Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Explorer 9 Will Not Support Windows XP

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the are-you-keeping-up-with-me dept.

Internet Explorer 454

MojoKid writes "As it turns out, news this week is that the same features that made IE9's hardware-acceleration possible probably aren't compatible with Windows XP. Microsoft initially dodged giving a straight answer to the question of XP support but has since admitted that the new browser won't be XP-compatible when it launches. This has created a small tempest of protest from those users still using XP, but this is less of an arbitrary decision than some appear to think. It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP. Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode.'"

cancel ×

454 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GOOD !! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548570)

Time to move away from the crap. IE that is

Thats ok , as an XP user (5, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548574)

I don't use Internet Explorer, I use Firefox

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (2, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548640)

>I don't use Internet Explorer, I use Firefox

So do I (plus I don't use MS-Windows).

But the real problem is that there are still many, many, many websites that DO NOT WORK unless you are using MS-Windows with Internet Explorer (and at our nearly 100% Linux shop at work, we know VERY WELL that this is the truth). We can all agree how horrible that is, but it doesn't change anything. So, those wanting to or forced to use IE-only websites might also be forced to upgrade from XP. Welcome to the effects of proprietary lock-in.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (5, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548674)

So, those wanting to or forced to use IE-only websites might also be forced to upgrade from XP. Welcome to the effects of proprietary lock-in.

Forced to upgrade? IE8 works just fine on XP and will continue to do so. It also doesn't have any of the exploits that IE6 has.

Also, how does it differ between proprietary and open source then? If you're using some 10 years old version of your Linux OS and it doesn't support some feature that the newer OS/kernel versions have, you're not going to be able to install programs that require said feature.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548710)

Is it really a genuine problem anyway? Given the number of web sites in existence someone can probably claim "many, many, many" that do any given weird thing. I'm sure there's ones out there that still demand Netscape Navigator. But in real world web browsing does anyone really find that internet explorer is required? It doesn't happen to me. Company intranets are a different matter but that's a choice the company makes and burdens itself with (if it is a burden).

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548724)

Yes, there are a significant number of them. Unless something has changed recently, all South Korean bank sites for instance require activeX and as such have to be used with IE. And quite a few sites still use plug ins that aren't available for other browsers. It's obnoxious and annoying, but it's becoming less common as people get sick of IE and jump ship for something that works in a somewhat sane fashion.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (3, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548828)

I'm using a three months old version of a 'Linux OS', with Firefox 3.6. I know of several dozen websites that deal in financial transactions and related, and which will all check for software versioning and require downloading active x controls onto the user's machine for at least some functions. I have been informed by a large corporation's legal dept. that attempting to spoof those sites into thinking I was browsing with IE/Windows from a Nix box would not just be a TOS violation, but in at least some of those cases, securities fraud, a violation of Sarbanes-Oxley, or otherwise just not done, and all we can do is use a Microsoft product to visit those sites and perhaps ask them to broaden their website's support. Yeah, in some cases, there's probably a bunch of crooks easily defeating those sites version checking, they're being idiots, and some of them probably get ritually abused by 14 year old script kiddies every weekend, but these are not fly by nights, they are major financial partners in stock trading, banking, sale of treasury securities, and such, they pay a small fortune every year for VPN security and encryption, and everyone else in the financial industry has to occasionally deal with them. For my company, which has begun transitioning to FOSS by adopting Open Office, this is an impediment to completely dropping either Windows or IE completely.
      So we will probably upgrade the machines that still run Windows in every office, yet again. While those are getting fewer, it's still vendor lock-in with bells on. Your comment about 10 year old OS versions isn't just a red herring, it shows a complete lack of understanding.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548834)

>Forced to upgrade? IE8 works just fine on XP and will continue to do so.

It is true that IE8 works on XP, so it will really only be a problem when an IE-Only site also requires 9 for some reason. And that is probably far in the future. By that time, XP really will be VERY old, indeed.

>Also, how does it differ between proprietary and open source then?

Because I can choose to upgrade Linux when I choose to, and at no cost. And when I upgrade, it is not going to suck in tons of DRM and licensing restrictions like MS-Windows upgrades typically do. Also, it is almost certain that MS will use such stuff to try and kill off XP so they can continue upgrade fees and further lock-in. Motivations like that rarely (if at all) exist in the FOSS world.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548910)

Also, how does it differ between proprietary and open source then? If you're using some 10 years old version of your Linux OS and it doesn't support some feature that the newer OS/kernel versions have, you're not going to be able to install programs that require said feature.

If you have the source, you can port it to the newer version even if it's not profitable for the developer.

For example, the free drivers for the ATI cards based on the Mach64 chip (released in '92) are still supported in current Debian [debian.org] .

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548946)

Which is good by the way, because one of my boxes still has a Mach64 card, as many servers do which just have 1024x768 graphics just to support a graphic installation process.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31549014)

Just so you know, you can install through SSH for Debian (which is what GP is talking about, and I assume you are too). I'm sure there's a better way, but what I do is a dummy run on a graphical machine and record all the keypresses, then very precisely and slowly feed the keypresses in to the machine until I'm at a point where I can continue the install remotely. Of course, there are a million little complications that might arise - for example, I've never installed on a machine with no graphics whatsoever, so there might be some complications there. Plus, servers might have raid cards and other fiddly things which require setting up. But hopefully this little nugget of information proves useful ;)

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548748)

But the real problem is that there are still many, many, many websites that DO NOT WORK unless you are using MS-Windows with Internet Explorer (and at our nearly 100% Linux shop at work, we know VERY WELL that this is the truth).

What websites? I've been using Firefox on Linux exclusively for a long time, and I honestly can't remember the last time I would have come across a website that required Internet Explorer. It has been years since I've had any problem whatsoever.

I think the latest problems I've had have been websites that claim they require IE, but if you spoof the user agent they work just fine anyway.

But maybe I've just been lucky.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548820)

The main issue I have is not that a website requires IE, it's a website doesn't support the latest version of Firefox.

Natwest - I'm looking at you.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548882)

>What websites? I've been using Firefox on Linux exclusively for a long time,

You are obviously a home user and not a business user. There are at least 3 critical website apps that we have to access at work that will not work under anything but MS-Windows + IE.

There has been a TREMENDOUS progress in making websites cross-platform and more standards-based over the last several years. Most home users will now rarely, if ever, find a website that requires MS-Windows + IE, except for that horrible Silverlight stuff. But proprietary business stuff is often just as bad as ever... and that continues the lock-in. We just demoed yet another application-as-a-service last week.... when I asked, they didn't even know the answer to my question, but it was obviously MS-Windows + IE only.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548936)

We're talking about the Internet. We really don't care about your companies intranet.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549060)

>We're talking about the Internet. We really don't care about your companies intranet.

I am not talking about "my company's intranet". While the sites I am talking about are not public sites, they are on the Internet, not a private network, and not an Intranet. And they aren't "mine", because if I designed them, they certainly wouldn't require using MS-Windows and/or IE. Finally, while I can understand your not caring, you really should care, because most people do work for some type of company. Being "free" to use what we want at home but forced lock-in at work isn't good for the computing environment at-large.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

websitebroke (996163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548948)

You're not in school either. I'm stuck with a bunch of online courses that require the use of Internet Explorer 6 or 7. Blackboard mostly works under Firefox and IE8, but not completely. MyItLab absolutely requires IE7.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

superskippy (772852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548818)

Meh, it's not that much of a problem. I can't see there being a subset of websites in the future that only work in IE9, but not IE7 or IE8, So you can keep doing what you do now- run Firefox except for the few times you need a craptacular website, in which case you can carefully an old IE.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548930)

>so you can keep doing what you do now- run Firefox except for the few times you need a craptacular website,
>in which case you can carefully an old IE.

Unless you don't want to use MS-Windows. (And no, I don't count IES4Linux, which is now not stable nor updated anymore)

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548850)

But the real problem is that there are still many, many, many websites that DO NOT WORK unless you are using MS-Windows with Internet Explorer

Is this true?

The only time I run IE is about 5 minutes after I build a computer and only then to download Firefox.

Can you give a partial list of these "many, many, many" websites, and by chance are any of them fur-fag sites?

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548924)

I've been using Firefox since it was called Phoenix & I cannot remember the last time I've stumbled across a public website that you *had* to be using IE to view. My bank, credit union & insurance company all render just fine with Firefox.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549092)

But the real problem is that there are still many, many, many websites that DO NOT WORK unless you are using MS-Windows with Internet Explorer

Perhaps you can provide some examples. I can't think of a single site I've been to for several years that didn't work on my Mac. The only sites that don't work on my FreeBSD box are ones that require flash (which does work on FreeBSD, I just never got around to installing the plugin on that machine).

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

krapski (1478035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548798)

I fully agree. But even so, there is nothing wrong with IE6. I like it is well integrated and I can type address from windows explorer and go to internet from there.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548802)

I use Firefox

And, since learning just a few moments ago that Google is developing 3D support for Chrome, I may never need to use IE again.

Hell, if a certain mock-turtleneck wearing pud-hugger would just take the enormous rod out of his ass and release OSX for non-Apple hardware, I'd never use anything of Microsoft's again.

Re:Thats ok , as an XP user (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548998)

Moving away from IE will certainly be the case for more and more users in the future. If that means that they will move away from Windows is a different issue.

Firefox on Mac OS 10.3 (4, Insightful)

klubar (591384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549002)

Firefox has a similar problem. The new versions are not support on fairly recent versions of the Mac OS. Windows XP is getting really old--how long does MS need to maintain compatibity? (It's not like they don't want customers to upgrade).

When Apple drops support for not very old versions of the OS or hardwar, it's called brilliant marketing strategy. When MS does it, it's called abandoning compatibility

Dichotomy (0)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548586)

We want users to get far away from IE 6 - and moving to IE 9 would bring them closer to a standards compliant browser than ever. But IE 9 won't be available to the largest install base of MS ... or just largest period. ANd only people on XP can run IE 6.

Re:Dichotomy (0, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548654)

XP is an 10 year old OS. Users will move on. Vista/Win7 are soon passing XP in market share and will do even more so as people buy new computers.

Besides, IE8 is a perfectly secure browser with sandboxing for XP and it has none the exploits that IE6 has. It's good for XP users.

Re:Dichotomy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548700)

XP is an 10 year old OS.

Windows XP SP2+ is a 6 year old OS. I agree that it's time to move on, but post-SP2 XP is a different beast from pre-SP2 XP.

Re:Dichotomy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548728)

I hate this argument. Who cares how old an operating system is? It isn't milk. If it's popular and in use, it's popular and in use.

Since you slashbots like shitty analogies, you were all up in arms over server-based DRM. "What if I want to play my game in 10 years?!" So which is it - does software expire, or doesn't it?

Linux is older than 10 years, btw. "ZOMG NO NEW KERNEL!!" Ok, if we're counting updates please use XP SP3 as the release date.

Re:Dichotomy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548760)

XP might be ten yrs old but it's been working very well for those ten yrs, the only MS OS that can say that. Users will move away but very slowly. MS apolozied for Vista and rushed out Windows 7, but it's only been retail for 6 months, not long enough for the world to toss XP. I don't know of any websites requiring IE7 much less IE8, and we just "buried" IE6 8 yrs after it's release. I'd bet IE8 has several years of life left in it and this whole "IE9 won't support XP" is a marketing ploy, that IE9 was created to convince people to drop XP.

Re:Dichotomy (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548656)

In my opinion they could at least ship a version of IE9 without the hardware acceleration, at least it would improve standards compliance.

Re:Dichotomy (-1, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548684)

Rather than standards compliance, it's better to get the users to move away from 10 years old OS which support will end. Vista/Win7 are by default a lot more secure operating systems than XP.

Not surprised (3, Interesting)

tkinnun0 (756022) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548588)

XP's graphics handling is really crappy compared to 7 and Vista, so this is no surprise. Flip an LCD to portrait mode in XP, then try to turn on vsync because horizontal tearing just became vertical tearing. Can't be done.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548620)

How exactly is monitor rotation and orientation relevant here?

Re:Not surprised (-1, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548690)

It's relevant because operating systems improve over time. The underlying system has changed and improved a lot too, hence programs made for newer OS don't work with the old ones. At some point it's good to jump off the sinking ship rather than hold on die a horrible death.

Re:Not surprised (2, Insightful)

upuv (1201447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548678)

And who exactly flips their monitor more than twice EVER? You buy the monitor you go oh cool it can be viewed in both modes. You try it then you leave it in the mode of choice for basically every after that. Sure some wise A$$ is going to say the opposite. There is such a minority of people that ever move the monitor after plugging it in.

So again how is this on topic?

Re:Not surprised (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548706)

You forgot tablets, and XP/Vista/Win7 are used in those too. With those you might actually flip the screen quite often - I do with my mobile phone too.

Re:Not surprised (1)

tkinnun0 (756022) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548796)

The topic is XP's antiquated graphics architecture. One example of that is XP's inability to provide hardware-accelerated font-rendering for applications. Another is XP's atrocious graphics in portrait mode. All the goodies borne from the new graphics architecture point to Microsoft's decision to rewrite major parts of XP instead of pushing out more service packs being the right one.

Re:Not surprised (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548964)

> One example of that is XP's inability to provide hardware-accelerated font-rendering for applications

In practice it's not such a huge disadvantage, since 2D hardware-acceleration is still rather flaky. Too often I have to turn OFF hardware acceleration because the video card makers make crap drivers (both Nvidia and ATI).

I find that the hardware acceleration stuff often doesn't work so well when you use multiple monitors - e.g. the video doesn't show - all you get is a black box.

As for XP vs Windows 7, I get corrupted graphics on my work laptop with Windows 7 and ATI video (example: sometimes lines of text vanish or are incorrectly displayed when scrolling), and no such problems with XP SP3 + Nvidia + single monitor (I won't be surprised if I find some probs if I add a monitor).

Might be my imagination but seems like 2D hardware acceleration was better in the 1990s e.g. you could get video cards and drivers without such garbage happening - and they actually seemed to be quite fast at drawing 2D stuff, given the slow CPU speeds of those days.

Maybe the video card manufacturers are focusing more on 3D acceleration.

Re:Not surprised (4, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548688)

XP's graphics handling is really crappy compared to 7 and Vista, so this is no surprise. Flip an LCD to portrait mode in XP, then try to turn on vsync because horizontal tearing just became vertical tearing. Can't be done.

Whether or not XP can handle it doesn't really matter. Windows 7 is where Microsoft's focus is now and their money is better spent supporting the road forward. One other thing worth looking at is why people are still using XP? Chances are in a couple of years once Windows 7 has proved itself many companies will upgrade to the new OS, invalidating any effort Microsoft put into making IE9 work with the older platform.

Beyond companies, who are probably still using IE6 anyhow (ugh), people who really want to stick to XP and want to have the latest version of IE might end up being gifted by some hacker making it possible.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31549026)

Back in the late 90's Microsoft did a survey of business customers and discovered that most of them felt a reasonable time frame for upgrades is 3 to 5 years. Microsoft has been on track with 3 to 5 year upgrades since then, without regard to the pace of technological development so this "better spent on the road forward" crap is just crap. The reason "Windows 7" is such a "leap forward" is because there was so much technological development between XP and Vista is that Vista is actually obsolete before it was released. In other, simple, words: Microsoft is retarding technological development in their operating system for business purposes. This is back firing on both Microcrap and Microcraps major customers. Smaller, leaner, hungrier, businesses looking for a technical edge in productivity and capability will HAVE to turn to Linux as this ridiculous business model of deliberate retardation continues. Eventually to be competitive the larger companies will have to follow the smaller companies and Microcrap will find itself toasted. If Microcrap last another twenty years it will be a miracle. I will be surprised if the jerks last ten more years. The only possibility the morons at Microcrap have to move forward is to go open source. That won't happen because the idiots don't understand that the Microcrap business plan of closed source retardation is pretty much the same as the plan used by the Catholic Church during the dark ages. The Church employed Galileo, published Galileo's works and retarded technological development by preventing the distribution of technological development that it did not agree with. Eventually "open source" and the Renaissance defeated the monopolistic strangle hold the church held on technological development. History repeats, and Microcrap does not have "God" to keep the "faithful" in attendance.

Bye Bye XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548592)

Well that looks like the last nail in the coffin.

Re:Bye Bye XP (5, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548738)

You do realize that Win XP's coffin has more nails than a typical big box hardware store, right? I'm a little curious how this particular nail is going to be the one that finally smites the beast.

Re:Bye Bye XP (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548988)

Hell, FreeDos is still an active project. XP is infinitely more useful and flexible in comparison. "Sunset" support until 2014? They'll probably extend that "another six months" every 6 months until 2016 or so. I can't imagine XP fading into "win98" obscurity until 2020. Many of the computers at my office run win2k, possibly due to the happy coincidence that win2k and XP share essentially the same codebase.
 
I'd hope by 2012 people still running XP will have migrated to some webkit or mozilla based browser by then, though.

So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (4, Insightful)

wellingtonsteve (892855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548598)

We're gonna have another IE6 on our hands in a few years time - every other browser (and maybe IE9, IE10 and so on) will (hopefully) be implementing HTML5 properly in the future but XP users will be stuck with IE8 so websites will never you be able to make the switch to HTML5 (replacing Flash with <video> etc..) because of having to support IE8

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (4, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548612)

I seriously doubt XP will still be used a lot when HTML5 has become mainstream. It's not like you see many Windows 98 or 2000 installations in today's world, so why would XP be any different?

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548758)

"It's not like you see many Windows 98 or 2000 installations in today's world, so why would XP be any different?"

Simple. XP provided enough clear benefits to end users to justify upgrading from 98, while most business users who were on 2000 have upgraded either to XP or 2003. Not to mention the 8 years or so of *every* new PC coming with XP installed by default.

On the other hand, Vista was so problematic that a large majority either demanded XP come with their PC instead, or people have "downgraded" back to XP. Time will tell whether Windows 7 manages to convince a majority to upgrade again, but it will be a long time before there's the kind of critical mass that happened with XP. On top of that, netbooks are very popular right now, and most of those are not even capable of running Windows 7. Since their purpose is to allow easy internet access, XP is going to be much harder to get rid of. Hell, there's still a non-trivial number of people who haven't upgraded from IE6 yet. Imagine how hard it will be to get them to upgrade their OS or PC, when they can't even be bothered to switch browsers...

Because Netbooks are STILL being sold with XP (1)

voss (52565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548970)

Netbook users obviously dont give a rats ass about hardware acceleration, they just want their websites they shop and bank
and watch little youtube videos to work. They are not asking for 720p performance, just want their web to work.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548784)

There are loads of Windows 2000 installations. Not every organisation upgrades the hardware and software of thousands of PCs just because there happens to be a new version of Windows on the market.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548890)

Excellent point. Last year I visited a customer with ~200 Windows 2000/IE6 desktops. They don't connect to the Internet and will get updates until July 2010. They'll probably move to Windows 7 in 2011, especially as virtualization can guarantee their old apps will continue to run.

These guys spent next to nothing on software and very little on hardware for the past 10 years. It doesn't work for everyone but they saw it as a good deal.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548788)

Because 98 sucked and 2000 didn't support games and wasn't marketed towards home users, it was the new NT for businesses.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (3, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548616)

XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8 probably also have another browser. Very few corporate intranets have mandated XP/IE8. I foresee many developers having to support mainly IE6/XP and Firefox* in the near future, and maybe a quickie test on IE7 and IE8 if you have resources to do so.

* The idea is that if you wrote a reasonably standards-based site and tested with Firefox, it will work well in Chrome/Safari/Opera. Feel free to test with any other standards-based browser instead.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

EngivalX (1766600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548794)

Just nit-picking here, but that's a bad assumption. Opera is just a bit more picky than firefox is. For example, recently xkcd.com didn't render in Opera because during an update, they forgot to close their title tag.

Because of how unforgiving Opera is, I tend to test in it first. The end result usually runs in firefox first try.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

portnux (630256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548644)

Does anyone still use IE, with Chrome and Firefox available who needs IE?

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548662)

About 62% [hitslink.com] of the people use IE.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548916)

Any stats done by a third-party advertiser are utterly worthless. The biggest upside of Firefox is AdBlock, so scum-peddling companies will be blocked, won't see you and thus will overestimate IE's market share.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548814)

yea, and there's still loads of line-of-business applications that require IE in conjunction with the .NET framework. businesses are the only people still relying on IE6. everyone else is just lazy.

Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548668)

I know, right? Who would expect that a company wouldn't perpetually support their products until the end of time? Madness!

recompile (-1, Troll)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548602)

Sounds like a no-problem to me, you just get the source code and recompile it on XP. What was that? Oh...

I can! (1, Redundant)

daoshi (913930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548604)

1. Switch on my laptop
2. Boot into XP.
3. Install VirtualBox
4. Install Vista in VirtualBox
5. Install IE9 in Vista
6. ????
7. Profit!
8. Got infested with virus because of 0day IE9 holes.
9. Reboot into Ubuntu and start up Firefox
10. World peace.

Re:I can! (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548786)

10. World peace.

I'm pretty sure you need a proprietary driver for that. No wonder no one's found it yet.

Re:I can! (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548806)

I thought something like that when I wanted to test IE9 preview. Aside from the fact that I boot my Debian instead.

I've downloaded Vista image from MS site but had no luck. It does not have any SP at all. And SP1 (downloaded by hand) was unable to install itself. Nice...

Good. (4, Insightful)

upuv (1201447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548634)

Yes XP just worked. It still works better than win 7 in my regard.

However XP + ie is basically an invitation to be hacked / malwared / infected / ripped off.

ie6 is still around basically because xp is. Any one who does any sort of web stuff hates ie6. ie6 is point blank holding back the web. Of course ie 7-8 also have a truck load of issues. But it's the combination of ie + xp that is the real killer.

Lets hope win7 takes hold with ie9 and relegates the other lesser M$ combinations to the bit bucket.

( Of course I say all this and I personally only use FF and Linux )

XP + ie = unsafe? (2, Interesting)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548746)

However XP + ie is basically an invitation to be hacked / malwared / infected / ripped off.

Although I'm inclined to agree with you, you're making an overly broad statement here.

XP != XP SP1 != XP SP2 != XP SP3.
2 year old, never updated install != fresh + patched install.
IE6 != IE7 != IE8.
Browsing random pornsites != browsing a small set of trusted sites != using apps on corporate intranet.

So with "XP + ie = unsafe" you're lumping things together that in reality are many, vastly different things, and how (un)safe their use is depends on many factors.

Win 3.1 (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548638)

A software layer emulating hardware acceleration can't be that hard, especially given the existence of good documentation of the software and hardware interfaces. Must be much easier than developing MAME, for example. Somebody will do it.

It reminds me of Windows 3.1 -- how one had to purchase Trumpet to connect to the Internet.

Except the difference now is XP satisifies many user's needs, while Windows 95 provided compelling reasons for users to upgrade from Windows 3.1.

People need to stop bitching (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548658)

It is unreasonable to expect a vendor to continue to support their old products forever. MS has quite a long support cycle, and it is a pretty predictable one too. XP has now entered what one might call "sunset" support. They still patch it, their answer to security issues isn't "Just upgrade to a new one," but they are done adding features. It is the final version, feature wise. That ended at the end of 2009, when general support for XP was terminated. We are now under extended support, the "sunset support", until 2014.

Windows 7 is of course being upgraded and supported as it is new. General support is scheduled to end for it in 2015, and extended support in 2020, though they've been known to extend the support dates before.

That is not bad at all. XP was released in 2001. It got nearly a decade of mainstream support, and it going to have 13 years in total support. Compare that to Ubutnu LTS or OS-X and you find it is extremely long. Solaris is one of the few OSes that has support cycles of that length.

So people need to STFU. No, XP is NOT going to get anymore new features. Deal with it. If you wish to continue using XP, then you can do so without those features. If not, upgrade to a newer OS.

This isn't the first new feature XP hasn't gotten either. DirectX 10 and up are Vista and 7 only, the DWM is Vista and 7 only and so on. XP is an old OS. It's a good one, but it is an old one. They are not going to offer new stuff for it indefinitely.

For that matter Windows 2000 won't get IE9, and didn't get IE8, though it's extended support doesn't end until mid this year.

I could see people being mad if Vista weren't getting IE9 or something, or if XP wasn't getting security patched. If MS had a policy of "As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one," that would be reason to complain. As it stands, they support their OSes for a long, long time. You get at least a decade of total support, which is quite a lot.

Re:People need to stop bitching (3, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548698)

Compare that to Ubutnu LTS or OS-X and you find it is extremely long.

Comparing XP's worthless out-of-box installation to any other OS which comes with (and MAINTAINS) hundreds of third-party apps is an extremely invalid comparison.

Re:People need to stop bitching (0, Troll)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548844)

Gee, that got modded troll quick. Looks like the MS apologists are out in force today.

Re:People need to stop bitching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548896)

Gee, that got modded troll quick. Looks like the MS apologists are out in force today.

Let's see what happens if we remove the trollish part of your otherwise insightful post:

"Comparing XP's out-of-box installation to any other OS which comes with (and MAINTAINS) hundreds of third-party apps is an extremely invalid comparison."

Re:People need to stop bitching (1)

TyFoN (12980) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548718)

I think the main reason people are bitching about it is because while you need to upgrade the others more often, they are free to upgrade (except for OS X, but the mac users are already used to shovel money in apple's direction).

Re:People need to stop bitching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548734)

For that matter Windows 2000 won't get IE9, and didn't get IE8, though it's extended support doesn't end until mid this year.

I could see people being mad if Vista weren't getting IE9 or something, or if XP wasn't getting security patched. If MS had a policy of "As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one," that would be reason to complain. As it stands, they support their OSes for a long, long time. You get at least a decade of total support, which is quite a lot.

Windows 2000, which was supersceeded in 2003 by server2K3 still gets patches for IE 5.01 and IE6. Windows 2000's market share is small, and of that, who would actually use IE 5.01?

Re:People need to stop bitching (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548772)

I bought a brand new computer two weeks ago. Want bet what the OS in it was?

Re:People need to stop bitching (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548816)

Your point might be valid if Microsoft successfully came out with a new operating system every 3-4 years. But they don't. Vista was a mess as we all know and most business users have skipped it entirely. It should not even be counted as a legitimate version. Obviously Microsoft didn't consider it to be legitimate or they would not have gotten 7 out so quickly.

So, you can say "XP has been out for 10 years now", but I prefer to say, "Windows XP is the most recent version of Windows with a released service pack." Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out. That's when I'll start installing it for business users. And Microsoft should be expected to support XP for at least 5 years after that.

I idea that Microsoft is talking about ending support for the only stable operating system they currently have out is ludicrous.

Re:People need to stop bitching (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548962)

IS isn't a "feature" of the OS, it's an application that runs on the OS. Considering XPs market share, it's obviously more of a business decision than a technical one to drop support. Every other browser has found a way to work with XP and if IE was a separately responsible business area of Microsoft this problem would get solved.

Re:People need to stop bitching (2, Informative)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548994)

While I agree with everything you say, I'll point out the following (and I usually support MS on many issues):

  • Windows Live Messenger 14.x (labelled '9 series' or something) has lots of snazzy Windows 7-style visual effects and was backported to Windows XP (I am aware this is less elaborate than what IE9 is planning).
  • Opera supports 2D acceleration under XP
  • The technical arguments against backporting to XP are hogwash. Chrome has superior sandboxing on Vista/7, but gracefully downgrades on XP
  • Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot by effectively ceding the modern XP browser market to Chrome, Firefox and Opera. XP will still be around 'til 2014-2015. That's 4-5 years. If they think they can afford that, well, more power to them.

Comparing XP and ubuntu support is flawed (1)

voss (52565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549066)

Upgrading Ubuntu is like installing a service pack. It costs nothing and all you usually have to do is run the upgrade and restart.

You dont have to pay anything to upgrade from a three year old version of Ubuntu to the current version,
you just have to run the upgrade a couple times. Since new versions of ubuntu are free most users will upgrade reasonably
quickly(in one version counter tool 80% of the users were using 9.10 )

Breaking News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548666)

Upcoming new web browser won't support 8-year-old operating system! Details at 11.

Re:Breaking News! (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548672)

Well, it kinda is news, because all of the other upcoming new web browsers do support the 8-year-old operating system.

Re:Breaking News! (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548800)

Well, then they aren't new enough :P

Microsoft (1)

TyFoN (12980) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548680)

It's funny that Microsoft are the only ones that are not able to make XP compatible software (DX10 and IE9)

Re:Microsoft (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548692)

Of course they are able. They just don't want to, because not supporting XP drives Vista and W7 sales.

Re:Microsoft (1)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548768)

This. Exactly. They are looking for every excuse they can to NOT put things on windows XP. What will happen though is that they will claim 'new features'...and 2 months down the line some hacker somewhere is going to find out that it's just a string or something somewhere that has to be changed in a DLL and Microsoft will be caught.

They do this shit for their server software, why not a web browser?

Re:Microsoft (3, Insightful)

fyrewulff (702920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548984)

This. Exactly. They are looking for every excuse they can to NOT put things on windows XP. What will happen though is that they will claim 'new features'...and 2 months down the line some hacker somewhere is going to find out that it's just a string or something somewhere that has to be changed in a DLL and Microsoft will be caught.

No. What part of "XP does not support hardware acceleration on it's desktop" do people not understand?

XP is an ancient OS. It cannot support new technology because it just simply cannot, to put it in layman's terms. The only way to make it support newer and newer stuff is if it was engineered in a way that any component can be removed and replaced (it wasn't) or do a complete rewrite.

Now if you're going to spend time on a rewrite, you might as well make a new OS because a complete re-write is a ton of work that will need to be compensated with money.

The fact that nobody has managed to somehow find any of these secret strings in a DLL in the 3 or so years that DirectX10 has been available would prove this. Yes, they may make some moves to entice people to upgrade - but there are seriously things that cannot be backported to XP, not even by Microsoft. The damn OS came out in 2001. Nobody would be running a Linux from that time on their desktop and nobody would be running a MacOS version from that year, either.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548922)

Ehmm...yes and no. The next major Firefox version will work on XP but will not support hardware acceleration. Just as IE9 and for exactly the same reason it will only support Windows hardware acceleration on Vista and Win7 because XP lacks Direct2D.

I wonder if Microsoft offered an XP--2 edition (1)

voss (52565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549088)

For say $20 or so that offered XP users DX 10 and IE 9 would XP users be willing to pay for it???

Not a problem (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548694)

I use Opera and Firefox as backup for those very few pages not standard conform enough to work with Opera. I have not had a page that does not work with either but works with IE in ages.

Long live... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548720)

IE6! IE7? IE8? Don't think so. I'd prefer to stick with IE6. I still use XP though.

Re:Long live... (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548730)

I'd prefer to stick with IE6

Yeah, who needs transparent PNG's anyway, right?

XP sucks (-1, Flamebait)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548726)

Vista and 7 rock. What's the problem?

Thank you, Microsoft (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548752)

Back in the days when the 'net was a IE-only turf, things were rather ugly, and somewhat hopeless. Then came Mozilla, and slowly things started to change. But really slowly, with some minor accelerations here and there: Chrome kicked up some dust when it appeared, so did the EU's mandate to have multiple browser options in Win7, but the biggest acceleration in removing IE's dominance will come, apparently, from Microsoft itself: the large majority of people still use XP, and there is no sign they're giving up on their trusty OS just yet. Forcing them to upgrade ("If you want IE9, you must get Win7") is a double-edged sword (but then, what isn't? [youtube.com] ) will certainly force some users to drop IE and get Firefox, Opera or Chrome.

Microsoft Did Abandon Windows XP (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548756)

This has created a small tempest of protest from those users still using XP, but this is less of an arbitrary decision than some appear to think. It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP. Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode.'

Yes. That's all very well, but that doesn't mean customers shouldn't complain. Were I a customer of Microsoft's, I would be less interested in excuses and technical explanations and more interested in what was actually being delivered and what I could do with it.

Besides, it can't be that Microsoft figured this out just now. They deliberately took the decisions to make use of features that they of all people should have known weren't available in Windows XP. In other words, they chose not to support Windows XP. I can very well understand that users of Windows XP would not be happy with that.

The good news is, of course, that nobody actually needs MSIE 9. This leaves Microsoft free to make whatever decision they see fit when implementing it. People who want a modern browser on Windows XP can use any of the several alternatives which are available now: Opera, Safari, Mozilla Firefox, and Chrome are all modern browsers available for Windows XP. And for applications that depend on MSIE-specific features, you can use an earlier version of Windows XP.

Long story short: Microsoft did decide not to support Windows XP. I can see why users of Windows XP would be unhappy about that. But it's not a big problem.

what a riot (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548792)

not sure what is more funny, Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration, or that everyone else will continuing to support XP

Is this an incompatible carrot? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548812)

Okay, so far, MSIE9 is technically an improvement, but not close enough to its competitors to be taken seriously.

Is this how Microsoft wants to persuade people to buy new computers and stop using WindowsXP?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31548860)

"It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards"
Dear Joel Hruska, you are offending my intellect. Please stop.

HotHardware just became the next CNET in my humble opinion.

So what? (2, Insightful)

XMode (252740) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548892)

I honestly cant see a problem with this. XP is now a 9 year old operating system that has been superseded but 2! newer versions and has entered extended support. I wouldn't expect apple to release the new version of safari on OS 9, I wouldn't expect Debian sarge to have the latest version of firefox back ported, why is IE9 any different?

What acceleration does XP not support? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31548978)

This article is confusing - I apologize that I don't know much about IE9, so maybe these questions sound lame.

What features of IE9 will be hardware acceleration? Why is that acceleration required, not just a benefit? What APIs are they using that XP does not support? The only thing I can think of is that they are using DX10. I'm impressed that IE9 would really have any use for that, but I supposed they wouldn't code against DX9 just for backward compatibility.

I Just now upgraded to Firefox 3.58 (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549008)

from 1.5 so I don't think this really concerns me...

Literally impossible? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549046)

Wasn't DirectX supposed to save us from the walled fortress of NT's Win32 API? I don't see how any hardware acceleration features couldn't be implemented on XP and if the API gets in the way just bypass it. If root kits can Pwn XP there's no reason why MS can't do the same.

Fine by me (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 4 years ago | (#31549080)

I'll just keep chugging away with IE6 like I always have.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?