Miscellaneous > Applications

IE 9 will be for Vista and Windows 7 not for XP

<< < (2/2)

reactosguy:
It's a shame that IE9 isn't going to be released for XP. Microsoft doesn't know the "optimize-it" policy. In other words, they could cut incompatible features from the XP version.


--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on  3 April 2010, 09:46 ---I agree the decision to use graphics acceleration for rendering is a good one but I don't see why it has to require the latest version of directX. The XP version could still be inferior to the Vista+ version as it is with IE8 which has an enhanced security over the XP version.

I think accelerated rendering is an innovative feature and other browsers should follow, especially if they produce the same feature on XP and other platforms, but I think there are more important things to worry about such as standards and security but at least MS are addressing those issues to some extent.

--- End quote ---

I think accelerated rendering is no good, because it consumes resources to render graphics with IE9's technology. I don't like slow computers.

Plus, IE9 could use some piece of cake. It needs the "wows" that helped the other browsers.


--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez link=topic=12341.msg135310#msg135310   date=1270280788 ---I've just ran a few of their demo's of IE 9's new standards compliant abilities in Opera and it's certainly impressive for IE, the an SVG based arcade game impressed me.

One thing that annoyed my was one page showing the Acid3 tested in an iframe but it failed in Opera which passes when the test is run in its own window.
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/benchmarks/Acid3/Default.html#a3

--- End quote ---

It was quite annoying for Firefox 3.6.2 to fail the Acid3 test with a score of 92/100.

In Firefox 3.6.2 on Windows XP SP3, it will say "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL" and an invisible word to scratch and sniff with the cursor (FAIL) at the top left. Really disappointing and amusing.

I hope IE9 fails 15 or more Acid3 tests. Revenge!

 
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez link=topic=12341.msg135310#msg135310   date=1270280788 ---The problem with not supporting XP is that it'll probably be 10 years before developers can finally ditch support for IE 8 which is going to be around for a long time. I think MS should at least consider releasing a service pack to put some of the standards support into IE 8.

--- End quote ---

Ten years is a really long time, and it's a piece of flip for some consumers to see IE8 go.

When you have to replace it, you have to replace it.

Lead Head:
Accelerated rendering *improves* performance. It offloads the rendering work to the graphics card, when it would otherwise be doing very little. This frees up the CPU to do more important things.

The problem, IMO is that Microsoft kept IE6 around way too long. It was around for what, 5 years? Without any updates save for security patches? To an extent as well, Microsoft took too much time to bring NT to home users (XP). NT is in every single way superior to the DOS Based Win9x+ME systems. Windows 98 should have been NT based, or they should have released a Win2k Home Edition. That would have given them nearly an additional 2 years for NT to get popular with home users. They would be in a much better place right now imo if they had done that.

Now they have huge legacy compatibility issues, and they can't just drop all legacy support either because of how far they let the 9x series develop.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page