Slashdot Mirror
Internet Explorer 9 Will Not Support Windows XP
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.'"
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 etc..) because of having to support IE8
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 )
>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.
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.
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?
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).
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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?
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.
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
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
I don't understand why people who would care about what browser they use would still be using XP. XP was released almost 9 years ago for god's sake. You cant expect everyone to cater to your outdated operating system! XP is so old it is in danger of becoming retro. If you disagree, rollerblade on over here and disco me to death.
If they aren't public websites then they are of little concern to the rest of us. Firefox still works just fine for 99.9% of the Internet, not including little walled gardens like you are referring to.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Yes... on your part. The vendor is not Microsoft. The vendor is your financial partners. Microsoft is not imposing version checking. Microsoft has long provided alternative interfaces which negate the need for ActiveX controls. It is your financial partners who are refusing to support later browsers and alternate browsers. It is your financial partners, and not Microsoft, who control the gateways to the services that you want.
Thank your financial partners, not Microsoft. If those financial partners only provided service through the old CompuServe interface, you wouldn't be blaming CompuServe for failing to completely overhaul their service to be web and HTML based. If those financial partners only provided service by telegraph, you wouldn't be blaming Western Union for failing to upgrade your telegraphy machines on demand.
The machines that still run Windows in every office should still work. The machines are even security supported for four more years (assuming that they're on XP). If you're bitter that you can't replace them with the new shiny exactly in the manner that you want, then suck it up and blame your financial partners, not Microsoft. You're obviously no longer Microsoft's customer, so why should they solve your problem in a way that doesn't generate revenue rather than telling you to pound sand?
Okay, so far, MSIE9 is technically an improvement, but not close enough to its competitors to be taken seriously.
It is a year away from being released, and not even in alpha yet. The only thing we have seen so far is a tech demo of the trident engine that didn't even have a full browser user interface. How can you be making any sort of judgement call about it is already?
but this takes the cake! I refer to: " 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." I mean, to say a thing is "impossible" and then, in the same breath, reveal not one but TWO methods of doing the thing is as funny as it is absurd.
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
IE is simply the best firefox downloader around.
Thank your financial partners, not Microsoft.
But this is precisely what Microsoft was trying to make happen. It did, and now you want to remove all blame from them? I don't think many of us would agree.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I know what you're gonna say...there was nothing usable until Windows 7, that's why you're using an operating system that was released nearly 10 years ago.
Bullshit. There was Linux, OSX, and others. You've had plenty of options. Hanging on to that ancient crap, and expecting the vendor to still support it, is silly.
(just upset that he STILL can't use SNI because of idiotic XP users)
Of course in their case it just that they are too stupid to breath.
Their site works fine with Linux and Firefox, but they deliberately refuse to work with anything but Windows and Mac. Spoofing the user agent string lets the site work perfectly with any OS and pretty much any browser. They tell me they do this for "security" but it doesn't actually work that way.
Yeah, a bit off topic. But, I posted this as an example of the hold MS has on the *minds* of their customers. I've gotten fairly high up into Citi banks IT folks by being polite and telling their customer service people that what they just told me doesn't make any sense. That it goes against the very mathematical basis of computer science that governs the way networks and computers work. And then demanding a valid explanation. You have say things like, "Yes, I understand that that is what you were told, and I know you are not lying to me. But, you have been lied to, and you don't have the technical training you would need to know that. Please put me through to someone who can answer my question or cancel my account." That works, especially if you are willing to try to explain what is really going on. So, after many hours I finally get to a guy who is so locked into the idea the MS is Lord and Linux is the Devil that even though he is very technical he can not think reasonably about my question.
I've had several similar experience in my life. Trying to explain to a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim that not believing in his God does not make you an Atheist is a lot like trying to explain to that guy why Linux is not evil.
Belief is not subject to rational discussion.
Stonewolf
XenServer and Virtual Box both do, and they are both free
While yes there are different licensing restrictions by Ubuntu box certainly does support DRM just like Windows 7. I'll grant its not nearly as widely support but who cares? Seriously? That tired argument needs to go away, the DRM in Windows gives it the ability to play DRM content and without DRM content it doesn't do anything. I have no idea where that bit of fud came from.
I also think there is a very tiny chance that you will ever see a site that says IE 9 only except in Intranet situations where corporations can specify which browser they want to standardize on. With web standards and HTML 5 most of the browser specific add-ons will not be required. As long as your browser is W3C compliant most of the web should be available to you in the coming years.
As for motivations in the FOSS world, that's mostly irrelevant when it comes to the mainstream distros. Most of them have non-free add-ons to make them useful. Ubuntu without Flash and mp3 support would be seriously lame. Same with Mandriva, Fedora, or any of the big guys. Oracle, SUSE, and Red Hat enterprise distros even require current support contracts to receive updates. Since they have to release the source you can always compile them yourself for free but unless you have staff dedicated to this task that is a huge waste of effort. Most people like to make money. Many understand that lock-in is a waste of effort although the strides Apple has made suggests otherwise. Even Microsoft is learning to play nice with others. My Windows and Linux servers have no trouble communicating. Hell, Ubuntu is my main desktop and it works fine even with Exchange.
Hardware accelerated SVG, Video rendering, font smoothing, etc.
Why should your cpu do all the work when any modern system with a 5 or so year old video card can render it faster, with less power used, and better quality?
Some of IE's demos at mix showed them rendering an architectural drawing (where even the letters on the page for room numbers) are drawn using paths, paths can be hardware accelerated very easily, and then scaled to your resolution/zoom by dedicated hardware.
the html5 canvas crowd are also going nuts over the possibilities (games written without flash? yes please!)
How does the DRM affect you? It's merely there to enable/ you to play DRM'd files. It doesn't restrict you with anything. But if you have such files, it allows you to play them. How is that worse than Linux where you can't play them at all?
Yep. XP's coffin has tons of nails in it. Unfortunately, XP isn't *in* the coffin. It's sitting on the lid saying, "Hey guys. You want to put more nails inside this box again? Sure. Let me hop off so you can open the lid."