Delivering Fast JavaScript Performance in Microsoft Edge(blogs.windows.com)
blogs.windows.com
Delivering Fast JavaScript Performance in Microsoft Edge
http://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/20/delivering-fast-javascript-performance-in-microsoft-edge/
3 comments
While I completely agree that regular releases and an evergreen browser are extremely important in today's world (and that is the direction that Microsoft Edge is moving towards), I am not sure what point you were trying to make by saying that comparison against competition should be with a grain of salt.
All three blogs that you point to talk about SunSpider benchmark (from Apple), and since IE9, or the day the first blog was published, the story holds true. Across platforms (32-bit or 64-bit), Microsoft Edge and IE remain as leaders in that benchmark across all competing browsers. The nearest competitor is around 40% slower. Here are the nos. across major browsers on SunSpider
MSEdge: 103 FF Nightly : 176 Chrome Canary: 171
All three blogs that you point to talk about SunSpider benchmark (from Apple), and since IE9, or the day the first blog was published, the story holds true. Across platforms (32-bit or 64-bit), Microsoft Edge and IE remain as leaders in that benchmark across all competing browsers. The nearest competitor is around 40% slower. Here are the nos. across major browsers on SunSpider
MSEdge: 103 FF Nightly : 176 Chrome Canary: 171
And you need to install windows 10 to get the new browser.
Is Microsoft coupling their browser again?
Is Microsoft coupling their browser again?
It seems like they are. To those people down voting this comment because it comes off as a snark, it has some merit. Web developers need a new machine just to test the new IE. We already have to use multiple VMs or some other solution to test IE6-11 since you can't have more than one IE installed at a time. This just makes web development that much more difficult since now if a bug is reported in the new IE the engineer who is assigned that ticket needs access to that environment.
I really hope the Microsoft team gets the hint and has one IE that is universal, across all OSs, with continued updates (Like Firefox or Chrome). It's very rare that you actually need to dive into Firefox versions or Chrome versions, but every IE issue needs the version listed specifically.
> Web developers need a new machine just to test the new IE
False.
http://dev.modern.ie/tools/vms/
False.
http://dev.modern.ie/tools/vms/
A Virtual Machine is the machine I meant, sorry.
There's three points I'd like to address about your comment:
1. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Microsoft should be "universal, across all OSs" about them releasing their new browser with their new OS. It's completely reasonable for MS to make the break with their bad browser design to occur at an OS boundary, since what was made their design exceptionally bad was largely coupling of components in to the OS.
2. You're just being completely unfair talking about the versions. The answer is just that Microsoft uses different version schemes than Google and Mozilla with regards to browsers. Your comparison about the gaps in IE compatibility would be like saying Chrome 30 isn't the same as Chrome 20. In your comment, you're comparing different sized steps, based on the assumption that an integer is a reasonable unit to compare the numbers based on. Shame that version numbers aren't numbers in that sense that that tactic doesn't work.
3. Continual updates pushed to the browser already happens under Microsoft's suggested running of Windows -- both minor upgrades (which are the equivalent of the Chrome and FF upgrades you reference), and the suggestion for major upgrades. It just doesn't happen across the board right away because of IT policies in place. This is a concession to major corporate clients who don't want tens of thousands of copies of their software across the globe randomly changing at the behest of some other company, and prefer to manage their own upgrades.
1. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Microsoft should be "universal, across all OSs" about them releasing their new browser with their new OS. It's completely reasonable for MS to make the break with their bad browser design to occur at an OS boundary, since what was made their design exceptionally bad was largely coupling of components in to the OS.
2. You're just being completely unfair talking about the versions. The answer is just that Microsoft uses different version schemes than Google and Mozilla with regards to browsers. Your comparison about the gaps in IE compatibility would be like saying Chrome 30 isn't the same as Chrome 20. In your comment, you're comparing different sized steps, based on the assumption that an integer is a reasonable unit to compare the numbers based on. Shame that version numbers aren't numbers in that sense that that tactic doesn't work.
3. Continual updates pushed to the browser already happens under Microsoft's suggested running of Windows -- both minor upgrades (which are the equivalent of the Chrome and FF upgrades you reference), and the suggestion for major upgrades. It just doesn't happen across the board right away because of IT policies in place. This is a concession to major corporate clients who don't want tens of thousands of copies of their software across the globe randomly changing at the behest of some other company, and prefer to manage their own upgrades.
It's because the logic is backward from the "bad thing" that MS was doing. Microsoft was trying IE in with Windows in a way that was perceived as unfair because of the dominance of the operating system. This turned out to be unwarranted anyway, because it just turned out the only thing preventing other browsers from "winning" was being better. Also that browsers aren't really worth as monetarily as everyone thought they would be at the time.
This is the opposite. Edge requires windows 10. Complaining about new software having a dependency on something, is a bit odd. But this isn't even that. It's software built for a target platform. When you design software you pick hardware and OSes to support. Sometimes older versions are cut, just like older versions of Android don't get all the latest updates to Chrome.
Additionally, it turns out that most commercial OSes are going to be tied in with the OS, and consumers seem select OSes/devices that package the basics like this.
This is the opposite. Edge requires windows 10. Complaining about new software having a dependency on something, is a bit odd. But this isn't even that. It's software built for a target platform. When you design software you pick hardware and OSes to support. Sometimes older versions are cut, just like older versions of Android don't get all the latest updates to Chrome.
Additionally, it turns out that most commercial OSes are going to be tied in with the OS, and consumers seem select OSes/devices that package the basics like this.
With modern.ie, you get free testing VMs and screenshots of any website rendered in IE across many devices. To test Safari on Windows, Apple provides you with many less options (certainly no free browser testing OSX VMs!).
They're going above and beyond to make up for past mistakes, for that I'm grateful.
They're going above and beyond to make up for past mistakes, for that I'm grateful.
OSX VMs... Now there's an idea.
I'd be more than willing to pay a large premium for an officially supported version of OSX that runs in VMware/Virtualbox/Hyper-V/etc. But I suppose it probably isn't in Apple's best interests to offer one.
I'd be more than willing to pay a large premium for an officially supported version of OSX that runs in VMware/Virtualbox/Hyper-V/etc. But I suppose it probably isn't in Apple's best interests to offer one.
It exists now, you just need to run it on an OS X machine running OS X + Fusion to be legal.
I have vagrant vm's for OS X back to 10.7. You might be able to run esx on a mac then use vm's that way but I have no idea. In either case what you want has existed for some time.
I have vagrant vm's for OS X back to 10.7. You might be able to run esx on a mac then use vm's that way but I have no idea. In either case what you want has existed for some time.
I should have been more specific. I was hoping for an OS X VM that runs on host OSes other than OS X.
Technically possible but against the licensing.
They're giving away Windows 10 for free. So they're copying Apple's strategy and instead of back-porting, just get everyone onto the latest version.
Getting people to the latest version is the problem. People are still reportedly using IE7! Upgrading isn't about purchase cost, it's about labor cost and general know-how.
I honestly thought IE11 would be the last major IE release, guess I was wrong. This new one looks no better.
I honestly thought IE11 would be the last major IE release, guess I was wrong. This new one looks no better.
It's easier to 'sell' people free updates without a lot of perceived upsides for the end-user than to 'sell' them that they also have to pay for the update :)
Unless I'm going crazy, I don't think your comment makes grammatical sense. Both of those options are made to sound bad (without upsides, also have to pay?)
In any case, I'm not doubting that it's easier to pitch an update if it's free. All I'm saying is that purchase cost isn't the main or only barrier to Microsoft software updates.
In any case, I'm not doubting that it's easier to pitch an update if it's free. All I'm saying is that purchase cost isn't the main or only barrier to Microsoft software updates.
Sorry about the weird phrasing. What I wanted to convey is that sometimes from the user's point of view it is not easy to see/perceive any upside from upgrading (even though technically there might be lots). => hence a free upgrade is way easier to say yes to.
We still don't know how that is going to work yet. Will they cut off updates at some point. Do users have to pay for Windows 10.1? Will all future versions of Windows forever be free for those who bought Windows 7/8? etc
It's hard to say, but Apple has definitely learned that people don't like paying for minor-ish OS upgrades. I hope Microsoft has learned from that.
I would definitely pay Apple for an upgrade of snow leopard.
Unfortunately, Apple doesn't give you the option of voting with your money anymore.
I know :(
Serious I think I am not alone in wanting to be able to run snow leopard on recent hardware. Apple please make software as good as your hardware.
Serious I think I am not alone in wanting to be able to run snow leopard on recent hardware. Apple please make software as good as your hardware.
Free for one year.
Incorrect. Free upgrades for one year, with free updates after that for device lifetime. [1]
1. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/about (Under Free upgrade offer)
That's what I mean; if you don't upgrade within the year, you don't get it for free. I was answering the last question.
What is Microsoft's business model then? Bing ads? Kinect + ??? = Profit? (I know I'm phrasing this like a joke, but I'm genuinely curious what revenue driver(s) justify a near $400B valuation)
> What is Microsoft's business model then?
New Windows licenses, licensing on lots of other software, MSDN, enterprise support, and all the things that aren't upgrades of existing Windows licenses.
New Windows licenses, licensing on lots of other software, MSDN, enterprise support, and all the things that aren't upgrades of existing Windows licenses.
They're giving away free upgrades to Windows 10, for the first year. That's all.
* http://windows.microsoft.com/en-au/windows-10/about
* http://windows.microsoft.com/en-au/windows-10/about
No, it's just that Edge is a universal app and uses API's only available in Windows 10.
So, that's a Yes, Microsoft is coupling their browser.
You mean like Safari in MacOSX, Mobile Safari in iOS, Chrome in Android or Firefox in Ubuntu? Yes. A browser is sort of a non-optional thing in an OS these days seeing how this world wide web thing is popular.
While every OS ships with a browser, I think the OP was asking "do you have to install windows 10" in order to get the new MSFT Browser.
IIRC, those examples you listed, you don't need to install the latest OS X to get the latest version of Safari (though you need to have a recently supported OS).
IIRC, those examples you listed, you don't need to install the latest OS X to get the latest version of Safari (though you need to have a recently supported OS).
You can't use Safari 8 on Mavericks. In a sense they backported some features to Safari 7 (as well as security updates, etc), but it's a distinct version and a very different browser.
Fair point.
Many versions of Safari are coupled with OS X updates.
Many versions of Safari are coupled with OS X updates.
You've always needed a reasonably recent version of OS X to use up-to-date versions of Safari. The window for "reasonably recent", right now, is Windows 10. There is no basis in fact to claim that Edge+1 will not support Windows 10, too.
No need to be defensive.
I'm simply stating the following sentence is true:
Windows 10 and Edge are coupled.
I'm simply stating the following sentence is true:
Windows 10 and Edge are coupled.
You're trying really hard to make it sound like a bad thing that Microsoft finally stopped their awful practice of dragging forward a huge stack of backward compatibility, wrote a new API to replace the cruft, and is working on writing new technologies to use this.
The reason that Edge requires Windows 10 and not Windows 8 is that Microsoft bungled Windows 8 structurally, and they don't want to write their software for "sinking ship compliance".
The reason that Edge requires Windows 10 and not Windows 8 is that Microsoft bungled Windows 8 structurally, and they don't want to write their software for "sinking ship compliance".
> You're trying really hard to make it sound like a bad thing that Microsoft finally stopped their awful practice of dragging forward a huge stack of backward compatibility, wrote a new API to replace the cruft, and is working on writing new technologies to use this.
Straw Man logical fallacy.
I am simply saying the following is a fact: Edge is coupled with Windows 10.
Based on a previous comment to the effect of: "It's not coupled but requires windows 10 API's"
Whether or not that is good,bad,or indifferent I make no judgement on. Especially given that both Chrome and Firefox are really great alternatives and are on a lot of platforms already.
Straw Man logical fallacy.
I am simply saying the following is a fact: Edge is coupled with Windows 10.
Based on a previous comment to the effect of: "It's not coupled but requires windows 10 API's"
Whether or not that is good,bad,or indifferent I make no judgement on. Especially given that both Chrome and Firefox are really great alternatives and are on a lot of platforms already.
Please go check when the last Windows version of Safari was released.
You missed the point what "coupling" means. Chrome runs on Android but also runs elsewhere. Same for Firefox.
Exciting stuff. It feels really weird for someone to write a blog in which they discover that 95% of websites use minified JS though. I guess it's nice to see Microsoft making some progress but you have to wonder what's going on over there if they seem to clueless to the state of the modern web.
My understanding is that the same JavaScript code minified by different minifiers will produce different performance results across any browser. This is because minifiers often introduce code patterns that are very different than the JavaScript code that the devs write. The point being made is not about being non-aware of the web, but more about ensuring the web runs faster across different code patterns that are encountered by the JIT compiler while running the web.
But the thing is, other browsers don't stand still and IE releases are so infrequent, that even if IE really is super-fast at release, within six months it's an also-ran. Maybe Edge will break this pattern? It'd be nice.
IE11, from November 2013: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Benchmarks/sunspider/Defau...
IE10, from 2012: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/140337-ie10-on-windows-7...
IE9, from 2010: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/03/18/the-new-javasc...