Internet Explorer8 64-bit Edition

Hi there,
I don't know whether this has been discussed already, but how does IE8 64-bit compare to the normal IE8 or other browsers? Is it safer? Flash Player asks to install, but nothing really happens. Any comments really appreciated.

 

There is no 64bit version of flash player and the 32bit flash player will not run within 64bit IE8.

Cheers, Nick.

 

Be too nice if timespace could stall as is now for them, for a looong enough stay! Some would have to give a run to other available alternated browsers and maybe see there is some light outside of ie!

Rhââhh...

I know. Just a wet dream, but hey!

 

.
IE8 x64 seems faster in general than IE8 32 bit. However, the show stopper is, as mentioned, no x64 flash. Seems like there never will be one either. Anyway, that's why I don't use it. I really don't know if it's any safer or not. I rather doubt it.

 

Well, you could always try writing a plugin that converts flash files into javascript and HTML5 like so: http://smokescreen.us/

I may have to play around with that and make a Google Chrome extension out of it.

 

Thanks for the feedback. It seems a bit of a waste really if it is available with Windows 7.

 

How is it a waste? Microsoft are trying to push forward as usual whilst Adobe with their less-that-average software once again prevents it with it's over dominance.

Once HTML5 goes mainstream IE9x64 will hit off.

 

The problem with that is, HTML5 may not go mainstream for at least a few years. I said "may" of course. HTML5 itself, as far as I know, is still in the working draft stage, and browsers that you see implementing HTML5, well, that's just certain features of HTML5. It's a start, but far from "mainstream". In order for it to be mainstream, in my eyes at least, is to have a large presence on the web, not just the Youtubes of the internet. You're not going to see that for quite some time. The situation you have on the web right now is the same one you had during Internet Explorers more dominant days. That is, at that time, websites were being created with Internet Explorer in mind more than alternative browsers.

Why? Simple, majority rules. It was easier for, *ahem*, ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ developers to concentrate on one browser that the most people used, than have to worry about any "quirks" that may come along with trying to support a less used browser that may or may not support the kinds of things the developer wants to do. Now the same thing has happened with Flash. All of its issues aside, it has become the standard for displaying content, and developers still have the same attitude as they did with IE, support the majority. Blaming Adobe for the majority of the web using Flash is like blaming Microsoft for, back then, web developers ignoring other browsers for IE. It's the developers decision what they will and won't support.

The web could have easily just ignored Flash, and we'd still be in the days where one website used Quicktime, another used WMP, yet another used RealPlayer, and then you dealt with all the different codecs. It was a major ~ Snipped as per TOS ~. Flash, for all of its problems (not as many as some would believe), got us away from all that. Are you just upset that malware writers and advertisers caught on to Flash popularity and used it for their own purpose? That happened back in the codec days as well, and will happen again with HTML5 content. Progress moves us forward, but some things never change.

You're not going to see widespread HTML5 adoption for a while simply because so very many websites that already exist would have to change over, and convincing the less than pro devs out there to do that takes time and effort.

 

I use Internet Explorer x64 for banking/finance related stuff. I also make it a point to make sure that the 64-bit version of Java is not installed in my system.