Vista will still be supported along with IE9. There are also plenty of Vista compatible browsers. I can see why Vista users are annoyed but I don't think it is unethical.
The could probably backport D2D but a lot of those older XP machines have lousy GPUs anyways. But you make a good point about XP being sold in 2009. I think they should have made a non-D2D version of IE9 for XP. There are a lot of users that only upgrade their browser through Windows update.
I agree with 6 and maybe 7 depending on the type of website but IE8 is the most common browser. Only non-commercial websites can get away with not supporting it.
It will be more than a version check, they'll make use of the.01% difference. But they could easily do a version check to rem out the Win7 features.
They're trying to encourage OS upgrades since that is where the money is. I'm not saying it is a good strategy, I can understand not wanting to support XP but with Vista they are going to piss a lot of customers off. I doubt it will be worth the negative PR.
AD is not a valid excuse, it works just fine with Firefox and there are plenty of guides online. IE6 is still used because of laziness. Corp USA uses it because it still works.
You are absolutely right that web developers need to get tough with them. Don't even give them the option of viewing a broken website, use the IE6update script or autoforward them to the IE8 homepage. Web devs need to take more responsibility.
I don't care if you bash them for that, I was just explaining in another post how D2D and DX10 could have been backported to XP. Some of us use what works and don't take sides as if the software world is some epic star wars battle.
Win7 and Vista have nearly identical APIs, we're talking a.01% difference. XP at least has some significant differences but DX10 still could have been backported along with D2D.
Win7 improvements over Vista are minor. Releasing Win7 fixed their image problem and allowed them to make more cash. Vista was fixed with updates, there are plenty of benchmarks on the web that show this. But I realize most Slashdotters enjoy bashing M$ more than objectively measuring software.
There is plenty of time to fix it given how slowly websites are moving away from Flash. Some of the bigger media websites have flat out stated that they have no interest in HTML5.
Android users don't have to run Flash, it's called choice.
No a website should not feel obligated to change hundreds of videos for 2% of web surfers, especially when that 2% has a desktop or laptop at home with Flash. What should they be changed to anyways? The HTML5 video spec isn't even finalized and there is still the IE6/7/8 problem.
Slashdot Mirror
than bill of rights.
The FSF isn't at all democratic, what goes into the GPL is entirely up to Stallman.
Corp USA can install two browsers. There is no excuse for surfing the web with IE6.
Vista will still be supported along with IE9. There are also plenty of Vista compatible browsers. I can see why Vista users are annoyed but I don't think it is unethical.
Most people who bought XP netbooks in 2009 don't even know what extended support is.
The could probably backport D2D but a lot of those older XP machines have lousy GPUs anyways. But you make a good point about XP being sold in 2009. I think they should have made a non-D2D version of IE9 for XP. There are a lot of users that only upgrade their browser through Windows update.
They all eventually develop a problem from an update that requires the CLI to fix. Linux is not even close to being Windows without the apps.
I agree with 6 and maybe 7 depending on the type of website but IE8 is the most common browser. Only non-commercial websites can get away with not supporting it.
It will be more than a version check, they'll make use of the .01% difference. But they could easily do a version check to rem out the Win7 features.
They're trying to encourage OS upgrades since that is where the money is. I'm not saying it is a good strategy, I can understand not wanting to support XP but with Vista they are going to piss a lot of customers off. I doubt it will be worth the negative PR.
What is stopping those clients from using Firefox or Chrome for external sites?
AD is not a valid excuse, it works just fine with Firefox and there are plenty of guides online. IE6 is still used because of laziness. Corp USA uses it because it still works.
or buy much online.
You are absolutely right that web developers need to get tough with them. Don't even give them the option of viewing a broken website, use the IE6update script or autoforward them to the IE8 homepage. Web devs need to take more responsibility.
I don't care if you bash them for that, I was just explaining in another post how D2D and DX10 could have been backported to XP. Some of us use what works and don't take sides as if the software world is some epic star wars battle.
Which hotkey selects the play button in a Flash window?
IE9 on XP wouldn't reduce IE6 usage by 1%.
Win7 and Vista have nearly identical APIs, we're talking a .01% difference. XP at least has some significant differences but DX10 still could have been backported along with D2D.
I've gone over them so go ahead and cite the ones you think would cause problems.
Cost is certainly a factor but I somehow think they could afford it with billions in the bank.
They want to encourage upgrades which shouldn't be a surprise. IE is not a product that they sell.
Win7 improvements over Vista are minor. Releasing Win7 fixed their image problem and allowed them to make more cash. Vista was fixed with updates, there are plenty of benchmarks on the web that show this. But I realize most Slashdotters enjoy bashing M$ more than objectively measuring software.
You'd think it would have gotten old after Vista was fixed with updates but to Slashdot it is endless entertainment.
to let you know that comment wasn't funny then either.
It's pretty much 1999 forever here.
But I guess no one bothers to look at benchmarks.
No matter how popular the GIMP gets worldwide it will always have issues with adoption in the US because of the derogatory connotation.
It stopped being cool when Linux fans realized that Flash would give Android devices an advantage.
There is plenty of time to fix it given how slowly websites are moving away from Flash. Some of the bigger media websites have flat out stated that they have no interest in HTML5.
Android users don't have to run Flash, it's called choice.
No a website should not feel obligated to change hundreds of videos for 2% of web surfers, especially when that 2% has a desktop or laptop at home with Flash. What should they be changed to anyways? The HTML5 video spec isn't even finalized and there is still the IE6/7/8 problem.