Internet Explorer 10 Drops Vista Support

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."

Comments

This is the best thing they can do.

[Mage Powers]

Great marketing for alternative browsers :^)

Re:This is the best thing they can do.

[wmbetts]

Because 2011 is the year of the Linux desktop!

Re:This is the best thing they can do.

[hairyfeet]

Oh please! You think they wish to commit suicide? What do you think keeps people locked into Windows? It is all the time and money they have invested in legacy applications that's what! If I can't run my old Windows apps, what is to keep me from buying that new iShiny or even that cheaper Linux box? Why not a thing!

After all they can ALL surf the web, only the Apple has more style and intuitiveness, while the Linux box is cheaper. So the ONLY thing MSFT has going for them is the billions of dollars in programs that run ONLY on Windows.

Now if you were to say "they are gonna figure out a seamless way to VM all those apps" I might agree with you, except so far we haven't seen anything of the sort. But to kill the golden goose that is backwards compatibility? Never!

As for TFA, I think this is a sign MSFT will soon be giving up the "browser wars". After all they aren't making any money on IE, being locked in to IE has been gone since Firefox, and with the exception of corporate IE has become "that thing you use to download Firefox/Chrome". By tying specific versions to specific OSes they have made sure IE will be so fragmented nobody will write for it anyway, so they might as well say "This is what you use to download Chrome/Firefox, we'll plug any glaring obvious holes, but other than that tough luck, its a tech demo for MSR".

Because last I checked while Win 7 has passed XP in the USA, the world map still has XP at nearly 50%, and another 17% for Vista. That is 67% of the world market that can't use your product but can use your competitors and if that isn't giving up I don't know what is. Unless there is someone over at MSFT so stoned they actually think they can get people to spend $100+ on a new OS just by dangling a new IE? If so can I have some, that must be some good shit.

Re:This is the best thing they can do.

[Belial6]

Honestly, dropping XP is even questionable. You don't start counting an OS's death from the date it was first introduced, you do it from the date that it was last sold. MS was still selling new copies of XP in 2009. This is only 2 years ago. Combined with the fact that Vista was basically still born and MS knew it (making it not a real option for many), dropping XP support in IE is basically telling their customers that they don't really support their OS for more than 2 years.

Re:This is the best thing they can do.

[SpryGuy]

I disagree. "corporate users" are the only ones trapped on IE6, and so they can just find some way to use that on their coporate LANs. There is no requirement they use IE6 at home or anywhere else. If it's such an issue, the corporation can either pay to upgrade the sites, or pay for their customers to have VMs that run IE6 to access their legacy sites. Or you can just install FireFox or Chrome next to IE6 and use one for legacy sites, and the other for everything else.

The vast majority of people have no NEED to use IE6, and the vast majority of web developers have no need to support IE6. In fact, I's say there is ZERO requirement for ANY web developer to EVER support IE6 at this point. Anyone who says otherwise is making excuses or lying.

And there's no need to support IE7 either. Because it's such an easy, pain-free upgrade from that to IE8, and there aren't any sites out there that REQUIRE IE7 in the way that some coporate sites require IE6. IE8's "compatability mode" is "good enough".

So you're just wrong here. You only need to suppot IE8 and IE9 right now. Period. Once IE10 comes out, you will only NEED to support IE9 and IE10 (IE 9's compatibility mode is "good enough" for any site quirky enough to run only in IE8).

Every web developer just needs to put their foot down on IE6 support (and now IE7). Period. Even MS wants developers to do this. Nobody should code to, or test on IE6 any more, period. It's a complete waste of time and money and effort. Just stop it.

Wow

[dmomo]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Bogtha]

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

[KiloByte]

There's a massive architectural difference between NT-based and DOS-based Windows.

For example, all system library calls that pass a string need to use a different API on Win95/98/ME and NT+. Using SomeFunctionA will mysteriously break the moment someone tries to input a string with a letter that happens to be not present in a legacy locale-dependent "code page", or access a file with such a character in its name. Supporting both APIs is possible but is a major chore, even with wrappers like MSLU.

And this is just a tip of an iceberg. What if you want to write some persistent data? Can't use C:\Program Files\YourProgram\ since it is not writeable without elevation. Easy -- SHGetFolderPath(). But, that function is not present on Win98 that did not have a specific Internet Explorer (???) update. So you need to fall back to that fixed location in C:\Program Files\YourProgram\. And so on...

On the other hand, there are no significant changes between 2000 and Win7 where user mode programs are concerned. New API has been added, but it gives little advantage, you can do about everything the old way with no functionality loss. I think the only actual goodie are filesystem transactions.

There was a large change for kernel drivers between XP and Vista, but a program like Firefox has no valid reason to touch that. Not any program which doesn't touch debugging, hardware or virtualization -- ie, any game which installs a kernel driver has a rootkit like SecuROM included.

Fixed that for you....

[ZosX]

"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.

Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it...

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

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:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon

[erroneus]

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

Re:Finally! This is Great!

[erroneus]

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....

Um, it's just a web browser ya know....

[rsilvergun]

If Opera, Mozilla and Google can all make their browsers run just fine on Windows XP/Vista, why the heck can't Microsoft? Or did you really buy into that 'native HTML5' stuff?

This is easy to answer.

[bhpaddock]

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

Just look at the public IDL files in the Windows SDK and look at what's inside #ifdef NTDDI_WIN7 blocks.

Hint: It's not a small list.

What a load of bull

[SmallFurryCreature]

Yet all this backward compatibility is NOT hurting, Chrome, Opera, Firefox and yes, even Safari.

How come ALL these can support older windows versions without problems but MS somehow runs into issues supporting its own OS that they are STILL selling?

Yes, I want to get rid of old Windows as well but mostly because of IE. If MS actually released some decent upgrades to its old crap they could help people who can't afford to upgrade their PC constantly. If IE9/10 was available XP (as other browsers more capable browsers are) then IE6 would be dead and buried. Clearly MS doesn't want IE6 gone badly enough, or are their browser developers not as capable as EVERY other browser make out there?