IE9 final available March 14th

I think that people who have XP and IE8, won't change OS nor browser when IE9 comes out.
People won't do a thing such as finding it that IE8 doesn't support standards anymore.

 

Well for a lot of home users who still run XP & want an up to date browser there are two choices: Buy a new computer or download Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera etc.

It all depends on how much spondoolies (£££) they have!

 

Windows XP is closer in age to Windows 95 than it is to Windows 7. Hopefully IE 9 will help put an end to it. I bet most of the people still using it are the same people that refused to use it when it came out.

 

Is IE9 going to be pushed out Monday via Windows Updates? I would assume it would be optional to install for now correct? I don't want end users who are not locked down installing it.

Thanks.

 

Since it will be 9:00 pm PST that it will be released I would not expect to see it on Windows Update before Tuesday. And then if it is I expect it will only be pushed to those that already have the RC. I don't think they have ever pushed out a browser to the general public the day it was released. There should be plenty of time to install the blocker if that is what you wish to do, but I would be looking into it now. Here is the link if you need it. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=A6169467-B793-4D17-837D-01776BF2BEA4&displaylang=en

 

Yeah Im glad that its releasing late in the day, which is great. Thank you for providing that link, Im going to jump on this right now.

Cheers!!

 

Thanks, that should keep IE removed on my system.

 

Unfortunately, and it's something I haven't seen being mentioned so far, Microsoft still does not allow to run multiple IE profiles, which is lame and one of the reasons why I simply don't care using IE. Or does it

 

Something else that it should had been done, IMHO, was to make IE9 make use of the Protected Mode feature (low integrity level), without having to rely on UAC being enabled. Many people disable UAC because they don't understand how it works, and believing they will be avoiding constant and annoying pop-ups, they just disable it altogether.

 

Nothing much needs to be done. MS could have offered the "Elevate Without Prompting" mode in the UAC Settings in Control Panel. That would have left those users who don't wish to be alerted with UAC at all with silent elevation while still retaining IE Protected Mode feature. Instead, they chose to 'hide' the option by having in the Local Security Policy. I guess they're expecting (or rather hoping) users not to disable UAC. However, if that is really the case, they should have not left users with the option to disable UAC at all in the UAC Settings in Control Panel. Conflict of interest - at least that's how I see it.

 

In Windows 7 at least I think users will be less inclined to disable it as it's somewhat less intrusive by default.

 

Is it correct that Chakra is not available on 64-bit?

 

Would probably explain the slower javascript speed, but this is also the case for firefox (the only other browser I can think of that has a 64bit build). I guess there's a reason why no one is bothering to put much effort into a 64bit browser. Maybe it's harder than it sounds to build a 64bit javascript engine?

 

I don't know about that but given the vastly unequal resources of the two companies, that wouldn't be much of a justification .

 

Unless you have evidence somewhere that states the reason 64bit javascript engines are flawed, your response is nothing other than flaming MS for not perfecting the 64bit build because they have "more resources" than Mozilla and then using that to justify Mozilla's excuse for also not having a good 64bit javascript engine. Right!

If I were to guess, I'd say it has something to do with the GPU acceleration, as apparently ( and I wasn't aware of this since I've never used 6/7/8 ) previous versions of IE were faster on the 64bit side.

An old article but the first link on Google:

http://heliologue.com/2008/03/23/javascript-engines-in-32-bit-and-64-bit-browsers/

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/chrome-10-vs-internet-explorer-9-reconsidered/792

This is a direct response from the complaint I sent to ZDNet. Reference in the Chrome 10 thread: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1839798&postcount=8

 

You can accuse people of flaming if it makes you feel better. I didn't mention Fx first in this thread devoted to IE9.

SJVN's blog is far more useful than name-calling.

 

You directly quote my comment about firefox completely ignoring the part I stated about there being a reason for the lack of 64bit JIT efficiency in browsers, then make a comment about labour difference. Apologies for putting 1+1 together...

 

And getting 11.

The point which you're neglecting is that your mention of Firefox was totally gratuitous and unnecessary to the topic and not in anyway enlightening.

If you had just mentioned the part where you speculated about why there was an issue with 64-bit there would be no issue.

 

I apologize if I've somehow offended you by calling out your favourite browser, but I made it quite clear why:

If you had read my entire post instead of just zooming in on the part which mentions firefox and immediately rushing to it's rescue, you would have realized the comparison was 64bit engines to 32bit engines, NOT firefox vs IE. Hence, everything about my post was relevant.

This is exactly it isn't it, we cannot mention other browsers without it becoming a heated debate on Wilders anymore? Do we need a AvsB rule for browsers now?

Again, please re-read my post and understand that the only reason I brought up Firefox was to explain 64bit javascript engines.

Again, I apologize for offending you by mentioning Firefox in my post.

 

......

 

Where is it? It is 14 March

 

9pm Pacific time....

 

What time is it now?

 

-http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/-