IE8 vs IE9

Is there a compelling reason why I should not downgrade IE9 to IE8? I am frustrated with the (lack of a) IE9 interface.

 

everything is there.
the GUI is just different, it's just a matter of using for a few days to get comfortable.

IE10 will be out in maybe a couple of months.
you're gonna have to upgrade at some point.

 

Aside from the security level of things such as HeapSpray protection, SmartScreen reputation, etc - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/...urity-part-1-enhanced-memory-protections.aspx, here's a few:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff974378(v=VS.85).aspx
http://www.trainsignal.com/blog/ie8-vs-ie9

Maybe a beta sure. Release? Not until Q1/Q2 2012.

 

The only reason I use IE8 on my notebook is that it won't run IE9 without wasting a lot of desktop items (on Vista). I'm pretty sure everything on the IE8 GUI is on the IE9 one. I run IE9 (64 bit) on my Seven desktop & it is the first IE version in a long time that I actually like. It is safer & faster in my opinion. I even think it looks a bit better than IE8.

 

Can you say more about what you find lacking in IE9? Selecting the option to "show tabs in a separate row" makes it more usable for me. There doesn't appear to be a way to display the typical File, Edit ,View, etc, top menu, but perhaps there's a hack for that? The only thing that bugs me about IE9 is the download messages displaying at the bottom. It took long enough to get used to noticing the drop down notification bar at the top

 

Thanks for the replies so far, especially elapsed for the links. I started to be more specific in my original post but opted not to. Specific concerns are no progress bar, no security zone information, no protected mode status, no text in the title area, the command bar and favorites bar being forced to share a row, the annoying download manager, etc.

Good points are probably better security though between a security suite and sandboxie I could care less about the smartscreen functionality. I also have the latest Firefox and Chrome installed. If I keep IE9 I will likely just not use IE.

 

A Comparison chart shows differences at a glance.

 

Ah Firefox - why does anyone put up with browser interfaces that can't be customized when there's Firefox?

 

Maybe because the point of a browser is to display the website content to the user, not the browser content? :s

 

That's a good point. I think customisations can not only be useful for safety & productivity but it gives a 'personal' feel to the UI. I think that this can be quite important.

 

Wasn't it always able to do that, before they started screwing with the UI, adding this, removing that? We get Chrome and suddenly what we've had for over a decade "doesn't mean a thing if it ain't got that bling", lol.

 

LOL yeah, I guess if I hated the IE9 UI more I'd be complaining about it. But as it stands the only thing I hate is the colour of the favourites bar, not blending in with the rest of the browser. Hopefully when they reveal the IE10 UI they might work on that.

 

That is what I was looking for. Though some of the things they list as improvements for 9 are things like the download manager and the add-on performance advisor, 2 of the things I dislike. I hope for 10 they bring back some of the status information, but likely I will just give up and set Firefox as default.

 

Ah yes, Google's argument for Chrome and then mimicked by Microsoft for IE9. It's called how to sell something that actually gives you less and making it seem like you're getting more. All these browsers have had a full screen mode to hide "browser content" whenever the user wishes, but apparently using the <F11> key is more then people can bear LOL. It has always been possible to turn off toolbars in FF and IE to maximize the view of web content. Sorry but this is a bogus argument.

 

Of course it's a bogus argument, but you have to give Google credit for not only screwing with people's heads, but also making something that has been there all along a "must have". Well played, Google, well played I actually did this not too long ago with a friend. She was new to Chrome and she was still all "Hallelujah" about it, lol. She was happy that the screen suddenly "got so big!"..I hit F11 on my laptop with Firefox and grinned like the Cheshire cat. The orchestra slowly faded out

 

lol having a minimal UI is nothing like hitting F11

The idea is to include the same amount of relevant information in a smaller space, not to remove all of the information.

They both have their uses... but they aren't interchangeable.

 

I don't want to wander off-topic, but one of the things I liked about K-Meleon was that you could F11 the GUI out of sight but keep the task bar.

 

Yeah, I think there's an extension for Firefox that lets you do that. Chrome had the minimal UI flag for a while but they're reworking it/ removed it for now.

 

OK thanks, I might try & find that Fx extension. Chrome's pretty minimal enough for me as it is!

 

Yeah I have no idea why they have their tabs so low though. I think there might be a CSS tweak for it but I'm not sure.

 

Shawn has that covered for both 8 and 9 here if this is what you're looking for...?

philby

 

Well this argument should be fun, lol. Mmk, if I want as much space as possible and I'm on a website, F11 is far superior to a "minimal UI"...whatever the heck that is. I mean, you move some buttons, add things to a drop down toolbar, the aim is the same, to get things off the screen. So, we've had that all along in F11. Don't want to see a lot of toolbars? F11. Don't need a bookmarks and home button right now? F11. Need all of them back for a second? Press f11 again. I just saved Google months of work, and kept other good browsers from joining the "me too" race.

So, a UI you may or may not like, and if you don't, playing with configuration (in the case of Chrome, not a hell of a lot to configure either if you did want to)? Or hit a single button once to hide all the unnecessary stuff, and hit it again to bring it all back? Again, I must say, well played, Google, well played And suckers worldwide fell for it. The best part of the entire prank though, is that they managed to convince other vendors that if they didn't do it too, their world would fall apart and consumers would leave in droves, lol. No, wait, the best part is that after they did that, many consumers took the hook right into their mouths and went along with the sentiment. Meanwhile, many of us "un-hip" old schoolers who survived the dark, uneducated pre-Facebook/"minimal UI"/every other "advance" days on the net..are laughing our collective rear ends off.

 

I used to use Autohide, but it doesn't support FFv7 yet (might work though).

http://www.ghacks.net/2007/09/21/manage-firefox-full-screen-display/

 

dw, it's simple.

You can go to F11 if you want no functionality and tons of space or you can use your UI for functionality while sacrificing space. The idea is to allow the user to do both but to minimize how many "F11s" they have to hit just to be happy. There is no reason for your UI to take up twice as much space as it needs for the same functionality.

I would like to be able to have two windows open next to each other while maintaining vertical screen space. F11 doesn't allow for this.

They're both nice but they're entirely different features with different uses.

I would not call minizing the UI a waste of time.

 

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with making the UI more efficient. For instance I happen to like the new Firefox UI (since v4) where the tabs are at the very top (no border) when the window is maximized. That's a better use of screen real estate. Since <F11> is always an option it's not necessary to trim the UI so much that it loses functionality. Remember also that in full screen mode the UI is still accessible in FF and IE - it just auto-hides and drops down in response to the mouse.

Edit: Just saw you comment about "side by side" windows. That's a cool idea and, as you say, not optimal at the moment.