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!

Microsoft Releases Internet Explorer 9 RC

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the try-it-out dept.

Internet Explorer 229

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has released Internet Explorer 9 Release Candidate. The new RC build includes a Tracking Protection feature, which gives users the option to control what third-party site content can track them when they're online, as well as a new ActiveX filtering option, which allows users to turn on/off ActiveX plug-ins. Best of all, Microsoft has addressed what was arguably the biggest complaint with the new version: if you want your tabs on a separate line from the address box, there's now an option to turn that on from the right click menu at the top of the browser. At the same time, IE9 RC is significantly faster than the beta version. Furthermore, many site rendering issues have been fixed, although we can't say that it's working perfectly. Last but not least, the new build includes hundreds of bug fixes."

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

Does it support... (2, Interesting)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164394)

...OGG and VP8 out of the box now?

Re:Does it support... (0)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164508)

No.
But then again, firefox has a show stopping html5 audio bug, which renders it useless for probably most applications.
It doesn't respect the preload="none" or depreciated autobuffer attributes. If you have a long list of OGG, such as a playlist, FF will hammer your server until it gets a header for each one.

Re:Does it support... (2)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164714)

I should add, the browser is fishing for X-Content-Duration headers [mozilla.org] .
If you don't serve them, you'll get an orbital bombardment of '206 partial content' requests, as it attempts auto-discovery on every single track.

Re:'partial content' requests (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164888)

Is this still there on Beta 11?
Last I briefly looked at the FF Development Notes they're making progress on getting rid of 'blocker' bugs, which I figured yours would be.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/2011-02-08 [mozilla.org]

 

Re:Does it support... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165472)

But then again, firefox has a show stopping html5 audio bug, which renders it useless for probably most applications.

Oh cool. Can you post the link for the release candidate for Firefox 4?

Re:Does it support... (0, Troll)

GrBear (63712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164752)

...OGG and VP8 out of the box now?

Do your parents, grandparents, or 95% of the population care? I'd wager not..

Re:Does it support... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164958)

Well then no html5 audio for them.

On pure browser statistics, including segregation by version number, I'd serve OGG. [html5doctor.com]

Re:Does it support... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165480)

Odd based on that, I'd be serving .WAV, not ogg or mp3. However, we will most likely be serving .mp3 and let the firefox guys cry themselves a river (or get a plug in).

Re:Does it support... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164786)

If you have a codec installed in windows, yes.

Re:Does it support... (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165072)

I have 500 gigabytes of torrented songs & approximately 700 movies on my USB drive, and not one file uses those codecs. So I could care less if IE supports them.

Re:Does it support... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165334)

wait, what? you watch downloaded movies in your browser?

Re:Does it support... (1)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165596)

I'm a web developer. When I put up audio and video files, I'd like to be able to put up one single format and have every browser be able to play it, and do so without bringing netbooks to their knees with flash.

holy shit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164424)

omgomgomgomgomgomgomg.. pees pants.

Seriously, no one here even slightly gives a shit. Actually no one anywhere.

Re:holy shit! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164716)

Seriously, no one here even slightly gives a shit. Actually no one anywhere.

Yeah, nobody's affected when a new version of IE is released.

When can I get the final version? (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164432)

When will I be able to get the final version? I'm not normally a Microsoft fan, but I use IE a lot at work and I am legitimately excited about the prospect of a new version. I wish they would release a Mac version.

Re:When can I get the final version? (4, Funny)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164458)

Why on earth do you want a Mac version? That's like putting a Skoda steering wheel in your BMW.

Re:When can I get the final version? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164478)

It makes my Mac less gay.

Re:When can I get the final version? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164600)

The only thing that can make a mac look less gay is comparing it to the ultimate gayness that is a linux box.

+1 extra gay if you include the neckbead that wears glasses with a bar across the top.

Re:When can I get the final version? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164502)

So that I can work from home without feeling the wrath of an unsupported browser. I wouldn't have to use it all the time.

Re:When can I get the final version? (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164770)

>>>feeling the wrath of an unsupported browser.

Use Opera 10 or 11 with "mask as internet explorer" turned on. Problem solved. It won't look like IE but it will act like IE and display the same pages.

You can also use Opera's online web-stored bookmarks to access your work links from home (and vice-versa). And the built-in email/torrent clients to do stuff in the background.

Re:When can I get the final version? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164664)

Camino (firefox) for newer Macs
Opera or iCab for older Macs
Classilla (seamonkey 1) for pre-OS 10 Macs
- Never IE

Re:When can I get the final version? (2, Interesting)

knarf (34928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164852)

That's like putting a Skoda steering wheel in your BMW.

You mean one of these [wikipedia.org] ?

"The in gear acceleration times are 50-70 mph in 5.6 seconds, quicker than BMW's 330i which takes 6.0 seconds. 20-40 mph in 2.4 seconds is as quick as the Lotus Elise 111R. Despite this the Fabia vRS can achieve better than 6.2 L/100 km (46 mpg-imp; 38 mpg-US). If driven carefully some drivers have experienced MPG rates of 65-70 mpg over long periods. The Fabia VRS has a top speed of approximately 130 mph (210 km/h)."

Nothing wrong with that I'd say?

Re:When can I get the final version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164498)

I've used Microsoft products religiously for years[1], and really appreciate the effort that Redmond put into their code[2], but over the last year or two I've switched to Google Chrome for all my browsing needs simply because it's fast and runs on all my different platforms. I wish Microsoft would port IE to Android, or Ubuntu, or Mac OS/X, or even make it work properly on Windows, since I still have a Win XP box in emulation somewhere.

[1] From 1995-1996.
[2] Seriously.

April (3, Funny)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164512)

Ok, I read the fucking article, and it's supposed to be available mid-April.

Re:April (0)

Loki_666 (824073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164940)

Ok, I read the fucking article,

Yeah, you see where you went wrong there? This is Slashdot.

What's MS up to? (3, Insightful)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164450)

There are two strategies MS can play:

  • Old school IE: Make own standards to try to vendor lock-in people with the MS platform
  • Standards compliant IE: Try to closely adhere to standards and basically render like all the other browsers

I don't think the first strategy will work anymore. People learned what IE6 really costs in the long run. That leaves strategy two. But why bother? It a huge investment development wise, and I don't see them gaining anything from it without the vendor lock-in. So is this just "we want a browser too", or what?

Re:What's MS up to? (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164514)

You're forgetting option 3: Leverage Windows 7 sales by providing a free browser that only works with Windows 7, then telling everybody about all the gaping security holes that exist in all previous versions. Standard MS marketing tactic. Hopefully MS is moving away from the "embrace and extend" philosophy it has used in the past.

Re:What's MS up to? (4, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164628)

You almost got it right. It's more like, "Provide a free browser that fully supports .Net so that the thousands of developers who develop against the Microsoft stack (SQL Server, Sharepoint, etc) will have a stable target to aim for."

I get the sense that as a company, Microsoft could give two shits about which browser home users are using. They do care about their developers though. They do care about the enterprise. They need a known platform for their developers to target. That is why they need IE.

Re:What's MS up to? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165396)

Provide a free browser that fully supports .Net

How can a browser "support .NET"?

Re:What's MS up to? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165530)

<script type="text/c#"> ...
?

Re:What's MS up to? (4, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165566)

It hooks into the .Net APIs that are on the client OS. I'm thinking about it in terms of a lot of the applications that I have dealt with over the last couple of years. They all seem to be built in .Net, and leverage IIS and SQL. The client workstations all need .Net and IIS for the application to work.

I think it is a lot like what Google is doing with Chrome. Google has a vision about what applications and services they want to offer via their platform. Rather than pin their hopes on "browser vendors" to adopt specific ways of doing things, Google made their own browser. That browser supports the functionality that Google devs need.

Re:What's MS up to? (2, Insightful)

spells (203251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165708)

The client workstations all need .Net and IIS for the application to work.

Find a new company. Quick.

Re:What's MS up to? (3, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35166138)

Right. Let me go ahead and leave a multi-million dollar firm that does business with the SEC, DoJ and just about every major law firm out there because the best document review and eDiscovery tools are built around a Microsoft stack. I don't care who makes the tools I use. I care that the tools get the job done. FYI - I have a bunch of LAMP and WAMP servers up too.

Re:What's MS up to? (1)

Kryptonut (1006779) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164616)

Perhaps because all services / "accelerators" offered by Internet Explorer point at other MS services by default and the average user will click "use defaults"? Great way to up your usage statistics for your own services.

Re:What's MS up to? (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164740)

Easy, point the default search at Bing and grow their market share in search without having to improve their search.

That's the reason that makes the most business sense. I have a feeling that the real reason is, like you alluded to, because Balmer thinks they need to have a browser.

Re:What's MS up to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165470)

They have to continue to support the IE engine in some form because of all the 3rd party windows apps that make use of IE's rendering engine and expect the libraries to be installed somewhere. I guess they might as well throw in the end user interface with it.

Of course they could just phase out IE and keep the legacy IE libs buried somewhere for backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is important to MS especially in the corporate world. It's both a pro and a con.

Control (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165890)

By having a browser they make themselves legitimate in having a say in web standards.

This is especially important because Microsoft is starting to build everything on top of their browser rendering engine. The next version of Office will use the IE rendering engine for it's layout. (The rendering in IE was originally scheduled for Office 2010, but they found it wouldn't be ready in time) Visual Studio 2010 already runs on top of the rendering engine. Windows Media Player has used the IE rendering engine for a long time already. Basically gives them a common language for building UI applications that can scale when you re-size your program window.

While there probably isn't room for the old IE only lock-in features, having the browser and also using the same engine for desktop apps gives them a showcases to help make their point in why something should be added to the standard.

Re:What's MS up to? (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35166000)

I think given the work they've done to bring IE9 standards compliance up to par, it's more the second one.

Also, vendor lock-in to a browser just isn't a reality anymore. IE might always be part of Windows and thus gain wider adoption on that platform, but given that smartphones (of which MS has like 2% market share) have outsold laptops, and both tablets and Macs are poised to further erode the PC market share, web developers would be crazy to code to IE-specific features, even in intranet applications.

It's really a different world than the IE6/Windows XP world of almost a decade ago, and I think IE9 reflects a welcome attitude change.

Re:What's MS up to? (1, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35166156)

Microsoft is a company made up of hundreds of development groups working on hundreds of products in a dozen divisions.

Most of the people who are on those teams care about the work they're doing, care about the products they release and want to release the best products possible.

So, relative to IE9, what it Microsoft up to? If I had to guess, a hard-working team of engineers, program managers and test engineers are busting their asses to make the best browser they can. They care more about standards than I'd hazard a guess most people on Slashdot do, and they want to make something that gives the best experience there is on the web.

There isn't some grand Microsoft conspiracy. IE6 wans't about vendor lockin, it was about needing to support scenarios that customers were asking for. The younger crowd on here may not remember it, but back in the late 90's, IE was the best browser out there. Microsoft's dev tools were pushing intranet development long before open source tools caught up. These days its easy to look at what people want to do with browsers and say "jeez, I can use XmlHttpRequest, and JSON, and *insert buzzword here* to do it". But in 1998, those technologies *didn't exist*. And, you may be surprised, people weren't any dumber than today. Developers wanted to be able to do the same things people are doing today, and Microsoft provided them. IE6 was a point on that path where they needed to support their corporate customers while trying to match advancing standards. For every web developer griping about standards, there were *paying* enterprise developers who needed the backwards compatibility.

So why does Microsoft need a browser? Because, frankly, developers need the controls. They need the network-level APIs. Lots of parts of Windows need to display HTML content, and no sane OS vendor will leave the security of their system and the functionality of core parts of it to a 3rd party. You could just as easily ask why Apple bothers with Safari!

Thinking it was some thing nefarious is just falling blindly into the anti-Microsoft FUD on places like Slashdot, and doesn't reflect the reality of how IE has progressed over the years.

Canvas.globalCompositeOperation (3, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164480)

Canvas.globalCompositeOperation works now!

This is such a bummer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164516)

Nobody actually submits stories anymore. The front page is just crap picked up by the pooper scooper. This fucking place has become so bland... UGH!

Only disables third-party tracking (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164530)

The new RC build includes a Tracking Protection feature, which gives users the option to control what third-party site content can track them when they're online...

Third-party tracking is disabled, but I bet you first-party [slashdot.org] tracking gets cranked up a notch - after all, now IE knows you're doing something you don't want other people knowing about, and that's definitely a "signal", as the Microsoft representative said :)

Re:Only disables third-party tracking (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164858)

Install the addon called "ghostery" to monitor and block tracking cookies. For example right now I see /. is tracking me with Adhere, Doubleclick, DoubleVerify, Google Adsense, Analytics.

Of wait. That only works in Firefox and Seamonkey. Not IE. Oh well.

Re:Analystics (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164974)

Worse than just Ghostery, my beta Firefox seems to permanently be waiting for ssl.google-analytics.com here on Slashdot.

Re:Analystics (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#35166034)

Allow me to share with you one of the ~130k lines in my /etc/hosts:

0.0.0.0 ssl.google-analytics.com

Problem solved. Repeat for other hostnames you don't want tracking you.

Does it track my Google habits? (5, Insightful)

mackil (668039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164556)

From the article: "The new RC build includes a Tracking Protection feature"

Does this preclude my Google search habits? [dailytech.com]

Re:Does it track my Google habits? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164890)

Google was blowing that way out of proportion. The tracking has always been opt-in. And if you're opting out of all tracking, you're clearly not opting in.

Re:Does it track my Google habits? (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165218)

The point of Google's complaint was not that IE was tracking users - after all Google does that too in many ways. The point was that through tracking IE users while they interacted with the Google search site, Microsoft was in effect transferring search results from Google's search engine to Bing.

Re:Does it track my Google habits? (-1, Troll)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165574)

I wouldn't even bother, but somehow there's enough <redacted> out there to mod this up.

The Googler engineers INTENTIONALLY submitted that data to Microsoft! It's an opt-in feature. If you don't want Microsoft tracking the searches you do on Google and the sites you visit after those searches, then don't enable the "Tell MS all the URLs I visit" option! $DEITY some people are dumb...

No. (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164574)

Just no.

It's bad enough my ISP forces me to use Microsoft Explorer 7 (to enable web acceleration/compression) - I'm certainly not abandoning Firefox for IE9. I'd sooner switch to Opera with its web-stored bookmarks or Chrome with its tiny 25 MB footprint or even PuppyBrowser for Puppy Linux.

And it still doesn't support XP (2)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164592)

I understand that MS wants users to move off of XP, but given that means new hardware for most of the people still using XP, and the economy being where it is, and businesses still having internal stuff tied to XP & IE6, do they really think that IE9 abandoning XP will actually give people an incentive to upgrade? I hope they're not foolish enough to believe that. Anyone on XP who wants a faster browser will just use Chrome, Firefox, or Opera (sorry Apple, Safari on Windows is not competitive in speed unless you're only comparing to FF3.x and IE6-8, and it doesn't have anything to recommend it over the faster browsers).

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164666)

Support has to end at some point. It might be time to move forward grandpa.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164814)

Exactly. It might take time, but its gotta happen... This wont push XP users to upgrade en masse, but it will show the writing on the wall.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164828)

Support has to end at some point. It might be time to move forward grandpa.

Why?

My machine works fine on XP. I have all the software I need and Mozilla is still supporting XP versions. And even if they stop, my version of Firefox and Thunderbird work quite fine.

All this needless upgrading of hardware does nothing but increase the hole in my pocketbook and fill in landfill holes in poor Asian countries - and adding to the World's pollution.

There's got to be a time when we have to slow our consumption down; especially with the highly toxic electronics.

--Yours,
Pops

P.S. I kinda like to leave some semblance of an environment to you kids.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165108)

Time to replace that '92 Mustang you're driving too. Or was it a '68 Camaro, or a '65 Corvette, etc.

You completely missed the point. You have to support what out there in common use, not just the latest and greatest version. When they reformulate gasoline, it doesn't mean you have to replace your old car. When then changed to OPD valves on propane tanks, you didn't have to replace you grills and heaters. It's only in electronics that we allow companies/industries to make 3-5 yr old devices obsolete by discontinuing support and maintenance of compatible hardware and accessories. In today's networked world, if you can't get security updates for an OS or networked app (e.g browser), that machine quickly becomes unsafe to use, changing it from "obsolescent" to "obsolete". XP isn't in that category yet, but MS is trying to put it there, and Vista is right there with it (check MS support lifecycle). And this isn't MS bashing, Apple is even worse about this than MS. Consumer electronics companies are even worse. This is about industrywide practices that promote waste and screw customers for whom older products work just fine.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1, Insightful)

Reapman (740286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165266)

Weak analogy.. does that mean that we should be patching hardware and software written in '68? or '65?

No.. because technology of computers moves a LOT faster then technology of cars. Should Microsoft still be releasing patches for Windows 95? Bob? DOS 6.22?!?

If you want to drive a Model T, I imagine it's still legal on most roads, but don't expect Ford to be responsible to install the seat belts and airbags and all the other safety features that have happened in the last 80 years or so. Same with Windows XP.. want to run it? Go ahead, but it's not Microsoft's (or Apple's or whoever's) problem that it doesn't support hardware X or software Y.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (0)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165310)

Do you always jump to illogical extreme conclusions, or do you only do it when posting on /.?

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165684)

What part of my argument is illogicial or extreme? Let's not degenerate this thread into baseless acusations.. please elaborate what you mean.

Yes, you can drive an old car on the road (or use old software), but don't expect the manufacturer to patch "security" vulnerabilities (like, say, airbags in a '69 Camaro)

You are saying that because we drive '68 car's on the road, the industry should be keeping patched "older products work just fine". Sure you said common, but you also use cars made in the 60s as your argument, those are NOT common out there, as much as I would like otherwise..

If my parents can get by with Windows 95, does that count? What about someone running DOS (I know a company that does).. should MS be patching security vulnerabilities in it? I bet it wouldn't be hard to find a Win95 box, or even Windows 2000 (last touched a production W2K box a couple weeks ago).

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165156)

60% of the market is currently XP that's a lot of people to insult. XP was sold on many machines esp those running the atom processor in the last year. I own one.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

Gerald (9696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165404)

60% of the market is currently XP that's a lot of people to insult.

No it's not [statcounter.com] . XP's market share has been dropping steadily for a while now. I wouldn't be surprised if that trend accelerated over the next year as companies get around to infrastructure upgrades they put off during the recession.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164922)

Can't I just use WINE to run IE9 on my XP machine?

>>>that means new hardware for most of the people still using XP

Windows Seven will run fine on 1/3rd gig of RAM. i.e. My ancient 2000 laptop could be upgraded to it (although it's cheaper to just buy a used laptop with 7 already installed).

>>>IE9 abandoning XP will actually give people an incentive to upgrade?

Yes.

>>>It might be time to move forward grandpa.

(hugs C64 and Amiga and Mac G1) What are you saying? I love these machines - just like I love my GMC Pacer. ;-)

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165146)

I am using FF4, Opera and Safari on XP. I have had no performance problems with Safari and it is comparative to FF4 and Opera.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165408)

My father/dad still uses his old Windows 2000 SP4 so he has to use the latest Firefox v3.6.xx.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165466)

Firefox 4 is going to be the last release that runs on Win2K, for what it's worth.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165528)

Oh wow, I thought v4 wasn''t supporting in W2K. Cool. By v5, then he will have a faster and newer OS! :)

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165604)

I don't think they give a shit about the people still running XP. They're the kind of people who do not patch and do not upgrade their browser anyway.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

ZXDunny (1376265) | more than 3 years ago | (#35166108)

Some of us /can't/ upgrade - we're not allowed. I've been asking my workplace (UK NHS Hospital in the north of England) IT department to *please* upgrade to a better version of IE than v6, but they won't - their contract with MS which got them copies of XP for free doesn't allow for upgrades.

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

SadButTrue (848439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165896)

I don't follow browser development very closely but IE9 seems to be getting pretty nice reviews. Figured I would give it a whirl and....

"To install Internet Explorer 9 Release Candidate (RC), you need to upgrade to a more recent version of Windows."

So this is going to be a DX11 type excuse I am guessing? Oh well, would have been nice to play with but given the choice between having to upgrade my OS for a new browser and having to have chrome transparently upgrade in the background..

Re:And it still doesn't support XP (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35166328)

I don't follow browser development very closely but IE9 seems to be getting pretty nice reviews. Figured I would give it a whirl and....

"To install Internet Explorer 9 Release Candidate (RC), you need to upgrade to a more recent version of Windows."

So this is going to be a DX11 type excuse I am guessing? Oh well, would have been nice to play with but given the choice between having to upgrade my OS for a new browser and having to have chrome transparently upgrade in the background..

It requires a version of Windows with DirectWrite and Direct2D support... which would be Windows Vista SP2 (or possibly SP1) and Windows 7.

Impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164610)

Compared to what I could have ever expected in a million years, I'm sort of impressed with IE9 so far.

Excellent (2, Interesting)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164620)

IE9 really is an excellent release. I personally don't like it because it lacks the extra functionality that browsers like Firefox and Opera have. However it is standards compliant, fast and very secure. Given that it is also more configurable than Chrome (which doesn't let you configure a fucking thing) I do recommend it.

Power users may not want it, but that is not important. What is important is that average users at home now have access to a secure and well performing browser. No more shitty toolbars or Active X crap, just a fast browser that works.

I don't like the limited space for tabs, but people who use IE are generally not the types to have a large amount of tabs open at once.

Mention should also be made of the security aspects. IE and Chrome are the two most secure browsers by far. They are the only browsers to fully support WIC and to make use of ASLR and DEP. Firefox 4 has support for DEP but not ASLR or WIC, nor does Opera.

People are going to bash Microsoft because they are Microsoft, but they have really done a good job here.

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164900)

The biggest problem with chrome: You can't change ANY of the data save or temp file locations. I use an SSD with an HD for data storage, and my SSD only has so many rewrites in it. Using those up on internet sites? No thanks. I actually uninstalled chrome b/c of the lack of configurability.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165242)

Google "symlink." It's a workaround, but it works on Windows Vista or newer. Not sure if any of the UNIX variants allow cross filesystem symlinking, it may require games with mount.

Re:Excellent (1)

tao (10867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165532)

Soft links can be cross file system. Hard links cannot (I'm pretty certain this applies for Windows too). The easiest solution using mount (at least on linux) is via bind mounts, where subtrees (or indeed a single file, or using rbind, a subtree and its underlying mounts) of a file system can be mounted in other locations.

Re:Excellent (1, Troll)

asa (33102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165044)

And all of this can be yours for the low low price of a $200 Windows upgrade if you're one of the hundreds of millions (more than 50% of the Web) users on Windows XP.

Re:Excellent (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165226)

Actually, it's more like $50 which isn't bad for 10 years worth of improvements.

Re:Excellent (2)

asa (33102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165250)

Actually, a sizable chunk will have to upgrade their entire PC to get Windows 7 so it's a lot more for lots of folks.

Re:Excellent (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165296)

And all of this can be yours for the low low price of a $200 Windows upgrade if you're one of the hundreds of millions (more than 50% of the Web) users on Windows XP.

Or, you know, $110/3 on Amazon. By all means don't let reality get in the way of your ranting, though.

Re:Excellent (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165080)

No more shitty toolbars or Active X crap, just a fast browser that works.

Not exactly true, but they added ActiveX filtering in the RC to limit the impact.

Re:Excellent (2)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165278)

> Firefox 4 has support for DEP but not ASLR

That's just false. Firefox 4 supports ASLR, as do current 3.6 security updates. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405523 [mozilla.org] and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559133 [mozilla.org] and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567134 [mozilla.org]

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165410)

Given that it is also more configurable than Chrome (which doesn't let you configure a fucking thing) I do recommend it.Power users may not want it, but that is not important. What is important is that average users at home now have access to a secure and well performing browser.

Home users usaully don't customize their applications, also there already are existing secure and well performing browsers.

Re:Excellent (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165414)

And for what it's worth, I agree with you: the MS team has done a good job here. Much like with IE5, in fact...

Re:Excellent (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165486)

I don't like the limited space for tabs

Sanity has been restored in that department with this release: right-click on tab bar and choose "Show tabs on a separate row", and then it all works as God intended.

Mac Version? (2)

RManning (544016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164638)

I know I'm being overly optimistic, but wouldn't it be nice if we could get an OSX version if IE9? I have to run XP in Parallels just to test in IE. Dropping Windows for good would be so nice. :)

Re:Mac Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164802)

I'm sure MS can't wait to enable you. I mean, why would they want to sell you a Win 7 license (because XP won't work for IE9) when they could commit resources to develop a mac version for free?

Re:Mac Version? (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164994)

There are free VM images of Windows with various versions of IE in them. They are time locked so that they cannot be used perpetually, but they are perfect for testing site compatibility.

Re:Mac Version? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165468)

Given that IE9 doesn't work on XP because it uses hardware acceleration APIs that don't exist in anything below Vista SP2, I doubt they'll release a VM image of Windows with IE9.

Re:Mac Version? (2)

WeatherServo9 (1393327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164892)

Remember how different the Mac and Windows versions of IE were back when both existed? Even if they did release a Mac version (which I think it's safe to say they won't bother doing) I'm not sure I would trust that each work the same and would still want to test both of them individually.

Is WebGL supported ? (1)

advance-software (1770510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164656)

... as is the case in Gecko & Webkit ?

I suppose I should get a copy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164760)

...so I can show it to my Grandchildren in a few years from now and say "I bet you didn't know that Microsoft once made browsers".

Because without WebGL, XP support, and that supports Ogg and a bunch of other stuff - I can't imagine anyone actually using the damned thing unless their pointy-haired boss is forcing them to.

Microsoft have given up trying...they didn't even provide a representative to the WebGL discussions...perhaps they think they'll be able to come up with a rival "WebDirect3D" implementation that everyone will rush to use...on their WinPhone 7's.

Does not warrant a /. post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164766)

Those who care about IE9 already know the RC is being released. The rest of us would wish some less slow-news-day-ish news, thanks.

untrustworthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35164880)

Again they are failing in the trust dept. I suppose that when you stick a USB drive in, IE9 will happily run code and load html files from that drive ... MS has consistently failed ("It's a feature, not a bug") to address real security issues. We can expect that IE9 will not be any more secure than previous versions. Many U.S. government websites STILL require IE to view their content, most likely because of uneducated (dare I equate this sort of uneducated moronic behavior with republican religiosity?) (and here I'm being generous) "blind" adherence to Micro$oft shop policy ... "Everything should be part of the monoculture." Even if it is 4 generations back from the state of the art. It's no wonder that Chrome is eroding their market share, and Firefox is the standard (though most stupid admins won't admit to that). I once asked an IT dept. tech. about the POP server. He said, "we don't have one." I said, "yes, you do, you just don't know it." He asked me what OS I used, and I said, "Linux." He said, "What?" Anybody who uses IE or MS for anything is just asking for trouble. You might as well be saving all your documents to "the cloud" (whatever the hell that is) instead of doing real backups. When all your files go away, or show up on somebody else's website (privacy? you don't have any), remind yourself that you were warned. Do your own f'ing backups, use your own f'ing servers, and stay the HELL away from IE*.

Will it address my biggest IE 8 complaint? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35164912)

And by that I mean - when users install IE 9, will it do the smart thing and default to "compatibility mode = off", or will it default to "let's intentionally make sure web pages that use even a small subset of current web standards won't work even though this browser is capable of rendering them mostly correctly", like IE 8 does?

Re:Will it address my biggest IE 8 complaint? (1)

Calavar (1587721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165274)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm using IE8 right now and it is rendering Slashdot in standards compliant mode. It seems to render most sites in standards compliant mode, and I've never fiddled with the settings. IE8 probably defaults to compatibility mode only when the page doesn't have a standards compliant doctype, kind of like quirks mode in other browsers.

Isn't it time for IE 10? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35165214)

I love IE. Have been using IE 9 and like it a lot. but it's been out for a long time now (sarcasm) . I am ready for IE 10.

upgrading explorer (1)

omar_armas (633987) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165368)

Upgrading Microsoft Internet Explorer is a pain. IE6, 7 and 8 are completely different products.
Why I could never upgrading a complete operating system convert my IE6 to IE7 or 8? You had to install them independently.
That only speaks of a poor strategy and product, a complete shame.

Oh, and at work we have providers who developed extranets using Microsoft technologies that worked in IE 7, but then came IE8 and they are incompatible. Microsoft is incompatible with themselves.

I only lament that because of my work I have to support the Explorer navigator, the worst experience.

Omar

let us look at motives (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165556)

I do not see why should Microsoft make a convenient and fast browser? So that people can use online Office applications and stop buying the desktop MS Office?

It just does not make sense. Their best bet would be to use the monopoly of the pre-installed browser to make the Web unusable.

The web 2.0 as we know it was created by the Firefox. I can understand why Firefox team wants to move the Internet forward.

I apologize for being frank in expressing my doubts and probably groundless suspicions.

Re:let us look at motives (4, Funny)

IronHalik (1568993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35165772)

I do not see why should Microsoft make a convenient and fast browser?

MS made IE9 so fast as a prank on all slashdotters - right now its pretty much the only browser can render slashdot threads smoothly. So cruel.

No excuse for IE6 on the public web anymore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35166058)

Even if you're on XP, get Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Safari for public browsing and stick IE6 applications in an Intranet ghetto out of the way. You have had four years since IE7 to come out, if you haven't done that by now, you are not just incompetent, but you have a malicious and feckless disregard for the web. Do you want to explain to your customers and shareholders that you intentionally use IE6 and cripple the web's infrastructure?

Anyone I catch using IE6 will be considered a traitor, and will be redirected to the Westboro Baptist Church's website since the IE6 user agent is the equivalent of a "God Hates Webmasters" sign.

When can I use says... (1, Informative)

Flammon (4726) | more than 3 years ago | (#35166192)

IE 9 is still crap. I can't run it on my Linux, OS X or even XP box!

MS claims that it's standards compliant. Well, it might be better than IE 8 but it's no where near the competition. Checkout the summary of at the bottom of this page: http://caniuse.com/ [caniuse.com]

"Compatibility tables for support of HTML5, CSS3, SVG and more in desktop and mobile browsers"

IE 9.0: 62%
Firefox 4.0: 87%
Safari 5.0: 79%
Chrome 10.0: 92%
Opera 11.1: 77%

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?