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

[Aloone_Jonez]

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/ReleaseNotes/Default.html#SystemRequirements

I can see why MS have decided not to support XP but don't you think that's stupid?

No one's going to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 just to run a shitty browser. This decision is just going to push people over to alternative browsers or keep them using IE8.

It does look like IE9 is going to be better than I thought it was: the Acid3 test score of the most recent build is 55 and there will be some support for SVG which I think it brilliant. Oh well it looks like when I test it, it'll have to be with a pirated copy of Vista or Windows 7 running under Virtual Box.

[Refalm]

The change from GDI to DirectDraw in Internet Explorer 9 is a pretty good one, since the concept of a webbrowser as a second (or primary) desktop is gaining more momentum.

Í guess Firefox should look at SDL, and using that instead of GDI in Windows or XWindows in Linux on Dual Core or greater PC's.

[reactosguy]

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/ReleaseNotes/Default.html#SystemRequirements

I can see why MS have decided not to support XP but don't you think that's stupid?

It is an asinine choice, but with a reason. Microsoft was implementing some graphics related technology that was only supported by Windows NT 6 or greater, according to some PCWorld article. That makes sense, but why not throw out the NT6-compatible technology to give XP a second chance? To Microsoft, that makes way more common sense then not releasing it for XP.

Satirical!: Maybe in XP SP4 the NT6 compatible technology would be supported, then IE9 will get it's graphics boost. (I don't know if MS is working on XP SP4. They did it with Windows 2000.)

[Aloone_Jonez]

Sorry for posting in the wrong section, I've moved it.

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.

EDIT:
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

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.

[worker201]

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.

That would be like getting a birthday present from your Aunt Bernice - a Power Rangers t-shirt that would have fit you very nicely when you were 11.  Yeah, it sucks when you're trying to move on and everyone around you is stuck in the past.

Also, your logic is kinda flawed.  The only people who will be using IE9 are Vista/7 customers who get an update pushed at them.  Said customers will be just fine with IE8 until then, and probably won't notice the difference even after they upgrade.  Enterprise-level users (and fuck-Vista users) will be remaining with XP for reasons that have nothing to do with the web browser, and wouldn't upgrade even if they had the option to.

As a matter of fact, the only reason I can think of that it would be good for Microsoft to build an XP version of IE9 is so that you yourself can download it and get the SVG support you've always wanted.  So you expect them to build a costly and probably buggy port just to satisfy the curiosity of a handful of users?  Microsoft isn't that stupid.  Well, yes they are, but I would advise them against this.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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!

 

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.

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.