Microsoft has confirmed that Internet Explorer 9 will not support Windows XP. This is hardly a surprise, and it was implied by Microsoft's press materials, which said that the browser's platform preview requires Direct2D, an API available only with Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008. But just to lay the matter to …
Guess I'll have to upgrade. Oh wait...
Yes, you'll have to upgrade
Ten years ago, I had a Mac that dual booted into Classic.
Today, I have a Mac that dual boots into Windows XP.
One day, I will have a Mac that doesn't dual-boot into some crappy operating system, just so that I can test something.
God rest you, Windows XP: you were a good old wagon, but you done broke down.
No you will have....
One day you will have a crappy mac that boots into its own crappy closed source OS.
Bitter and Twisted
"One day you will have a crappy mac that boots into its own crappy closed source OS."
Now now, we know you want to stick with XP, just don't take it out on users of superior operating systems., there's a good boy. Or we'll tell your mum.
Yes the desktop etc of MacOS is proprietary, but it's built on top of an open source base: Darwin, which depending on who you read is either a BSD *nix or some other kernel (Mach?) with a BSD layer. Either way, open source, and Apple contribute open source code to it (hint: who wrote the CUPS printing system now used by most Linuxes?).
So, nothing crappy about it (try using it, you'll see) and roughly 50% open source. How wrong do you want to be?
One day you will have a crappy mac that boots into its own crappy closed source OS.
Yes, because Windows is SO open. Pot, meet kettle.
Who said I used Windows?
Ubuntu for me!
The cost of GPUness
Does that mean IE's team haven't found a way to use any more CPU time so they've started to code bloat which targets the GPU?
Now the bloat is merely balanced across CPU & GPU making it more diffcult for the average user to see the overhead!
I'm still not going to upgrade from XP because W7 truly does suck. Oh I can't use IE9! Who cares? I'll use Firefox and actually be able to find files on my computer and not have to wait for an age while my computer decides if I'm allowed to copy a file until it does, then dies and kills both copies in different ways. And be able to position windows on my screen without them leaping about. And, and, and....
Mine's the one with the still beating hearts of the people who designed the UI on this pile of dross in the pockets.
Are you a bridge dweller or just someone who tried the RC on too crappy a machine?
For Gods sake... it's people like you who make me wish Microsoft didn't charge for their software just so you could actually try it... which obviously you haven't.
A copy and paste from a Linux forum talking about Vista does you no credit.
I can't even be bothered to reply to the vague and total bollocks "points" you make.
I'm using it as I type, on my brand new works machine, that came with W7 preinstalled. I've been using it now for 9 months, on 3 seperate machines. I've never used Linux.
Why does everyone who disagrees with the "W7 is worse than XP" point-of-view say that you've never used it or you're lying about what it does/doesn't do? I'm not making this stuff up, lifes too short. I'm sitting here with this OS and it makes my working day harder. Not in a list of major killing ways, in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts way.
It's petty little stuff that snowballs together to make doing things harder. For example, in explorer the view folders button. In XP you want to hide the folder view for a second while you look at the file list shown, you click the folder button, do whatever you want to, then click the folder button and it's back. W7 has no folder button so you have to resize the window or the slide the vertical bar to the left, then move it back. Why take out something that's useful when there's plenty of space for it in that big empty bar at the top?
And in the folder view, why does the expand/contract subfolder triangle disappear when you're not hovering over the list? What's the advantage in this over having it always visible?
Why, if I've got a load of folders expanded so that the vertical scroll bar appears and I expand a folder does the screen scroll so that folder is at the bottom? So everytime I open a folder, I then have to scroll up? If it went to the top so you could see what subfolders there are, it would be annoying but would at least make sense, but going to the bottom of the window ????
Little stuff but there's so much little stuff that it gathers together into a huge ball of hate.
"well done, you've successfully managed to confuse yourself. The file copy delay was was Vista. It also sounds like you need to be booked into some week long training courses on mouse control too."
We'll make no jokes about W7 being a vista service pack :-P
No, I'm here on my new W7 preinstalled machine and copying files from it, to my new, formated by this very W7 machine, flash drive. Watch as I drag a textfile containing the word "hello" from my desktop to the explorer window of my flash drive. Watch it think about it. Watch it think about it. Watch it decide that I'm allowed to...this time.
Other times it'll pop up the "can't move" box so I can "Try again" on a notepad file I haven't opened today. What's stopping it? Who knows? And then there's the "permission denied" box that will randomly pop up. I don't have permission to copy the file or move it. 10 minutes later it'll be fine but right here, right now. No, I'm not allowed.
And what's mouse control got to do with it?
"I don't know what pile-o-crap you were testing the RC on, but I've been soak testing 7 on a few machines round here for a while now, and found it to be pretty much bullet-proof. I was particularly impressed with its tenacity, when it successfully booted on a machine with multiple hardware failiures, and then attempted an auto-repair. Obviously, software can't pick up a screwdriver and swap-out a motherboard, but it tried its best, bless."
3 machines, 1 a vista ready PC, 2 W7 PCs and while it hasn't BSOD on me yet as Vista was want to do and while it's nice that it'll try to fix itself, I feel that when I open an explorer window, it should open, not open then hang while it does...whatever it's doing.
"But this means nothing to you. You're a User. If cars were software, you'd be asking "well, they can go forwards and backwards, it should be a simple enough process to make the go up and down too". I personally love the UAC. It's a kick up the arse for developers who still write their software for single user environments with full admin rights."
Of course I'm a user (sorry "User" with a capital "U" we are using it as a term of abuse aren't we) of the operating system as is everyone else who has it installed. And if I buy a car I expect that when I ask it to go forwards, it does it. I'm not expecting it to go up or indeed down. I'm expecting it to go forwards/backwards/round corners. True, the wheels don't randomly fall off like in the vista-mobile but when I turn the wheel left I'd appreciate the car turning left rather than waiting or turning right.
Anyone who wants to come and try any of the W7 machines at the places I've used them, feel free. This isn't trolling, this is the User (abusive "U") experience
Directory Opus to the rescue
I have used Windows 7 and Server 2008 (original and R2 flavors) on very well-spec'd machines, and I have found the new Windows Explorer to be unfriendly and cumbersome. As stated, it lumbers on copies, and deletes for that matter -- for the most part, starting with Windows XP, I found it much quicker to issue a rmdir /q /s to delete folders with a lot of files.
But a good Explorer replacement exists, and it is called Directory Opus. It has its roots in Amiga culture and continues to be a absolutely wonderful tool, especially in the age of Windows Explorer circa Vista and 7.
Paris, rooted in something.
Have you actually used Win 7 or Vista and thought it was 7...Win 7 is the best thing since XP and them some. It beats XP hands down in several areas in my books.
Also the snapping feature while moving windows only come into play when you go to the extremes of the windows edges so you must be just throwing windows around.
I will stick to my guns on saying Win 7 is one of the best OS platforms I have used and I have used most of them since Win 3.1.
Moving/resizing a window within an inch of the edge of the screen snaps the window to that edge, it's not about throwing them around, it's about moving a window and then it jumps to fill half the screen. Either that or you've got an inch wide no-go zone around the edge of your monitor.
The windows key + right/left arrow was nice, shame you can't have that on, while having the snap feature turned off. It's the designers saying, these are our toys and you'll play with them the way we want you to or we'll take our toys and go home. <stampy sulk>
Same with the search box on the start menu. You can stop it doing a search, but it's still there but does nothing. The only way to remove it altogether is to turn off search all together, so you can't search for anything, which isn't particularly helpful.
Like the grouping of items on the task bar. You can move them around which is nice, but it groups instances of a program together and you can't order those instances around. I depressingly frequently have to work on 3 sites at a time, with 3 copies of visual studio and 3 ftp programs open and where I'd like to have to be able to group them so :-
VS for site a, ftp for site a, VS for site b, ftp for site b, VS for site c, ftp for site c
it lumps the vs and ftp buttons together. Why not group on open, but allow you to move where you want. The code is almost there in the OS to do it, just seperate the instances.
Am I bovvered?
play with the demo
you can install a preview. it looks good.
Bet it will still perform abysmally in the Acid3 test - and even worse when Acid4 eventually arrives...
...unlike almost every other rival it has (including the mobile browsers!)
Latest browser not designed to run on 9 year old operating system.
Why the surprise?
I'm no lover of Microsofts, but why do so many people seem to be surprised or indeed offended that MS are not coding new apps to run on a nine year old OS? How much of Apple's new output will run on OS X 10.0?
OSX 10.0 ≠ XP
There are some major flaws in that argument. OSX 10.0 was the first BSD-based Mac OS ever, and for a lot of users it wasn't there yet. XP, in contrast, was the most popular Windows NT family member, where the line arguably reached its peak (although personally I preferred Windows 2000 in many ways).
I never used OS X much before 10.3, and I have used Macs since 1984 and Linux since 1999. I also have a bit of experience with OpenBSD, AIX and Solaris, so Unix hasn't scared me off in a long time.
The base of OS X is strong and mature. The higher-level and higher-tech stuff on top are less so, and so they are a source of trouble. But this is much worse in Windows, which grew for so long without a formal architecture that it's profoundly messed up on a lot of levels. I honestly don't think there is one person that really understands Windows. This of course is pure speculation, but I don't think it's an unfounded statement.
Now, as far as Apple "leaving users behind", on my Mac Mini at home I am still running 10.4, and there is in fact a great deal of software that runs perfectly well. Not 100%, but pretty good for a system installed in 2006 and used every day.
Happy St. Pat's. Cheers!
A 9 year old OS . . .
. . . which MS was actively selling up until only a few months ago.
I myself have a Nettop which is less than a year old which was supplied with XP (It now has Ubuntu on it).
If you want to throw around the "9 year old OS" argument it helps if you haven't been actively selling that "9 year old OS" up until the very recent past.
As far as I'm concerned, if I purchased that OS 6 months ago, it is a "6 Month old OS"
Windows XP had it's day in the sun, time to take it out back and get on with your lives.
XP is the preferred choice
The problem with taking Windows XP out back and shooting it is that MS have yet to produce a worthy successor. The jury's still out on the long-term uptake of Win7, and in the meantime people will stick with XP.
Leverage and tracking.
It was a great way to leverage w2k users out of that OS. Now the same with Win XP. MS needs your data for their Trusted Partners and Win XP just doesn't collect it like Vista and W7 does. No I don't want big brother tracking my computer activities. For those who don't know google it. Your being tracked when you use Vista and W7. MS can stuff it. Have fun with IE9 on your fully tracked and monitored OS.
I copy and paste data from my customer PC's so my backup PC has to be able to find files without using indexing!
I could install Agent ransack on Windows ME V2 or 3 but what's the point, I will use XP until the security updates stop coming!
There's probably a Linux distro just for what I do so will investigate
Or of course I could install a non MS Browser!
Other big thing that annoys me is Vista SP2 can't be slipstreamed!
Time to upgrade
I've been running XP (MediaCenter edition) for years. I guess the time is soon coming where I need to upgrade. And it will be to some Linux distro or other (assuming they fix multi-head support*) and something like Myth.
Failing that it'll a new PC to act as a media server/client and get that to run a Linux.
I've simply had enough of MS.
*By "fix" I mean "get it to behave the way I expect" rather than that virtual-desktop scrolling about shite. What, me egocentric?
Sticking with XP + None MS Addons
I've just "downgraded" my new PC from Windows 7 HP to XP because I don't like 7 (I decided not to upgrade another to Vista when given the option), XP is much cleaner and slicker IMHO and I know how to do everything I need to and it interoperates more easily with other XP machines.
I played with XP in a Virtual Machine (VMWare Player becuase MS VPC Wont work with 7HP) on 7 first but decided I hated 7 enough to stick with XP fully. I might run 7 in a VM on XP, but at the end of the day if IE9 wont work on XP (just like MS VM wont work on 7HP), there are plenty of other options that will. All MS might end up doing is forcing people to use non-MS stuff instead.
I'm not a PC and just want an OS that works without too many bells and whistles.
Firefox made big woop about dropping support for 10.4, and it was widely accepted as a sensible move. MS does something similar and they're evil.
It's a nine year old OS. The world needs to move on.
Could be an Apple/Microsoft distinction?
You know, with Apple having a historical willingness to switch hardware architectures and aggressively dump old APIs and OSs, possibly it just doesn't look as bad when someone says that supporting a five year-old Apple OS is a lot of effort as it does when they say that supporting a near-decade old Microsoft OS is a lot of effort?
Microsoft hasn't released a better OS since XP
Yeah but I think most people agree, we are still waiting for MS to release an upgraded OS over XP. Most people don't feel like moving from XP to Vista or 7 because it's questionable whether it's even an upgrade. I don't know anyone who is clinging to 10.0 because they don't feel 10.5 offered anything worthwhile to them.
And to all you who bought a netbook
for web browsing and found that the unholy alliance dictated you have XP, we'd just like to wish you all the best and a gret big f*** you. No really, we love you guys. Look, stop bothering us for spare change or we'll call the cops.
Poor comprehension levels
Read it again. XP SP2 and higher (current is SP3) has the required Direct2D support.
If you're really running the original XP or XP SP1, then you don't have the ability to do WiFi or WPA2, either.
Re: Poor comprehension levels
Read what again? Neither El Reg's article nor Mary-Jo's actually mentions XPsp2.
I hope you are correct, though, since I'm one of the many who prefer XP on functional and aesthetic grounds to the crud MS have shipped since then.
No it doesn't
Your own comprehension needs assessing :
It's built on DX10.1. 10.1 is not available for XP, ergo, no Direct2D.
the trolls are quick this morning
@ Glyn 2
well done, you've successfully managed to confuse yourself. The file copy delay was was Vista. It also sounds like you need to be booked into some week long training courses on mouse control too.
I don't know what pile-o-crap you were testing the RC on, but I've been soak testing 7 on a few machines round here for a while now, and found it to be pretty much bullet-proof.
I was particularly impressed with its tenacity, when it successfully booted on a machine with multiple hardware failiures, and then attempted an auto-repair. Obviously, software can't pick up a screwdriver and swap-out a motherboard, but it tried its best, bless.
XP has more than had its day. The HAL, video and audio architecture have been tweaked til their eyes water. It's time someone noticed the buzzards have started feeding on its equine corpse, and put down the whip.
As for Firefox, I've said this time and time (and time) again. Yes, as a simple user with no concept of underlying architecture, software compliance, or best practice, it's great. I even use it myself at home (sandboxed, naturally)
As a profesional who's job it is to ensure a stable, secure and reliable working environment, I cannot begin to express the horrors of what it does (and doesn't do) under the bonnet. This is why no large corporation has adopted it. Frankly there's a total lack of professionalism in its design.
But this means nothing to you. You're a User. If cars were software, you'd be asking "well, they can go forwards and backwards, it should be a simple enough process to make the go up and down too". I personally love the UAC. It's a kick up the arse for developers who still write their software for single user environments with full admin rights.
The new architecture in 7 and DX11 is going to be a shot in the arm for the PC games industry, who have been languishing under the XP shackles for too long.
What exactly does it and doesn't it do beneath the bonnet?
>As a profesional who's job it is to ensure a stable, secure and reliable working environment
Oooh, that's a bit of an oxymoron. A real professional trying to ensure such an environment would not be using Windows.
Yes, even 7 - my lot just finished their stability, performance and security testing and the conclusion was "not fit for purpose on all counts" (although, it gave XP a thorough kicking on security).
Mine's the one with a Puppy in the pocket.
"I don't know what pile-o-crap you were testing the RC on"
I love how every time someone has a bad experience with Windows, you Wintards put it down to their computer being a "pile-o-crap".
It couldn't possibly be that your bloated pile-o-crap operating system is constantly executing millions of lines of code written for no reason other than to keep NTs dying architecture alive year after gruesome year.
Every time Microsoft comes up with some new bloat, you will dutifully stick your hand in your pocket and cough up for some more RAM, a faster CPU, bigger Hard Drive. You wouldn't want Microsoft's built in benchmark app to shame you into thinking your system is a pile-o-crap! Your friend might think you're uncool and then he won't invite you to his next Windows 7 launch party.
A fool and his money are easily parted.
I see what you did there with that Troll title which was actually about you.
"I personally love the UAC. It's a kick up the arse for developers who still write their software for single user environments with full admin rights."
No, it's a work around for the refusal to properly kick those developers up the arse in the first place.
Just move to firefox, problem solved!
Even more reason for IEers to move to Firefox or other browsers! :)
IE9 won't play nice with XP
This is why Microsoft is becoming irrelevant.
Evolution is generally a good thing, and I'm all for it. I love running newer, better software systems.
Unfortunately, this means a large swath of the internet population will be running out-of-date browsers (again). So many people are happy with XP, and have no roadmap to upgrade. With the reliability of computers, we could be seeing people forced to upgrade what - 5 to 10 years down the road. When all you do is watch Youtube videos, visit facebook, write a few letters, send email, and download government forms, upgrading your PC is usually not on your to-do list.
Thankfully I've upgraded most of the people I know to Firefox. That being said, even Firefox runs the risk of dropping support for XP, although I expect this won't happen for at least 5 years - considering XP is a rather large install base - it would be like dropping all support for gasoline cars when electric cars are produced and purchased by the masses.
I don't think Microsoft is making any friends with IE9 - I can't even figure out how Microsoft feels their product is relevant to people anymore. With Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera, there is healthy standards-compliant competition already (well, except for adopting a single video codec).
Users have pretty much given up on Internet Explorer. When was the last time I saw Internet Explorer? Hmmm, a long, LONG time ago. With the IE8 Frankenbrowser, I thought Microsoft would finally admit defeat, throw in the towel, and get back to innovating. Obviously Microsoft feels they still can do better than everyone else - how many versions will it take to gain back the trust that was lost from nearly a decade of ignorance?
FFS the MS shills are out in force.... as someone once said, "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded."... so here's my contribution.
XP may have been around 9 years, but it's not 9 years old. It was sold pre-installed on new machines last year.
Firefox in a sandbox but not IE... what the hell is that guy smoking. Firefox pi**ses on IE in terms of security (and just about everything else).
They guy that comments on the Windows 7 interface... valid comments. Also, WTF did MS make the quicklaunch so hard to add.
So it is a dilemma... As far as I'm concerned the Windows 7 interface (and that's really all an OS is these days) is a convoluted mess which I can't be bothered with. I've just bought a Mac as a desktop, but I much prefer my Thinkpad (+trackpoint) laptop. Linux is great (IMHO the only real option) on servers but I've never found Gnome/KDE give me the stability that even XP has as a GUI....
So... Stick with XP, buy a Mac I don't really want or spend some more time fiddling with the Linux desktop... I think I'll stick with XP/Firefox for now. Maybe in a year Gnome/KDE/ChromeOS will be sorted or OS X become available (as a valid licence) for other hardware (one can hope).
I'm about to place an order for a new Core2Duo machine - with XP pre-installed.
What is IE? Who cares if it is IE7, IE8 or IE9, I won't be using it. Firefox is and has been my browser of choice.
outsourcing the browsers rendering functions to code contained within the operating system?
Microsoft really haven't learned anything have they? Can't wait for the inevitable "Direct2D vuln = a million pwned Wintards" story.
Try escaping from the hamster wheel?
This is a risk-free opportunity to try a modern Linux distro. You are planning to replace your OS, so why not take a sideways step first?
If you don't like it, you can carry on as before. It won't cost you anything to try.
- 'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux
- Review A SCORCHIO fatboy SSD: Samsung SSD850 PRO 3D V-NAND
- Was Earth once covered in HELLFIRE? No – more like a wet Sunday night in Iceland
- Breaking Fad 4K-ing excellent TV is on its way ... in its own sweet time, natch
- Every billionaire needs a PANZER TANK, right? STOP THERE, Paul Allen