IE9 takes top benchmark prize, no cheating involved
I was going to write a short post this morning passing along the news that Microsoft was releasing a new Platform Preview for Internet Explorer 9. And then I got distracted by (I am not making this up) a "slashdotted flamebait troll story." Is it true? Who cares?
I was going to write a short post this morning passing along the news that Microsoft was releasing a new Platform Preview for Internet Explorer 9 (that's number 7 for those keeping score). I had a quick briefing on it yesterday (with an embargo that was to lift when the build was released to the web).
And I was planning to speculate a little about when Microsoft would deliver a release candidate, which is the next milestone. I was going to guess, given the quick turnaround for this preview release, that an RC will probably be ready before the end of the year.
I do not mean those words as an insult or as hyperbole. That is, in fact, the label that the Slashdot editor who posted that story attached to it. Here's the screen capture, complete with mandatory image of Gates-as-Borg.
It's the sort of stuff that Slashdot does well, catapulting an inflammatory story from a tiny website into something its community of ubergeeks can argue about. At Slashdot, the comments are usually more entertaining and informative than the main article.
Nearly 10 weeks later, a tiny blog called Digitizor (based in India, apparently) noticed that post and added its own inflammatory spin. That's the post Slashdot highlighted.
Normally, here's what happens: Slashdot's readers get a big chuckle over the whole thing, the tiny web site goes back to obscurity after its servers take a Slashdot beating, and everyone moves on to the next topic. One positive outcome of the ruckus is that the Mozilla engineer who wrote the original blog post finally got around to filing a bug at Microsoft's Connect site, which is the formal means of raising issues like this so that engineers can look at them in detail. I am authoritatively informed this particular bug is being looked at very carefully.
And there it should have ended. Except that this morning a blogger at ZDNet comes out and repeats the exaggerated allegation, even including the word "cheating" in its headline. ZDNet reaches a big audience. Bigger than Slashdot and orders of magnitude bigger than the little tiny outfit that stirred up this hornet's test. So for ZDNet's millions of readers, an inaccurate story turns into an inflammatory headline.
The original headline on Adrian's post has been slightly updated, with an unconvincing disclaimer tacked onto the end. [By the end of the day the headline had been completely changed, with the word "cheating" removed.] An update at the end of the post itself now contains a response from Microsoft. Unfortunately, anyone who just sees the headline and skims the opener as they scan through their favorite websites will come away with an inaccurate conclusion. [The IE Blog post has now been updated in great detail to address this allegation, complete with an explanation of dead-code elimination as an optimization technique and some actual code samples. If you're a developer, pay attention. If you're not a code jockey, well, your eyes may glaze over.]
In fact, I'm about to install that new Platform Preview myself and look at its performance. I was really looking forward to that. It's something I would have started hours ago if I hadn't been distracted by a Slashdotted flamebait troll story. Sorry for the delay. I'll be back with a more detailed look after I've done my homework.