IE8 much faster now

Nil wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2010, Mint <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> Firefox loads even faster.
>
> Not on any computer I've ever encountered. I prefer Firefox, but it
> always takes significantly longer to start up than Internet Explorer.

I think that's because some of the core files needed for IE are loaded at
bootup, unlike for Firefox, but I'm not sure. I've noticed the same thing,
too (Firefox taking noticeably longer to load), at least for the initial
load of Firefox (which kind of supports that theory).

On Dec 13, 10:08*am, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2010, Mint <chocolatemint77...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
> > Firefox loads even faster.
>
> Not on any computer I've ever encountered. I prefer Firefox, but it
> always takes significantly longer to start up than Internet Explorer.

I meant that I felt that Firefox was faster overall.

It doesn't leave 15+ copies of index.dat all over the hard drive.

Compare the 2 program files sizes.

It's kind of hard, cuz the pieces are spread out everywhere as well as
more built in.

I still have the I.E. version that came with XP.

The last two newer versions I checked out had grown exponentially in
size.

Wasn't too keen on the stuff that those versions installed without
asking permission.

So, to be fair, Let's look at Chrome.

It is a bit faster than Firefox, but do you want something 5 times the
size of Firefox?

Just my opinion.

Have a great week.

Andy

Mint You right that the newer versions Firefox is faster overall
But they have to be for there # one companion is Opera
who say they are the Fasts Browser

And not too keen on the stuff that Firefox installed without permission on
my IE8.

"Mint" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:7e1894a4-f1ee-486e-a82a-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Dec 13, 10:08 am, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2010, Mint <chocolatemint77...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>>
>> > Firefox loads even faster.
>>
>> Not on any computer I've ever encountered. I prefer Firefox, but it
>> always takes significantly longer to start up than Internet Explorer.
>
> I meant that I felt that Firefox was faster overall.
>
> It doesn't leave 15+ copies of index.dat all over the hard drive.
>
> Compare the 2 program files sizes.
>
> It's kind of hard, cuz the pieces are spread out everywhere as well as
> more built in.
>
> I still have the I.E. version that came with XP.
>
> The last two newer versions I checked out had grown exponentially in
> size.
>
> Wasn't too keen on the stuff that those versions installed without
> asking permission.
>
> So, to be fair, Let's look at Chrome.
>
> It is a bit faster than Firefox, but do you want something 5 times the
> size of Firefox?
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Have a great week.
>
> Andy

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:29:42 -0700, "Bill in Co"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Nil wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2010, Mint <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>>
>>> Firefox loads even faster.
>>
>> Not on any computer I've ever encountered. I prefer Firefox, but it
>> always takes significantly longer to start up than Internet Explorer.
>
>I think that's because some of the core files needed for IE are loaded at
>bootup, unlike for Firefox, but I'm not sure. I've noticed the same thing,
>too (Firefox taking noticeably longer to load), at least for the initial
>load of Firefox (which kind of supports that theory).
>

Good observation. IE people aren't dumb.