IE10 talk and stuff

Firecat,

Thank you for bringing some valuable perspective...

As far as the ones who fail to... and laugh at...

 

I too cannot understand why IE9 isn't available for XP or why IE10 won't be available for Windows Vista. In theory, for security sake, everyone should be on Windows Vista or 7. But, reality is quite different, as user Firecat mentioned. That reveals a lot why it's so stupid for Microsoft not to provide IE9/IE10 for these O.Ss.

But, unfortunately, it's not just with Internet Explorer. Companies that now have Windows XP/Vista, and that do a lot of automation using Windows PowerShell, will be out of luck with PowerShell 3.0, which will be the version coming out with Windows 8. From all info I could gather so far, PowerShell 3.0 will only be available for Windows 7 SP1/SP2 when it comes out. Stupid move, as it brings a lot of enhancements over version 2, and these wouldn't require hardware acceleration. Acceleration seems to be an excuse nowadays.

Sorry for this half off-topic, but I only pretended to provide information that shows these lousy moves Microsoft has.

Microsoft should have a bit more consideration, specially considering the current economy situation. More so in the countries that struggle a lot more with their economy.

 

Well, Martijn2 already explained very clearly. For those who didn't read:

"You have to consider that MS supports IE for a long LONG time. It limits IE three versions per platform, Vista already had three (IE7/8/9). IE10 will be Windows 7's last IE version." Martijn2

Windows XP: support for IE 6/7/8
Windows Vista: support for IE 7/8/9
Windows 7: support for IE 8/9/10
Windows 8: support for IE 10/11/12

And so on.

 

Isn't it because Direct X Hardware acceleration, supported by IE9, doesn't work on XP?

 

Note that Microsoft is a business company and its divisions have to have something to sell or they will simply cease to exist.

After 3 years of an OS release, new features of a new OS and its native apps are Microsoft selling points.

 

Precisly... hardware acceleration...

Is hardware acceleration truly 100% needed? I mean, I do fine without it. Maybe I'm missing amazing things on out there on the web. But, then again, the purpose of the browser is to take me to websites. That's all I want from it.

Also, won't it also required a graphic's card supporting hardware acceleration? By Microsoft's standards, despite using Windows 7, I wouldn't have the right to have IE9, even less IE10.

 

You can run IE 9 without the hardware acceleration.

 

Precisely... Hardware acceleration is no excuse for not proving IE9/IE10 for Windows XP. I don't know where I've seen it (probably at this forum), some people, in the past, saying that Windows XP supports no hardware acceleration, and therefore no IE9. Lame excuse.

Yes, that's true. It's a business company. But, I don't see how providing IE9/IE10 for Windows XP and IE10 for Vista would hurt business?

Most companies won't be upgrading so soon, precisely due to the economic crisis; some are actually starting to look for open source alternative - Linux. Some government institutions in my country will be moving to Linux. So I've heard on the news.

By providing IE9/IE10 for XP and Vista, I don't see how Microsoft would make their own business worse. I mean, those same companies WILL NOT upgrade any time soon. So, if we're talking about loosing money - Microsoft will lose money, anyway.

Companies won't upgrade just to get newest IE versions. And, home users - When they buy new computers, they'll get the newest O.S version, so I don't see how Microsoft would be loosing anything?

 

First, what exactly are those major different features between Vista and VistaSPWin7?
Or are you talking about some minor differences (Aero, Taskbar, Reduced UAC)?
And second, the experience of several users can be used as objective argumentation?

 

I'm talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7

Not everytime.

The problem with supporting new IE versions on XP have to do mainly with this: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1982503&postcount=28

 

That's not really a problem. It's simply a choice they made. They could break the cycle, if they wanted it.

And, talking about cycles, they did break PowerShell cycle support.

PowerShell 2.0 - Windows 7/Vista/XP
PowerShell 3.0 - Windows 8/7

If they can break PowerShell cycle to take away support, why couldn't they break IE's cycle to support one more O.S version?

And, yes, PowerShell 3.0 not being available for Windows Vista is really a low move.

Everything is becoming PowerShell centric over time, and they're taking advantage of that to force companies to upgrade. You can bet on that. Let's see if companies will, though. If the current economic crisis persists for much longer, I have serious doubts.

 

IE10 going for a Chrome-like updating mechanism? More frequent updates? It's anyone's guess.

 

https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/01/31/web-sites-and-a-plug-in-free-web.aspx?Redirected=true

 

That's a step in the right direction.

 

There's really nothing different about Windows Vista and 7 (outside of a few minor changes that I believe came to Vista in a SP anyways and a few others that have 0 to do with a browser) lol if they wanted to develop it for Vista they absolutely could.

I missed this comment earlier. Like he said, Vista is basically 7.

It would never work on XP though. Thank god they dropped that lol

It'll be interesting to see how people deal with a plugin-less web.

 

No they aren't "the same". This is a myth.

The fact is: Vista isn't "basically" 7 and many changes introduced in 7 didn't come to Vista in SPs.

Before further commenting, take a time to compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#New_and_changed_features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#Service_packs

with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Service_packs

As for IE, read this:

 

I've read those Wiki pages. Please show me one of those features that effects the browser.

EDIT: I'm fine with them dropping support. They support browsers for a while and that's fine. But let's not make excuses - they do it because it's their choice to do it, not because of any technical limitations.

 

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Service_packs

" Although extensive, the Platform Update does not bring Windows Vista to the level of features and performance offered by Windows 7.[97] For example, even though Direct3D 11 runtime will be able to run on D3D9-class hardware and WDDM drivers using "feature levels" first introduced in Direct3D 10.1, Desktop Window Manager has not been updated to use Direct3D 10.1.[97] "

 

So the excuse for Microsoft not bringing IE10 back to Vista is because Microsoft didn't want to bring back full DX support for Vista? Uhhh you see the problem, right? lol

Like I said, it's fine that they want to move on from Vista let's just not pretend that they're not doing it because they can't do it.

 

No, you are misinterpreting it. Microsoft updated Vista for a number of years. For example, Vista is able to run IE9 - although it originally came with IE7. However, Microsoft isn't obligated to maintain this OS updated with the latest and greatest after so many years. Vista won't run IE10 mainly because Microsoft won't bring to Vista the required architectural changes - and that's fine.

 

Right, now we're agreeing. All I'm saying is that there's nothing stopping them from updating Vista to use DX10's API, which is apparently what's stopping them from bring IE10 to Vista.

They simply don't want to and that's fine. I really don't care since I always update to the latest OS. All I'm trying to say is that they could - that Vista is not so radically different that DX 10 won't work on it and that IE10 couldn't work on it once that support was added.

 

It's not like IE is the greatest browser*... No loss people!

* I mean, in this day and age, Internet Explorer still won't allow more than one profile. How lame is that?

And, it's not like many European users will miss it... probably. Microsoft can't ship it.

 

Sorry but what you were saying was that Vista and 7 were basically the same and that nothing stopped Microsoft from adding IE10 to Vista.

This is an exaggeration which I tried to show by indicating that Vista lacks required architectural changes in order to offer, for example, the IE10 experience.

So it's not as simple as enabling Vista users to download and install IE10 once IE10 is available. Microsoft would need to bring another Platform Update to Vista first, which, IMO would be a waste of time/money.

 

I still maintain that there really are not a lot of differences between the two but that's not really the point.

Implementing an API that's already been developed for 7 would not be much time or money.

Win7 doesn't even have a new kernel. Backporting the API is a stretch - that is to say, it's barely a backport.

EDIT: To be clearer - there is no new architecture. Vista has the same kernel but they just decided not to support the next DX. It was not some "architecture" or technical limitation it was either a matter of time, or more likely, money (ie: they wanted users to buy 7.)

 

Yes it would, Microsoft would have to support those changes on Vista, test, fix specific issues that could rise on that OS, etc etc. Waste of money/time because the OS is already too old.

Did you compare the code on 7's kernel with Vista's kernel, to be so sure that there are "no differences"? The version number, for example, is different.

False "absolutist" claim that ignores several links I already showed.

You are playing with the words, lol. Fact is, the technical limitations in Vista that stop it from being able to run IE10 won't be "fixed" because Microsoft doesn't want to waste time (and consequently money) with Vista beyond what was already wasted.

Let Vista die and chill out, lol.