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 10 Drops Vista Support

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-was-quick dept.

Microsoft 438

Pigskin-Referee writes "This week at Microsoft's MIX11 Web developer conference, the company surprised many by making a pre-release version of Internet Explorer 10 available — less than a month after IE9 came out in its final form. But another surprise was uncovered by Computerworld's Gregg Keizer: the next IE won't run on any OS before Windows 7, including Vista. Microsoft took some heat when it came out that Internet Explorer 9 would leave millions of Windows XP users in the lurch, as the new browser would only run on Windows 7 and Vista. But the company confirmed that IE10 won't even run on Vista."

cancel ×

438 comments

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

This is the best thing they can do. (5, Insightful)

Mage Powers (607708) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840068)

Great marketing for alternative browsers :^)

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840216)

And Ubuntu, which you can download for free at http://www.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com] .

In fact, you can even try Ubuntu without touching your hard drive with their "LiveCD" technology. Amazing stuff!

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (3, Insightful)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840296)

afaik Ubuntu - like Windows Vista - is not a supported platform for IE10. Why should Microsoft's decision push the usage of alternative OS?

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (4, Funny)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840488)

Because 2011 is the year of the Linux desktop!

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (0)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840228)

In seriousness, this is the best thing they could do. The debacle that has been backwards compatibility of windows and ie in there various combinations has been horrible. Best thing to do is get all those grotty old windows/ie users upgraded. They are like people who drive around on modern rounds in clapped out unsafe jalopies. (oblig car analogy)

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840370)

In seriousness, this is the best thing they could do. The debacle that has been backwards compatibility of windows and ie in there various combinations has been horrible. Best thing to do is get all those grotty old windows/ie users upgraded. They are like people who drive around on modern rounds in clapped out unsafe jalopies. (oblig car analogy)

Yes, with their turn signal on!

I think it's encouraging news that they're finally going to let go of legacy stuff, that really is the root of so many issues. They really have to draw the line sometime.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840408)

Not for those of us who will now need to add a Vista VM to our 3 XP VMs to make sure that our websites look right in IE6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840484)

No, you watch. Two years tops and win7 will be "legacy". That's obviously what they want, and who can blame them? They've long had the potential to make an OS competent enough to far surpass their commercial offerings thus far. The bugaboo holding them back has always been backward compatibility. Now that we're probably about to enter an era where most CPUs will have four or more cores the time is right for them to drop the legacy support, in spite of the inevitable kicking and screaming. This users won't be happy with machines old enough to run XP or Vista for much longer anyway.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840568)

Screw that. There are now 3 newer versions of IE out - supporting 10 year old browser technology on any site is a waste of time and effort.

Users can be educated to upgrade their browsers - there is simply no excuse anymore. At all.

This is exactly what I tell my clients - no the site will not look good in IE 6. I will not support it.

Know what? I haven't lost any clients because I could prove with analytics that IE 6 is dying.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840400)

Except that Vista is extremely close to Win7 in terms of infrastructure. Win7 is basically a polished, non-glacial-speed Vista. Even MS admits that (or at least they did a few months after Win7 was out). So you've got one of the worst windows releases in the history of the company, and now people who've paid for it get left behind because *now* MS decides to be backwards-compatible?

It's like screwing people who've paid for Vista all over again -- "look, we gave you a break with IE9, but let's face it, that PC deserves a better OS than that piece of crap... Here, we'll make IE10 a Win7-and-up and really drive home how stupid you were for buying that OS... From US".

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840586)

screwing users over with Vista is like screwing over users with windows ME.

if you feel guilty you should go see a shrink. If they complain they should go see one.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840426)

Agreed. If you're not going to buy Windows again then pirate the fucking thing. Microsoft would actually prefer it that way. Ultimately it's in their favor to have a pirated user vs an outdated user.

For anyone curious you can still download [mydigitallife.info] the official premium and professional Win7 ISOs for free from Microsoft's affiliate.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840476)

I'm a little confused as to the limitation at all. Under the hood, Vista and Windows 7 are pretty damned close to each other. I can't really think of an architectural reason for this limitation. At least I'm unaware of any vast difference under the hood between the two operating systems, mainly some UI differences, some speeding up (although Vista with SP2 isn't too bad) and some extra goodies like VM tacked on to some of the editions. They pretty much can run on the same hardware, and I've heard some reports that Windows 7 is less resource intensive than Vista.

Other than perhaps trying to egg people still running Vista to bump up I don't see the point. We've got a ton of Vista machines, many of them the Business Edition, and I'm sure not paying a couple of hundred bucks a pop just to run IE10.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (3, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840276)

Great marketing for alternative browsers :^)

There's an implication beyond "Vista support is dropped", which considering the number of companies that avoided Vista on the desktop itself isn't a big deal... Server 2008 support is also dropped. R2 is the Win7 kernel so that's still valid, but my users on Terminal Servers as little as three years old won't have access to the next IE version.

Think beyond your desktop and consider that much of the corporate ecosystem "supports" IE. I've got clients who need - through no choice of their own - to access partner sites that are only officially supported on IE. For many of them, alternative browsers aren't something I can recommend, sadly. Now we're also being told our future with IE is... "OS upgrades".

Thanks Microsoft. Dropping XP is understandable. Vista/2k8 is too soon.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840362)

That's not a valid implication.The installer would and does do SKU checks, not just kernel version checks, so it's easily possible that it can still be installed on Server 2008 and that it can be tweaked to be installed on Vista as well.

What Microsoft is announcing is effectively a lack of support for Vista, so even if it can be tweaked to be installed on Vista, Microsoft wouldn't offer any support for it.

Re:This is the best thing they can do. (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840414)

That is exactly what I was thinking. They are not left in the lurch. IE 10 is likely to get left behind when it becomes an also ran in distant 3rd behind Firefox and Chrome. Maybe a 4th behind Safari, but that is pushing it.

That's ok (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840072)

I don't run on any OS before System 7.5

Re:That's ok (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840240)

I expected the first comments to pick up on the line saying

But the company confirmed that IE10 won't even run on Vista

...with some remark along the lines of "if it runs at all".

Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840086)

What's the deal with Slashdot still using the Bill Gates Borg icon to represent Microsoft? That icon is so dated on both levels these days. Bill Gates hasn't worked at Microsoft in years, and the Borg reference just is no longer current or relevant. Anyone under 25 would hardly get the references.

You guys just had a redesign, and you still can't deign to use the real Microsoft icon? For gods sake you have the real ones for Facebook and Twitter, it's not like its that hard. If anything, it makes slashdot just look so horribly unfunny and irrelevant.

This is an on-topic meta comment.

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1, Insightful)

ZosX (517789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840166)

What's the deal with Slashdot still using the Bill Gates Borg icon to represent Microsoft? That icon is so dated on both levels these days. Bill Gates hasn't worked at Microsoft in years, and the Borg reference just is no longer current or relevant. Anyone under 25 would hardly get the references.

You guys just had a redesign, and you still can't deign to use the real Microsoft icon? For gods sake you have the real ones for Facebook and Twitter, it's not like its that hard. If anything, it makes slashdot just look so horribly unfunny and irrelevant.

This is an on-topic meta comment.

I don't think you get it.

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840168)

lol cry more.

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840176)

Don't think too highly of your own opinion to push onto others with questions. You should be more direct like, "Bill Gates is not in the top position of Microsoft, so he should not be used for the icon!" Bill Gates still has face value and is still associated with Microsoft even it is in name only. I have not effectively watched any science fiction series in the past 10 years or so, that would qualify as popular culture. Is there an alternative neo-borg race? Or would you prefer a Steve Ballmer-esque beholder with tentacles like the Controllers from the Matrix? On second thought, that would be a funny icon to use, albeit The Matrix was released in 1999, so even that is dated.

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840208)

lol relly? this is slashdot man not micro$ develeper blog! we do not give in to the MAN here and it is open source all the way #1!!! the borgs are the worst enemy in star trek and m$ is the wrst enmy in computers (embrace extinguish PROFIT hello!) , so it makes perfect sense to us. gess you need a different site now dont you

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840314)

I'd vote for a chair flying through a broken window!

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1)

WizardFusion (989563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840388)

+1

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (2)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840428)

"Developers" x 4

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840324)

What are you talking about? It's some guy with an oversize bluetooth headset. Isn't this story about mobile devices? It's on-topic. STFU.

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840520)

Your right. How about an angry gorilla?

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840686)

Your right. How about an angry gorilla?

The problem is, that many people don't have the instant Steve Ballmer face recognition that they had with Bill Gates

Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840570)

If you must have it explained, you'll never understand.

Firefox FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840098)

Great strategy to boost the competition and kill M$ browser market share.

Re:Firefox FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840534)

I guess you would think that if you didn't know that Vista is at 11% market share and dropping. Still a little more than Mac market share and a lot more than the rounding error that is Linux desktop market share. But when IE 10 ships in a year the Vista market share will be around 7%. It's not worth it for them to create more back-ports of Windows 7 components just to make it work on something that not many people use.

Lurching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840104)

would leave millions of Windows XP users in the lurch

Hardly "in the lurch" - most mainstream browsers will continue to run on XP just fine.

Wow (5, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840112)

If this browser is unable to run on even Windows XP, all it says to me is "Hi, I have to interact with your computer in a way no browser should need to."

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840162)

Back in the times of Netscape, they wanted the browser to replace the OS (the user-visible parts of it, of course, not the kernel/drivers/etc.). The company failed to achieve it, but its brainchild -- Firefox -- managed to push Microsoft and Google close to that point.

The more `rich content' (3D graphics and whatnot) runs in browser, the closer it needs to be to extra hardware (3D accelerator) and OS software (security provider, data store etc.)

Re:Wow (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840214)

While true, it I'm still dubious that it cannot be sufficiently achieved to run on the older, and still fairly Modern OSs. Especially as I expect tHe other leading browsers will certainly be able to do so.

Re:Wow (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840412)

So is that a good thing? Just an honest question. Personally, I think there is a value in thin clients actually being thin and limited.

Re:Wow (2)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840182)

Most modern browsers are or will be interacting with those same parts of Windows (Direct 2D) for hardware acceleration. The difference is that most other browser manufacturers include fallbacks for legacy OSes and hardware. Strangely IE9 has fallbacks for legacy hardware, but not for a lack of DirectX 10.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840258)

I'm sorry, as much as I loathe Microsoft, what you are saying is nonsense. Newer operating systems offer greater functionality. It's entirely possible for an application - browser or otherwise - to require features that older operating systems don't have without nefarious "interaction".

Just recently, I've stopped supporting iOS 3 because iOS 4 offers features that cut down development time significantly. My applications are sandboxed away from the operating system just like any other, much more separate than any typical application running on a desktop machine. There's nothing sinister about it, it's simply more cost-effective that way.

Re:Wow (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840382)

Firefox 3 cant run on any windows earlier than 2000, IIRC. Sometimes dependencies just arent there.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840404)

If this browser is unable to run on even Windows XP, all it says to me is "Hi, I have to interact with your computer in a way no browser should need to."

The fact that you're an idiot without imagination (and technical knowledge) doesn't mean that the browser "is interacting with your computer in a way no browser should need to".

If Windows 7 e.g. support methods of hardware-acceleration (whether HTML page rendering or video playback) that earlier Windows versions didn't, then it is very desirable for users that their browser actually USES those new technologies.

Re:Wow (1)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840430)

Actually, Windows Vista supports condition variables where earlier versions didn't. It's possible to emulate them, but it's very difficult to get right. It's totally possible that the IE team wanted to take advantage of features that made the code much cleaner or run faster. What's the point of having those new features built into the operating system if they can't be used?

Re:Wow (0)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840434)

Well, the interaction that breaks on XP is mainly "GPU accelerated rendering". Since XP had a crap system for that, I can understand why they don't bother supporting it. Vista and 7 both "require" a GPU powerful enough to do that, so MS can get away with not keeping a software renderer in the browser.

For what it's worth, most other browsers can do the same, although there's usually an option to disable.

Re:Wow (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840440)

FYI, IE9 already doesn't run on Windows XP.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840528)

OT: Those "Longest Road" tees don't look like anything, definitely don't seem to resemble Settlers of Catan in any way. I dig the Carcassonne shirt though.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840576)

Or Microsoft would like to officially deprecate APIs that have existed for 20+ years. A perfect example of this is GDI. With Vista, GDI was not hardware accellerated. Win 7 reintroduced GDI accelleration, but by then, the damage was done to ISVs. With Win 8, Microsoft could see this as an opportunity to yank GDI acceleration again.

In order to not have IE run like shit, they use new APIs that won't be back ported to Vista.

This seems more plausible to me...

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840610)

"Hi, why should I bother trying to run on a 10 year-old OS that doesn't contain half the technologies I'm now built upon, and that my daddy is going to stop supporting in a few more years anyway?"

We all want IE6 to die, why not XP? It's not that XP is bad or anything... but it's old. It's been replaced. People bitch about Microsoft hanging onto old things for so long, and then they bitch when Microsoft is finally moving forward at a reasonable pace again.

I know a lot of people still use XP... but it can't stay around forever. It has to eventually die and we all move on and everything will be okay. This is just one part of that process.

Sometimes I think that no matter what Microsoft does, Slashdot is going to have major issues with it... just because it's Microsoft.

Obligatory "It ain't half hot mum" reference (2)

der_joachim (590045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840128)

Oh dear! How sad! Never mind!

Re:Obligatory "It ain't half hot mum" reference (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840312)

Although I echo the sentiment, I'm not so sure that reference to a 1970s BBCTV show counts as "obligatory" here, however much we may have liked it at the time.

And nothing of value was lost (2, Insightful)

dotHectate (975458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840132)

Doesn't bother me. While I'm sure someone will do something to prove that it can operate just fine on "Vista-or-less-than" OS, do we really care when we've got better options in Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and many more? Oh, I forgot, I need it to run a "Native HTML5 experience", darn them.

Compatiwhat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840136)

So is MS now dropping even the pretense of backward compatibility in their products?

Re:Compatiwhat? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840332)

Yes.

Fixed that for you.... (5, Insightful)

ZosX (517789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840150)

"Windows Vista customers have a great browsing experience with IE9, but in building IE10 we are focused on continuing to drive the kind of innovation that only happens when you take advantage of screwing customers into buying modern operating systems and modern hardware for no good reason other than greed.""

I fail to see why IE 10 would not run on vista which is like 98% the same as Windows 7. What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks? It even has DX11. So hardware acceleration is not the issue.... I mean seriously. There is probably some mere flag in the installer that forces it to only work on Windows 7 and that is likely the only thing preventing it from running on Vista.

I mean google chrome runs on ancient P4s running XP. Give me a break.

Re:Fixed that for you.... (2, Insightful)

Mouldy (1322581) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840238)

I'd guess they're dropping Vista support to speed along their release cycle. IE is still very integrated with the operating system. Windows gets all of it's code that deals with internet communication from whatever IE version is installed. Therefore, updating IE is not the same as just updating a standalone browser like FF or Chrome - it's also making changes to a lot of stuff behind the scenes.

There probably is no technical reason why IE 10 couldn't work (to some degree) on Windows as far back as XP. But, given the timeframe (which is short due to the new release cycle), MS cannot develop and test OS-level code across so many platforms.

Re:Fixed that for you.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840260)

Not sure why this is modded down, it's 100% accurate.

Re:Fixed that for you.... (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840274)

Oh no! You have to use Windows 7! The horror!

Re:Fixed that for you.... (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840432)

Since you value £100 so little please send it to me.

Re:Fixed that for you.... (1)

cratermoon (765155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840494)

And me! Except as $163.08, please!

Horror barely describes it... (2)

fox171171 (1425329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840508)

Oh no! You have to use Windows 7! The horror!

My wife's new laptop came with Win7, and so far "I hate it" barely scratches the surface about my feelings for it. Can't seem to customize it in any way that makes it more convenient. I just cringe every time I have to do something on it.

Her brother wanted her to get an Apple. She wanted to stick with something she was familiar with. She may as well have gotten an Apple.

Re:Horror barely describes it... (2)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840562)

That's fine, but the security benefits provided for win7 are great. The technical benefits, also great.

OS customization seems to me like painting racing stripes on your car--you may think it's cool, everyone else doesn't care and thinks you're an idiot.

Just because you don't know what you're doing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840640)

Doesn't mean an Operating System is "the horror". Windows 7 is a BIG improvement on VISTA (which is (now, finally) a slight "improvement" over Windows Server 2003, which in turn, was an improvement on XP, which also was an improvement on Windows 2000, which was a DEFINITE improvement on Windows NT 4.x, which was an improvement on Windows NT 3.51, which HUGELY improved upon Windows NT 3.5, which ABSOLUTELY improved on Windows NT 3.1, by far. So you can keep your Apple MacOS X "p.r." to yourself if you're going to spout absolute bullshit around here that way about a competing OS that runs a lot more software (Windows 7 does vs. MacOS X) and, on a lot more hardware variations than MacOS X does or can, & for 1/3 the price of a Mac!

Re:Fixed that for you.... (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840294)

What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks?

More money for Microsoft from people who upgrade. This is how MS makes money from IE -- people need to upgrade Windows to get the new version of IE. The other major browsers all run on Windows and Mac, and most run on Linux and other operating systems as well.

Re:Fixed that for you.... (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840368)

I mean google chrome runs on ancient P4s running XP.

I'm running Win7 on a 2 different P4s. A 7 year old ThinkPad and an 8 year old HP desktop. I have no reason to think that either machine will have any problems with IE10 either. So I'm failing to see your point about Chrome.

Re:Fixed that for you.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840548)

That it runs on windows xp just fine even with it's newest releases

Re:Fixed that for you.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840650)

I fail to see why IE 10 would not run on vista which is like 98% the same as Windows 7. What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks?

Probably some form of DRM.

Christmas time (1)

Volntyr (1620539) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840156)

Why do I have a feeling there will be an announcement for Internet Explorer 204634?

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840158)

They need to bury Windows ME 2.0 after all.

couldnt be better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840160)

Now, thanks from Linux Zealots!

wild speculation (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840170)

I suppose this is related to IE being tied into the operating system. That was initially used in a lame attempt to make an excuse why MS had to force IE on their windows users. But now it's becoming a problem. Their current, most secure browser won't run even ONE version of OS behind? wow.

Not that any serious person really wants to continue using vista if they have any choice in the matter. Besides getting another OS upgrade sale under their belt I'm sure this was one of the driving factors.

Re:wild speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840248)

Yeh, your subject line says it all. Stop reaping that bs, pls. Seriously. I'm tired of this "IE is tied to the OS" crap. It hasn't been tied to the OS since IE7.

Re:wild speculation (1)

Jeff Carr (684298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840358)

Have you upgraded to IE9 in Windows 7? It closes Windows Explorer in order to install. That wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't tied to the OS. You could try to make the argument that Explorer isn't tied to the OS, but as it's the way that people interact with the OS, that wouldn't hold much weight.

What does it matter.... (1)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840172)

Everyone is still using IE6 anyway.

(If they're using IE at all that is. Everyone else is on Firefox, Chrome, etc..)

Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it... (5, Funny)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840204)

Uh... Internet Explorer? Oh yeah - that thing I use to load Chrome, Firefox and Opera on a new PC?

Why? Does it do something else i'm unaware of?

Re:Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840300)

You need four browsers on a system? And to be honest, it's hard to take someone seriously who acts like Firefox is really that much of a step up from IE anymore. 5 years ago? Sure. Today Firefox is guilty of all the things that people use to claim they left IE for. IE has stepped up its game and Firefox became the new couch potato of browsers. Had you left your failed attempt at a slight against IE with Opera and Chrome I would have some respect for your opinion.

Re:Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840366)

Oh no, someone has a different opinion to you, I'm so glad you came along and trolled them, in the way you did, to set them right.

Keep up the shoddy work!

Re:Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840384)

You're a bloody fool. While I agree FF3.x branch is slow as hell, FF4+ has got everything. Writing this on a 6.0 daily, it works flawlessly, doesn't crash and there are no problems. Plus it doesn't piss me off as much as Opera...

Re:Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it... (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840396)

You need four browsers on a system?

A developer or tester of a web site needs each browser.

The owner of a PC used by multiple people in a household might need to approve installation of multiple browsers. One needs IE for work, someone else prefers Chrome, someone else needs a specific Firefox extension, etc.

Re:Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840482)

So, in a nutshell, Firefox now has a bigger market share than the other browsers (except IE), that, somehow (almost magically), makes it as bad as IE.
Your respect for Opera comes from it being a rather obscure browser (despite existing for 14 years) and Chrome because it's what's "in" right now.

Finally! This is Great! (1, Insightful)

czmax (939486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840236)

Microsoft has been letting "backwards compatibility" restrict their innovations for too long. Sounds like they learned a lesson with the Vista fiasco and are finally willing to move forward without continuously coddling all those customers that won't upgrade anyway. You all are scoffing but this is their turn around in action.

Either that or internally they can't convince any developers to install Vista for compatibility testing & development.

Re:Finally! This is Great! (3, Funny)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840350)

-1 mod points, you used "Microsoft" and "innovation" in the same sentence.

Re:Finally! This is Great! (4, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840376)

That's certainly one way of spinning it. On the other hand, the way I see it is they are once again, illegally using one product to affect the users of another product. In this case, they are trying to use MSIE to draw people away from Windows XP and to buy Windows 7.

I'm waiting for someone to package MSIE9 for Windows XP. Maybe it has already been done....

Re:Finally! This is Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840466)

Taking a lesson from Mac? Upgrade the OS and have to upgrade half the programs you use since they won't work anymore.

Re:Finally! This is Great! (1)

cratermoon (765155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840700)

Possibly. Because we're discussing the web browser and Microsoft has a known history of leveraging its monopoly position (remember the company IS a convicted monopolist, even if the current regulatory environment makes it possible to forget that ever happened) by tying browser and OS together, it's reasonable to be concerned.

I've hated Microsoft at least since the Windows 95/DR-DOS fiasco, but I still consider any moves the company can make away from the crippling insistence on remaining backward-compatible back to DOS 3.0 a Good Thing.

I'm not talking just about the technical mess that results from so much code and infrastructure propping up the moldy oldies, I'm also speaking from experience how this badly warps business IT planning and support. It's one thing for a company to continue running a crufty server or two for some decades-old system in the data center, multiplying that across the entire desktop personal computer brings an enormous cost, not the least of which is the fact that malware written last millennium will still run and turn your work day into a Bad Day.

Re:Finally! This is Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840628)

They realized that since the OS bombed it has no significant number of corporate contracts that might protest loudly against the measure. They are killing backward compatibility with a growing similarity to Apple Computer.

Back when Vista came out, MS had no regrets on erecting a wall around their product in the form of must-have hardware; that hurt them A LOT. Now they are trying to make that a software wall with "needs X version # to run." True, they don't care about whether the hurt customers like you observed, and I'm more worried about the customers they are continually planning to hurt, now that they've adopted a more efficient policy to ease their release times.

native HTML5? (1)

wooptoo (1075345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840334)

But will it have native HTML5?

Firefox & XP (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840336)

Just another reason for me to stick with Firefox on all my Windows machines - (which all run XP)!

Vista (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840342)

Microsoft probably wishes that Windows Vista had never occurred.

.
But not nearly as much as some of Microsoft's customers wish that Windows Vista had never occurred.

Re:Vista (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840394)

Yup, that was my first thought too. Microsoft is essentially saying, "Vista? Oh yeah... that thing we released between XP and Win7... *ahem*... we'd really like to pretend that it doesn't exist."

IE won't run on Vista? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840360)

That's OK, nothing else runs on Vista, either.

Re:IE won't run on Vista? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840406)

That's OK, nothing else runs on Vista, either.

Oh, if I had mod points to give... :)

King of Kings (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840398)

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

- From Ozymandias [wikipedia.org] , by Percy Shelley

Best use for IE (2)

shatfield (199969) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840402)

The best use for IE is to download another browser after installing Windows.

Re:Best use for IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840616)

They should rename IE to FirefoxDownloader.

Rename it Intranet Explorer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840474)

They gave up IE on mac and unix years ago. Just make it a HTML widget for intranet apps that are stuck on IE6 and legacy mshtml.dll apps that havent switched to webkit yet. If they really wanted to then make "IE 10" a branded chromium/firefox. Then the web can move on. Drop flash and silverlight for HTML5 too.

Slashdot = any excuse to bash M$ (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840486)

I can't believe the comments I am reading. This is the best thing that could happen.

I support Vista and XP computers, and it's a nightmare. The more incentive to get people on Windows 7, the better. I have never been more impressed with an operating system from Microsoft, I encourage EVERYONE to upgrade as soon as they have the funds, seriously. And the emulation for older OS's that come with the Professional/Ultimate versions of Windows means that they can STILL RUN their weird math/engineering/xp-only applications. (yes, I've heard of VirtualBox, that's not the point)

The more people using 7, the better the world will be. I am happy Microsoft has given the middle finger to Vista and XP with Internet Explorer 10.

Oh, and to the people who say "YAY PEOPLE WILL USE ALTERNATE BROWSERS!" --- you're smoking crack. 80% of users won't even know Internet Explorer 10 is released, and most will continue to use an older, security hole ridden version of IE6/7/8

/rant

Screwing your customers is not a good thing (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840634)

No, the best thing that Microsoft could do is offer Vista users a free upgrade to Windows 7. It's bad enough that early adopters had to deal with shitty driver support, an unpolished security system, and rough edges all around. Now they cant even use new software from the same damn company that wrote the OS. On computers as new as 18 months old. Many people were avoiding Vista like the plague but a few trusted Microsoft (or were oblivious), and now the thanks they get is a big middle finger. If Microsoft is going to treat Window 7 as a mandatory service pack for Vista then they should price it as such.

Re:Slashdot = any excuse to bash M$ (0)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840692)

I wouldn't have a problem with your argument if they'd released Win7 as a (no charge) upgrade or service pack to Vista. But since they opted not to do this, they're effectively "giving the middle finger" (to use your terminology) to all the people who bought Vista... just because they can.

who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840572)

who cares, im not a web developer anymore...

Safari is similar... (3, Interesting)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35840622)

Doesn't run on anything less than OSX Leopard. Make no bones about it; an OSX point update is really a major OS version update akin to Vista or 7, but all hiding within the OSX moniker.

Interestingly, they do build it for XP, Vista and 7. so in effect, they're supporting rival operating systems that are older than their own. That's interesting as it enables them to fragment the opposition more; giving the older OS users less of a reason to upgrade to 7...

I'll be honest though, I'd like to see IE10 on other platforms. It won't happen, but I think the underlying changes and the direction that a current Microsoft are taking are good. Crap marketing speak not withstanding, IE9 is a good browser, whatever the past history for the name.

I doubt it will stay that way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35840690)

... in the final/RTM version.

They simply don't have the balls.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>