Heh, that's true. But you must admit it's kind of akward they're promoting.NET as the #1 framework, but don't use it themselves in their most eye-catching products. At first I thought it was simply because.NET was too new, but it has been 8 years now and there's still not a lot rolling out of Redmond that depends on.NET. Maybe you're right and it's completely irrelevant, but I always thought it was a little strange.
No, I don't even think they should support IE9 on XP. I just wished they would be honest about the reasons, instead of hiding behind the excuse that it's not possible to run IE9 on XP. It would be possible if they wanted to. But they don't want to make IE9 for XP, so that's what they should say.
XP was actually a big upgrade over 2000. WIN7's improvements are not as obvious to average user.
Are you serious? I think it's rather the other way around. There's virtually no difference at all between 2K and XP. The same thing could be said of W7 and Vista, but upgrading from XP to W7 is quite a step.
I'm not saying they should do that or that it even would be a good idea. Nor am I saying it is such a bad move of Microsoft to drop support of IE9. But it is their decision, you can't blame anyone else.
Microsoft decided to drop support of XP for IE9 out of their own choice to do so, not because it's not possible te create an IE9 that will run on XP. I have no problem with that, but I do think it would be nice if Microsoft was honest about this. It would be a good thing if they simply said "screw the old stuff, we're moving on and so should you", instead of hiding behind technicalities which they invented themselves.
Thanks for your insightful post:) I don't know a lot about the internals of developing for Windows and I always enjoy learning a bit more about it.
So could it be then that IE9 is a.NET application? Wouldn't that be (one of) the first "flagship" products Microsoft ship in this form?
I always wondered why Microsoft's own software isn't powered by.NET. Things like Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook but also the stuff that comes with Windows itself, like Paint, Windows Media Player, Calculator, Wordpad and of course, Internet Explorer.
I'll gander it will be around for TEN MORE years!!
Oh I'm sure it will be around and used by some. But not by most people. It wont be mainstream, even in two years anymore. Just look at the statistics right now: market share dropped from 80%+ to barely 66% in the last two years and Windows 7 hasn't really even kicked in yet. And now with Microsoft not supporting XP with new products, the decline will only accelerate.
While Vista was obviously a problem, people won't be buying computers with XP pre-installed now that W7 is out, even though it is still an option from some vendors. So given the normal lifespan of a PC of about 3 to 5 years, XP will be completely gone from the scene, which is about the same timespan I reckon it will take for HTML5 to become a mainstream alternative to Flash.
Sure, XP is "good enough" to do most tasks, you're completely right about that. But that's not what it's about.
No. What part of "XP does not support hardware acceleration on it's desktop" do people not understand?
So you don't offer hardware acceleration on XP. Or you implement your hardware acceleration differently. Everybody is still releasing brand new software for XP, with hardware acceleration and everything, so why can't Microsoft?
It's especially weird since Microsoft designed both XP and IE9, so surely they could have figured out a way to make them compatible. But they didn't. Not because they aren't able to, but because they don't want to. It's as simple as that.
Now they hide behind an excuse that IE9 isn't compatible with something in XP, but that's only true because they made it that way themselves.
Sure there are a few corporations like that. But they don't represent a significant percentage of the market by any means. I'm sure there are (for example) more Macs in the world than systems with Windows 2000. Hell, there are probably even more PC's with Linux as main desktop operating system than Windows 2000.
There will always be people using old or weird software. But we're talking about mainstream here. Right now, XP is still mainstream, but it's share of users is declining rapidly. I don't see any reason why it would still hold ground in a few years.
I seriously doubt XP will still be used a lot when HTML5 has become mainstream. It's not like you see many Windows 98 or 2000 installations in today's world, so why would XP be any different?
The thing is though, with an exclusive repository, they probably would not have a monopoly with Windows right now. Which would have made both Windows and the operating system market as a whole a lot nicer.
Somehow...I don't give a crap about whether the iPhone has a monopoly or not. Why? Because I'm more concerned about my using things than I am about well this phantom of a monopoly and a market. That's your bogeyman not mine.
It does matter if a company holds a monopoly with it's product, because that's what antitrust laws are all about. There is nothing wrong with bundling two products together, it's only wrong when you abuse your monopoly in one market to get one in another market. You can't put the whole monopoly thing aside, because it is at the heart of the issue.
See, I think it's more fair to treat things equally than single one out. Sure, you can break thing down with an analogy that just seems appropriate, but really misses the point, but eh, I don't care. I see things how I see it.
You can't treat monopolists equally, because they are not equal. That's the whole point: it's about creating fairness on the market by making sure there are no big boy bullies around who can prevent smaller boys from having success.
The point of my posts is that people keep saying Microsoft was forced to create the Browser Ballot Screen, which is simply not true.
Yes, Microsoft was informed they were under investigion by the EU because of their bundling of IE with Windows. But that is it. How MS decided to handle this situation was entirely their own choice. So there's no "poor Microsoft, being forced to offer products by their competitors", because apparently MS thinks the browser ballot screen is the best solution for the problem.
Say it as you like, the fact of the matter is that not the EU but MS themselves came up with the browser ballot screen and they implemented it before the EU's investigation reached any conclusions, nor did the EU do any suggestions towards Microsoft on how to handle this situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, that's true. But you must admit it's kind of akward they're promoting .NET as the #1 framework, but don't use it themselves in their most eye-catching products. At first I thought it was simply because .NET was too new, but it has been 8 years now and there's still not a lot rolling out of Redmond that depends on .NET. Maybe you're right and it's completely irrelevant, but I always thought it was a little strange.
its unimportant. Development platforms are tools
It might not be important technically, but PR-wise I think it's strange they don't use their own tools in the products they ship.
Nah, IE9 is probably not .NET.
So there are still no major applications shipped by Microsoft that use their own .NET framework? Isn't that awfully strange?
No, I don't even think they should support IE9 on XP. I just wished they would be honest about the reasons, instead of hiding behind the excuse that it's not possible to run IE9 on XP. It would be possible if they wanted to. But they don't want to make IE9 for XP, so that's what they should say.
XP was actually a big upgrade over 2000. WIN7's improvements are not as obvious to average user.
Are you serious? I think it's rather the other way around. There's virtually no difference at all between 2K and XP. The same thing could be said of W7 and Vista, but upgrading from XP to W7 is quite a step.
I'm not saying they should do that or that it even would be a good idea. Nor am I saying it is such a bad move of Microsoft to drop support of IE9. But it is their decision, you can't blame anyone else.
Microsoft decided to drop support of XP for IE9 out of their own choice to do so, not because it's not possible te create an IE9 that will run on XP. I have no problem with that, but I do think it would be nice if Microsoft was honest about this. It would be a good thing if they simply said "screw the old stuff, we're moving on and so should you", instead of hiding behind technicalities which they invented themselves.
Thanks for your insightful post :) I don't know a lot about the internals of developing for Windows and I always enjoy learning a bit more about it.
So could it be then that IE9 is a .NET application? Wouldn't that be (one of) the first "flagship" products Microsoft ship in this form?
I always wondered why Microsoft's own software isn't powered by .NET. Things like Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook but also the stuff that comes with Windows itself, like Paint, Windows Media Player, Calculator, Wordpad and of course, Internet Explorer.
I'll gander it will be around for TEN MORE years!!
Oh I'm sure it will be around and used by some. But not by most people. It wont be mainstream, even in two years anymore. Just look at the statistics right now: market share dropped from 80%+ to barely 66% in the last two years and Windows 7 hasn't really even kicked in yet. And now with Microsoft not supporting XP with new products, the decline will only accelerate.
While Vista was obviously a problem, people won't be buying computers with XP pre-installed now that W7 is out, even though it is still an option from some vendors. So given the normal lifespan of a PC of about 3 to 5 years, XP will be completely gone from the scene, which is about the same timespan I reckon it will take for HTML5 to become a mainstream alternative to Flash.
Sure, XP is "good enough" to do most tasks, you're completely right about that. But that's not what it's about.
Exactly the same could be said of Windows 2000, yet you don't see that around on a large scale at all.
That big new Corvette Engine does not fit in 8 year old Chevy Cavalier, is that GM's fault?
Yes, of course it is. They designed the old car, the new car and both of the engines. Who's fault would it be else?
No. What part of "XP does not support hardware acceleration on it's desktop" do people not understand?
So you don't offer hardware acceleration on XP. Or you implement your hardware acceleration differently. Everybody is still releasing brand new software for XP, with hardware acceleration and everything, so why can't Microsoft?
It's especially weird since Microsoft designed both XP and IE9, so surely they could have figured out a way to make them compatible. But they didn't. Not because they aren't able to, but because they don't want to. It's as simple as that.
Now they hide behind an excuse that IE9 isn't compatible with something in XP, but that's only true because they made it that way themselves.
Net Applications is hardly an advertiser. You can't block their statistics by using AdBlock, because that's not how they operate.
Sure there are a few corporations like that. But they don't represent a significant percentage of the market by any means. I'm sure there are (for example) more Macs in the world than systems with Windows 2000. Hell, there are probably even more PC's with Linux as main desktop operating system than Windows 2000.
There will always be people using old or weird software. But we're talking about mainstream here. Right now, XP is still mainstream, but it's share of users is declining rapidly. I don't see any reason why it would still hold ground in a few years.
I'd prefer to stick with IE6
Yeah, who needs transparent PNG's anyway, right?
Of course they are able. They just don't want to, because not supporting XP drives Vista and W7 sales.
Well, it kinda is news, because all of the other upcoming new web browsers do support the 8-year-old operating system.
About 62% of the people use IE.
I seriously doubt XP will still be used a lot when HTML5 has become mainstream. It's not like you see many Windows 98 or 2000 installations in today's world, so why would XP be any different?
As they say on Wikipedia, citation needed, sir.
The thing is though, with an exclusive repository, they probably would not have a monopoly with Windows right now. Which would have made both Windows and the operating system market as a whole a lot nicer.
Somehow...I don't give a crap about whether the iPhone has a monopoly or not. Why? Because I'm more concerned about my using things than I am about well this phantom of a monopoly and a market. That's your bogeyman not mine.
It does matter if a company holds a monopoly with it's product, because that's what antitrust laws are all about. There is nothing wrong with bundling two products together, it's only wrong when you abuse your monopoly in one market to get one in another market. You can't put the whole monopoly thing aside, because it is at the heart of the issue.
See, I think it's more fair to treat things equally than single one out. Sure, you can break thing down with an analogy that just seems appropriate, but really misses the point, but eh, I don't care. I see things how I see it.
You can't treat monopolists equally, because they are not equal. That's the whole point: it's about creating fairness on the market by making sure there are no big boy bullies around who can prevent smaller boys from having success.
Given how much antitrust trouble MS got in as-is, I'm sure that would have gone over really well.
How would offering a secure repository get them into antitrust problems?
Why do people choose Windows?
Because they are idiots.
The point of my posts is that people keep saying Microsoft was forced to create the Browser Ballot Screen, which is simply not true.
Yes, Microsoft was informed they were under investigion by the EU because of their bundling of IE with Windows. But that is it. How MS decided to handle this situation was entirely their own choice. So there's no "poor Microsoft, being forced to offer products by their competitors", because apparently MS thinks the browser ballot screen is the best solution for the problem.
Say it as you like, the fact of the matter is that not the EU but MS themselves came up with the browser ballot screen and they implemented it before the EU's investigation reached any conclusions, nor did the EU do any suggestions towards Microsoft on how to handle this situation.