Okay, so I've been using it for a few days now...apparently it doesn't get along with GameDev. Specifically, if I leave it open for maybe an hour or two without doing anything, just leaving one tab open to GameDev, and then come back, scrolling becomes insanely slow and jerky. Killing the tab and getting a new one seems to fix it for a bit, but it's slow again soon enough. Anyone else seeing this? I didn't have problems in IE7.

Quote: Original post by Promit
Okay, so I've been using it for a few days now...apparently it doesn't get along with GameDev. Specifically, if I leave it open for maybe an hour or two without doing anything, just leaving one tab open to GameDev, and then come back, scrolling becomes insanely slow and jerky. Killing the tab and getting a new one seems to fix it for a bit, but it's slow again soon enough. Anyone else seeing this? I didn't have problems in IE7.

Any page in particular? I just left this topic open while I went to lunch, came back and everything was fine. I'm running IE8 on 64-bit Vista for what it's worth.

Personally, I haven't had any problems with it. In my opinion, it's not significantly better than IE7, but I'm probably not the best judge. I think all browsers are much of a muchness, really. They all do basically the same thing, and I just don't see how Firefox is so much better than IE or Chrome is so much better than anything else, or whatever it is that people claim.

I usually leave it on Active Topics, but not always. Disabling visual styles, per the advice of Teh Googlez, seems to alleviate the problem, but not quite remove it.

To me it's a pretty small update. It seems to work a bit snappier than IE7, which is nice. The new additions to the address bar are useless to me. I start typing and down-arrow to the site I want once I've typed enough, and I totally ignore whatever other options it's giving me. The only functional difference I've noticed is that adding a Favorite moved under the Favorites menu.

&#106avascript is horribly slow, like 2-3 times slower than IE7.

&#106avascript (*EDIT: on IE8 and IE7) is incredibly slow. It runs my CMS fine, but on pages heavy with &#106avascript is crawls. Sticking with Firefox (which I like over chrome because of the plugins.)<br><br>Though I still need to test things &#111;n IE 7, 8, 6, FF, Safari and Chrome so I really kind of need them all anyway. Opera is a pain sometimes and not worth it (unless doing Wii stuff).<br><br><!--EDIT--><span class=editedby><!--/EDIT-->[Edited by - M2tM on March 24, 2009 6:57:58 PM]<!--EDIT--></span><!--/EDIT-->

Quote: Original post by Codeka
They all do basically the same thing, and I just don't see how Firefox is so much better than IE or Chrome is so much better than anything else, or whatever it is that people claim.

Old biases, mostly (IE used to be a lot less secure than it is now, or at least it was certainly perceived as being so; anyway, while there's lots of stuff in to allow you to make sure only trusted content is used, ActiveX is still a lot more powerful than some other stuff, and some would argue that such power doesn't belong in the hands of web developers - that you should be made to download an actual application to do whatever, I guess); and personal preference (I've grown quite fond of Firefox, even though I haven't customized it much at all).

That said, they all suck in some sense, but they're all much, much better than they used to be, and competition has proved quite good for the market. :) Now if only we could do something about the web developers that create such a headache for the standardization guys :) (Of course, if I had my way, HTML would look a lot more like JSON than XML, and there'd be a lot more Python out there as opposed to &#106avascript...)

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
Now if only we could do something about the web developers that create such a headache for the standardization guys :) (Of course, if I had my way, HTML would look a lot more like JSON than XML, and there'd be a lot more Python out there as opposed to &#106avascript...)

While I agree, I'd suggest that web developers (*EDIT: which typically means people developing websites for the web... But I realize you may mean browser developers.) aren't the root of the issue (even though poor ones certainly do not help matters). Old non-standards compliant browsers such as IE6 still make up ~20% of browsers or more that people use actively today. Because of the inability, or refusal to update the las we're going to have to deal with IE6 only non-standard approaches to some things for quite some time. Even if we do our best to negate work-arounds by separating the stylesheet out with conditional IE comments we still have bugs such as the infamous float comment bug that require careful consideration.

Hell, IE8 only gets 20/100 (and hangs at 12 for a bit) on the latest acid test. It is browser non-compliance that is the biggest headache for standards guys who couldn't give two flips if sally-joe's personal site is made poorly but may care very much if a browser renders something a few pixels off of how it should. ;)

The installed versions of various browsers I have give me:

IE6 12/100,IE7 14/100, IE8 20/100, FF 71/100, Safari 74/100, Chrome 79/100

Unimpressive is all I can say for IE without getting mean. The latest versions of Safari and Chrome get 100/100 I hear.

The main beef I have with IE8 is how shudderingly, lumberingly slow it is at running &#106avascript.