On the security side it’s probably a bit early to tell. It’s clear that Microsoft has plenty of experience creating relative insecure browsers and hopefully they have learned from earlier mistakes. Of course you have to look at this in perspective. IE still is the one with the biggest market share, so it only makes sense that more security issues and bugs are found faster. This in turn is also the main reason the browser is targeted the most by malware authors. On the other hand, being the leading software in your field, my opinion is that security should be top priority. I’m not saying it isn’t over at Redmond, but we can all agree it doesn’t always look that way. Surely problems will arise sooner or later, whether IE8 will live up to it’s expectation here, I guess only time will tell.

So what about the standards side? I for one can only be happy with the fact that finally Microsoft has decided to be more standards-compliant. This is definitely a step in the right direction. But let’s take a closer look… Over at the IE blog, there’s an interesting post about backwards-compatibility. To ensure that old(er) sites work seamlessly with this new version, IE8 is getting shipped with what is called Compatibility View. This mode is there to make sure IE7 code still runs on IE8, even if it’s not really adhering to the standards. And I think here is where the problems start. If you browse down on the blog-post to the comments, you can see a lot of people are concerned about this. In essence IE8 is providing 2 new ways of rendering pages. One of course using the native IE8 mode, using the provided standards, the other one implementing sometimes strange behaviour in handling code. This is surely going to cause quite some headaches with developers.

Last but not least, I’d like to share some Microsoft marketing trick I found lining out the different loading times of IE8, Firefox and Chrome. Personally I found the video quite funny, but what scares me is that a lot of end-users will walk right into this. I’m not saying the claims made are wrong or twisted, but I do wonder if people really think speed is THAT important. Let’s be honest here, who really cares if a site takes one of half a second longer to load in your browser of choice. Differences like this are really marginal. What should matter most is the overall performance of the application, on all domains. Such a campaign proves one thing for me: Microsoft is really feeling the heat from Firefox and Chrome breathing down it’s neck. They are afraid, and they should be!

Where Internet Explorer uses Trident, Firefox uses Gecko, and Chrome & Safari using Webkit, this one uses all three. Of course not at the same time, but you can switch between engines on-the-fly. Claiming 3 times faster start-up time using the fastest javascript rendering engine in the world (as claimed on their site), this new piece of software is looking promising.

I think this might be a very good start-up and sure looks like such a project could have a bright future. Why installing and using three different programs, hogging your resources, while you can use one and have it all! Maybe this won’t become the mainstream browser for the big mass, but in the technical environment, things could really leap forward. For (web)-developers, this is surely a gift from heaven.

The competing browsers are Firefox 3, Safari, Google Chrome, Opera and Internet Explorer 7. Tests performed include the new V8 javascript test, browser extensions testing, the Acid 3 test, a Flash test, a Javascript test and a general speed test.

Firstly, they performed the V8-test. This is quite a new test for the rendering of javascript. When the V8 code is included in your browser, this test is blazing fast. Currently only Google Chrome & the new Firefox alpha (MineField) include this code. Since Minefield is not officially out yet, it speaks for itself that Chrome is the winner here.

Next up is the browser extension test. This is for testing XML capabilities. Here IE7 did not come out good at all, since this is not supported in it. The winner here is Firefox, but the differences between the other 2 browsers is minimal.

Third test, Acid 3. This tests the default settings of the browser, plays an animation and compares the result to a reference. To pass this test, the browser must have a final score of 100. None of the tested software passed, but the best one was Opera with a score of 85.

Fourth up is a flash test. Of course when you install flash it’s used by all browsers, but not all render the same flash animation/video at the same speed. This test is best performed by Firefox.

Next test is for javascript. The tester used the SlickSpeed test, which is normally used by developers to test for compatibility. Here, IE7 failed miserably since the test took a ridiculous amount of time to load. Safari didn’t complete it, and the rest went OK. The winner here is Google Chrome.

Last but not least is the Webspeed test. Testing some content-rich websites, the tester checked which browser was able to load them te fastest. Differences between all browsers are not that large, but again here Chrome wins.

The final score is 1st place for Google Chrome. Firefox finishes as second and Opera as third. Safari & IE7 both didn’t perform that well. This shows again that free is (at least in this case), better. Granted, you could consider all of the tested browsers ‘free’, but the differnce is that the three ‘winners’ aren’t usually shipped with an OS. Again Firefox here is a bit of an exception on this rule since it’s becoming more & more the default in a lot of Linux distributions.

All in all, I think both Chrome & Firefox are the best browsers currently available. Chrome might be the winner today, but Minefield is looking promising as well, and might just kick Chrome of that number one place soon.