 32 bit brother.
</quote>
http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-9-32-bit-x86-vs-ie9-64-bit-x64/
And here are "overall" (not only Javascript) performance results:
<quote>
Overall Scores
Here's how that would shake out, if the competition included cold starts,
nine-tab loading, JavaScript, DOM/CSS and memory use.
1) Opera: 76%
2) Chrome 10 (Stable): 76%
3) Chrome 11 (Dev): 68%
4) Firefox 4: 60%
5) Internet Explorer 9 (64-bit): 24%
6) Internet Explorer 9 (32-bit): 28%
</quote>
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/03/browser-speed-tests-firefox-4-ie9-chrome-11-and-more/
chrisv
Yeah, guys like "Hadron" really hate it when their beloved Micro$oft
gets its ass kicked by Free software.
Maybe if they spent less time worrying about DRM and such, they
wouldn't produce such slop.
--
"Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing." -
trolling fsckwit Ezekiel
Big Steel
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:imrvme$tgc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> That's right, dog-slow. The much-vaunted Firefox/Chrome killer is only fit
>> for 32-bit use.
>>
>> And for some reason, this gets the Windows fans really riled up...
>>
>
> So at least you not admit that there is a 64-bit version of IE.
>
>
> Here they compare IE9 32 vs 64 bit.
> <quote>
> Internet Explorer 9 Total (ms)
> 32 bit 133.7
> 64 bit 87.28
>
> So here you have it, with the exception of few tests, Internet Explorer 9
> (64 bit) pretty much destroys its 32 bit brother.
> </quote>
>
> http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-9-32-bit-x86-vs-ie9-64-bit-x64/
The idiot olive fly Lawrence D'Oliveiro won't believe his lying eyes.
He'll come up with some excuse and he wins. :)
He is a real piece of work.
chrisv
You shouldn't talk about your buddy "Hadron" like that, "Ezekiel".
--
Advocate: OSS software on the other hand, is often a non-profit
enterprise, like the Red Cross.
"Hadron" responds: Total rubbish. You clearly have no idea about OSS.
Big Steel
> Re: "Larry" is slow. (as in retarded)
>
> You shouldn't talk about your buddy "Hadron" like that, "Ezekiel".
>
Yeah he seems a little slow here. He is confused.
flatfish+++
Olive Oil is a slippery one!
Wasn't his original claim that IE9 users were stuck with a 32 bit
program?
He sure moved the goal posts around on that one.
Tom Shelton
To be fair - when you install the 64-bit version, it actually installs
the 32-bit and 64-bit version of IE9 and sets the default version to
the 32-bit version. That's what get's pinned to the task bar.
The reason is mainly plugins - not all of them work in the 64-bit
version. So, for now, MS still defaults you to the 32-bit version.
You won't see the 64-bit unless you actually go looking for it.
--
Tom Shelton
Big Steel
And the goal posts fell on him and crushed poor little Olive Oil.
flatfish+++
Ok thanks Tom!
flatfish+++
Hahah!
Justin
Wait a sec...
What kind of dog? Greyhound? Labrador? Pekeneseekesee?
What kind of dog is Odie?
j.rowle...@gmail.com
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/chrome-10-vs-internet-explorer-9-reconsidered/792
Actually IE 32 bit is much faster than 64 bit IE. It uses the newer Javascript engine. Check the link above.