MSIE = Server Problems

[anphanax]

MSIE sends out two GET requests for the exact same file? What the hell is the point of this? Is this the whole, IIS understands this thing and other servers don't so it gives microsoft the ability to say theirs is faster? THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. OR IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS BULLSHIT...

For those who don't understand, you don't make two requests for the same damn resource.

PROXY:
GET http://www.emptywebpage.com/ HTTP/1.0
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
Accept-Language: en-us
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Host: www.emptywebpage.com
Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive

GET http://www.emptywebpage.com/ HTTP/1.0
Accept: */*
Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Host: www.emptywebpage.com
Pragma: no-cache

NORMAL:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
Accept-Language: en-us
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Host: 127.0.0.1
Connection: Keep-Alive

GET / HTTP/1.1
Accept: */*
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Host: 127.0.0.1
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cache-Control: no-cache

[ October 17, 2003: Message edited by: anphanax ]

[anphanax]

And now, here's mozilla firebird 0.6.1 (I haven't upgraded to 0.7 yet, 0.6.x works fine)

PROXY:
GET http://www.emptywebsite.com/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.emptywebsite.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,video/x-mng,image/png,image/jpeg,image/gif;q=0.2,*/*;q=0.1
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 300
Proxy-Connection: keep-alive

NORMAL:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,video/x-mng,image/png,image/jpeg,image/gif;q=0.2,*/*;q=0.1
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 300
Connection: keep-alive

[anphanax]

The results are in:

Does a Netscape-AOLServer sends the same thing twice?
YES

Does a Apache server send the same thing twice?
YES

Does an IIS server send the same thing twice?
NO

Conspiracy, you decide...
Does this make MSIE slower? Well, thats just common sense    (and who's to say that IIS is fast when crap like this has to be handled).

[anphanax]

I would also like to point out that the MSIE activex control doesn't work very well, as when I use keep-alive, it refuses to show the page until I close the socket, where as with mozilla, it will.

[mobrien_12]

I don't know if you have read this before

What makes IE so fast?  It cheats.

Your experience sounds similar, but the above mentioned link says that standard (== not IIS) servers ignore the first request.

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
I don't know if you have read this before

What makes IE so fast?  It cheats.

Your experience sounds similar, but the above mentioned link says that standard (== not IIS) servers ignore the first request.

Does this also explain why MSIE is so insecure? If not, shouldn't every browsers and servers adopt that method to speed up browsing?

[hm_murdock]

IE seems like it's insecure because of all the useless crap that's in it, and how it hooks into everything

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7: Has half Macman's posts:


Does this also explain why MSIE is so insecure? If not, shouldn't every browsers and servers adopt that method to speed up browsing?

This is a violation of TCP standards.  People should not use it.

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:


This is a violation of TCP standards.  People should not use it.

OK, but is there anything inherently wrong about it? I know it violates standards and all, but if that method were to be adopted as a TCP standard, and all browsers used it, would this have negative effects?

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7: Has half Macman's posts:


OK, but is there anything inherently wrong about it? I know it violates standards and all, but if that method were to be adopted as a TCP standard, and all browsers used it, would this have negative effects?

The whole point behind TCP is to have two way communication for error checking (data integrity) and security.  MS says, "hey if we bypass syn and ack we can make things move faster."  Which translates to "if we break TCP we can move things faster."  

There is already a protocol for high speed, insecure, non-error checking data transfer.  It's called UDP.  It's very fast and not secure, and online games use it almost exclusively.

Trying to make TCP work like UDP is  a BAD thing.  It would be better to move web traffic to UDP.

[jasonlane]

+

If the industry adopts M$'s hacked, broken stance on TCP then you have a situation were M$ can claim (or thinks it can claim) ownership over TCP + World + Dog. Not good.

O'Brien is right, they should stick to the fucking standards. That's why there called Standards.