After a couple of weeks on tinkering with the newly released Internet Explorer (IE) 9, and a host of other Web browsers, I have to say that while 32-bit IE 9 is much better than any other version of IE to date, it’s still not my first pick for a Web browser. Here’s why.
1. Operating system incompatibilities
When it comes to desktop operating systems, IE 9 works only with Windows 7 and Vista. That’s it. XP users? You’re out of luck. There’s no IE 9 for XP. Yes, according to NetMarketShare, the majority of Windows users are still running XP, 55%, to 23% running Windows 7 and 11% with Vista, but there’s still no IE 9 for you.
Of course, Microsoft also doesn’t support IE 9 on Mac OS X or Linux either. Indeed, Dean Hachamovitch, the head of Microsoft’s IE’s engineering group boasted of it at the SXSW (South by Southwest Conferences and Festivals). Hachamovitch is reported as saying, “Other browsers dilute their engineering investments across systems. Because we focus exclusively on one, IE can make the most of the Windows experience and the hardware.”
Funny, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all seem to manage it pretty well. And, even if Microsoft wants to ignore Mac OS X and Linux, why not at least a version for XP anyway?
The answer, of course, is that Microsoft wants to sell you Windows 7, even if you don’t need or want it.
2. Performance
Yes, IE 9 actually is the winner at the SunSpider JavaScript 0.91 benchmark, but a fuller suite of tests reveals that IE 9 actually loses to Chrome and even to the Firefox 4 release candidate on other benchmarks.
I’ve also been finding in my day-to-day use that Chrome just feels faster than IE9. As my good buddy Mary Jo Foley, who knows a thing or two about Microsoft, puts it, “I have to say, I think the Softies have some pretty stiff competition from Chrome, which I’ve been using increasingly as my browser of choice because of how quickly it loads pages. Yes, I know. I’m very old-school that way….”
The long and short of it is that IE 9, while much faster than its predecessors, isn’t really faster than its browser rivals. All of which, again, will run on any desktop operating system you throw them at.
3. The 64-bit version of IE 9 is second-rate.
Of course, when I say that IE 9 is faster, I’m talking about the 32-bit version. The 64-bit model is a dog. It’s several times slower than all the other browsers when it comes to JavaScript.
I’ve been told over and over again by Windows fan boys that no one would ever run the 64-bit version of IE. Funny, the IE 9 download process still insists that that 64-bit Windows users install the inferior 64-bit version and, they rather naturally, assume that they should run the 64-bit browser. That’s when they write to me, and I point them at the article I wrote telling them how to run 32-bit IE 9 on 64-bit Windows. You can say all you want that ‘normal’ users won’t try to run 64-bit IE, but they do, and they do it every day.
The far better question that those who bleed Microsoft blue should be asking is: “Why is Microsoft deliberately insisting that their 64-bit users install a second-rate version of their own flagship Web browser?” Wouldn’t it make more sense to do what all the other Web browser developers do and make the 64-bit version an experimental, optional download? That way there would be no chance of any confusion and they could be sure that every IE 9 user would get the best possible experience. It seems pretty simple to me.
