IE9 - seems to be a pretty good browser, but....

I'm a user of Palemoon and have been for a while now, maybe about a year or so, and before that I was a die-hard Firefox user. However, I upgraded to Palemoon4 and it now opens MUCH slower than v3.x did. Once it's open, it runs great, but that initial lag was driving me crazy to the point where I installed Internet Explorer 9 (I'm running Win7X64). Importing my bookmarks/favorites from Palemoon was easy enough, but there's one main thing about IE9 that I'm wondering about.... where's the "search bar" or "search window"? In just about every browser I've ever used, there's a separate search bar/box/window (screen shot below of Palemoon4 to illustrate), but there does not seem to be one in IE9. Other than that minor detractance, the IE9 browser is pretty freekin' cool, and I NEVER thought that I would EVER go back to any IE browser, but IE9 is lookin' pretty good right now!

 

Which version of the Palemoon Browser v 4 did you install? 32 or 64?

Did you update from 32 to 64 or 64 to 64?

Did you remove Palemoon browser and install the new version 4?

Next: did you try PM in safemode to see if an addon could be the reason for starting up slower. Here's a link to addons that may slow the initial startup and perhaps slower browser experience. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/performance/#addon-11

EDIT: Sorry dlb, I don't know anything about IE9

 

. . . oh yeah . . . another annoyance . . . I can't use the scroll wheel on my mouse to scroll thru my favorites. I have to move the pointer down to the bottom of the list to that tiny little downward-pointing triangle/arrow thingy . . . . one other thing . . . the lack of built in spell-check like we're all used to having in Firefox/Palemoon and Opera.... we shouldn't be forced to install a plug-in or add-on for spell check. I am REALLY REALLY surprised that IE9 does NOT have built in spell check...

 

Sorry, I forgot to tell you in my previous post that that search *bar* in your pic seems to be for search engines such as google, bing etc. Similar thing as in Fx and PM.

Must be somewhere else. Another member of MG can help you out where to find what you're looking for.

MSFT must think then that users of IE9 know how to spell.

 

@ oma: I installed whatever the built-in "check for upgrades" version installed, and it's the x86 (32bit) version of v4.0. I did not remove PM 3.x before upgrading to 4.0, I simply followed the "a new version is available, upgrade now?" prompt. The thing is, I KNOW BETTER!!!! :banghead I almost never follow these "upgrade now" prompts and I almost always uninstall/reinstall the app in question. :-o DUH. Now that I just created a backup of my PM bookmarks, I'll uninstall/reinstall PM and do it "the right way!".

On the other hand - IE9 is still looking pretty good! Besides the lack of built in spell-check and the absence of a "search box", it's a great step forward for the whole IE series of browsers....

(the screen shot above >>IS<< from Palemoon4 - I'm wondering how to have the same feature in IE9 - by default, IE9 does NOT have this feature)

 

IE9, like Google's Chrome browser, does not have a separate search box. The web address box also functions as a search box. I know this seems odd at first but, if you use it for awhile, I think you'll get the hang of it.

 

:-o Yeah, I figured this out after a bit of messing around... I know it's not a huge deal, but for some reason I really like having the separate 'search box'. Maybe it's just because I'm so familiar and accustomed to it.... IE9 is still looking like it may replace Palemoon. I just installed the newest non-beta Opera, and it is REALLY fast too, so right now it's between IE9 and O. If PM gets "fixed" after a proper uninstall/reinstall, I'll probably stick with it, but if not . . . . .

 

OK - I just completed a "proper" uninstall and reinstall of Palemoon4, and I must say it is MUCH faster to launch than it was previously (but still slower than both Opera 10.63 and IE9.0.8112.16421). So, this presents a conundrum of sorts: do I stay with PM? do I switch to Opera (which has always been my "secondary" browser), or do I give the new IE9 a chance?

I guess I'll just have to use each browser for bit, give each one a chance to "show its stuff" and "stretch its legs", and I'll go from there.....

.... any constructive input is encouraged!

(I already miss the built in spell-check of PM & O compared to IE9's lack of spell-check :cry and not being able to scroll thru my dozens of favorites with my mouse wheel sucks, bad!)

 

..... and another thing I don't like about IE9: if I open my Favorites, and right click on one, I do NOT get the option to "Open in a new tab", and that really sucks. So- I think IE9 is out. I looked thru the advanced setting in the Tools>Internet Options menu and found nothing that was even close to enabling a setting that would let me right-click-open-in-a-new-tab with my Favorites. Sorry IE9 I'm sticking with PM4 and Opera10, even though I really REALLY like the overall speed of IE9, it IS freaky FAST!!

EDIT - I just realized that Opera doesn't have the right-click-open-in-a-new-tab feature either when it comes to my Favorites/Bookmarks, the only browser of the 3 I've discussed here that does have this feature is Palemoon. So there.

 

If you're having addons in PM see if its launch is faster in safe mode. If that's the case, then an addon may be the culprit. See here the worst addons so far. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/performance/#addon-11 Keep in mind that the list can/may change every week. Some info on that: http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/04/01/improving-add-on-performance/

Believe that IE has a Trident Engine and Windows is its own *native pod* so no wonder that IE9 may/can be launching faster.

 

To add to Oma's suggestion of checking for the slowest addons, click the link for your OS on that page because the effect of the addons can be very different depending on the OS.

Unless you open and close FX/PM dozens of times per day, I don't see much of a problem with a 4-10 second startup time; mine starts the first time in about 10 seconds, subsequent starts during the session are from 3-7 seconds, depending on other programs running and length of time since it was last used. IE starts a little faster first time (probably due to the fact that part of it is built-in to the OS, as Oma hinted) but subsequent starts are in the same range as FX/PM.

 

Yep, that opens a new background tab in IE9 (and in Chrome), and if you use Shift+Ctrl the new tab will be in the foreground. It's reversed in FX4, with Ctrl opening a new foreground tab and Shift+Ctrl a background tab. Although Chrome is my default, I prefer the FX4 method with this one - very convenient.

 

Chrome has always been like that David, MS copied it. But I do think IE9 is a cracking browser and if it wasn't for the need to have gmail available offline, not possible in IE, I would switch to it.

 

Regarding gmail, it can be POP3 -enabled and setup in an email client (Outlook Express, Outlook, Windows Live Mail, etc.). Using an email client makes your mail available offline.

Yes, I mentioned that in reply #6.

 

Thanks usafv. I use several different computers so POP3 isn't very useful for me, and I prefer the simplicity of a web based mail system anyway. All I need is a browser - any browser anywhere - and I have full access to my emails, contacts, calendar and documents. Have used OE, WLM, and Thunderbird extensively in the past but find that gmail online, with a synchronised version on the hard disk of my main PC just in case, suits best. The Cloud is where we are all heading, and gmail and all the things that come with it is a big step towards it.

 

Earthling, you aroused my curiosity about gmail offline so I activiated it for Chrome on my laptop. So far, I see it as a possible alternative to IMAP, which I've been using with a gmail account for awhile. gmail gives users more access/retrieval options (POP3, IMAP, gmail offline [by installing a browser extenstion], and by web browser) than any other email service I know of.

 

yeah, I used to be an IMAP missionary - until I discovered gmail

 

What advantages do you see in Gmail Offline compared to IMAP, keeping in mind gmail can be IMAP enabled? I see none.

 

It just means I don't have to install, configure and maintain a client on each of several computers. I don't actually use the offline feature anyway, I just have it in case the server or my connection goes down.