I have XP here so no use
Well there are millions of PCs out there running it.
MS are not interest luckily other browsers are available
Following a protracted development process, Microsoft has at last shipped the release version of Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7, with the new browser due to begin rolling out to customers via Windows Update within the next few weeks. In the meantime, customers who can't wait for the automatic update to arrive can download …
Though not all are applicable regarding Windows Vista, try reading these:
Two quick examples in Windows Explorer itself are the lack of the ability to customize the navigation toolbar in Explorer and the classic one-column start menu. I personally am fine with those two changes, but others aren't. Classic Shell sort of remedies the navigation toolbar and completely remedies the start menu.
All that said, Windows XP only has 14 more Patch Tuesdays in its life. After April 8, 2014, when that zero-day that affects all versions of Windows is discovered, it will never be patched in XP, just like what happened to Windows 2000 in July of 2010.
Top feature I missed was the favorites/bookmarks menu in explorer. For a load of projects I have a ton of locations on servers that I need to go to from time to time, these bookmarks were a real timesaver. Yes, you can make a folder somewhere and put shortcuts in it, but it's not the same.
Another one was the dotted lines in tree views and the reduced indenting. I have to deal with some complex folder structures, with identically named folders in them (at different levels of course), and those lines and indentation help to know where I was without having to look at the path all the time.
If you want to use the feature 'commandline here', you have to do shift + right-click on the folder (where a simple right-click worked in XP)
And so on.... maybe all small annoyances but hey...
For the record, only linux machines at home so I'm already half a windows hater anyway ;)
Well you are correct about One thing...
There is One less XP install in the Wild, given that I switched over to Mint 14 (Linux).
Installed WINE and then my copy of O2k3 SP3 (w/Proofing Tools (also SP3)), and I ain't gonna bother looking back.
I just need to find a way to convert all these stinking Word Template (.dot), Files into something more usefull like .ott. So as to ditch Office as well...
Good riddence to bad rubish!
W7 does bring a lot of nicer GPOs to the party (many can be had by installing the client pack on XP but not all). V2 profiles die a lot less than older profiles on XP. You can make W7 look almost like XP if you so wish (again GPO'd so it will follow you around systems). After getting used to the newer sysprep it is easier to make a universal image especially with SAD driverpacks).
W7 is a worthy upgrade from XP. Device drivers will be your main reason to update, lots of devices are now coming with W7+ drivers (a newish milling machine didnt even support vista which was odd as they DID have server2008x64 drivers)
MS simply looks at the next 5 years and sees XP dying in April/2014 with the end of support. No sane person uses an unpatched OS (No matter what breed) on the Internet. So over the next 12 month the vast majority of XP boxes will disappear from the Internet and get replaced by Win7 or Win8. Makes little sense to backport IE10 to a dying OS. The fact that it is in "extended maintenance" (Patches/Security only) makes this MS policy as officially stated.
"over the next 12 month the vast majority of XP boxes will disappear from the Internet and get replaced by Win7 or Win8"
If the various interests could get their acts together this might be a good time to push Linux in the home - businesses will mostly move from XP to Win 7 (or maybe even Win 8) but home users who feel the impact of the initial capital expenditure more keenly might welcome an alternative.
Steam to be the deciding factor?
If I can buy my hardware under Linux like I do under Windows(1) AND all my games run by "drop in DVD, click start" and it works on a penable with FULL support of the Wacom(2) - I might consider Linux for my privat boxes.
It's about as likely as the Penguins winning the DEL championship so I guess pre-ordering Win9 is a prudent way to go :)
(1) Go into shop, grab gear, take home, piug in, use. Buying gear by "does it fullfil my needs and has a good TOC" rather than "does it work under Linux Distro x Kernel a.b.c" is nice
(2) One system for all my non-servers
Not sure about the downvotes you got, your (1) is quite valid. Linux support is even becoming worse for some hardware. For example, Canon stopped producing linux drivers, good thing project Gutenberg has them covered - but this will mean support for brand new models will be non-existing.
Recently I was in the market for a small/portable full-duplex scanner. Number of models still sold that are supported: NONE. Went with a model that some bloke claimed he got working (guess what: not working here - scanning in a windows VM until I get it working)
Really though you are correct. I hope that Sites like the reg with
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/18/picking_a_linux_distro/ (Picking a Disrtro)
Will continue to press this issue forward. Ive dealt with a lot of 'nux Systems in the past.
And none of 'em we're as nice an experience as Mint w/Cinnamon has been so far.
Installing the latest WINE, is a snap. after which installing Office2k3 is as much as it has always been.
Like I said I need to start to actually learn how to play with both MSOffice, and or LibreOffice / Oracle Open Office So I can re-script all my non-working (.dot) Files. Which either do not work outright or do not render 100% correctly when they do,
As for Games, and by proxy Gamers. I hear that Mr. Newell is currently covering that with Steam for Linux, something I also have currently installed on my Mint Desktop. AFAIK I think its still in Beta (and it feels like it when the Steam Web Front-end is always crashing my System), but these are still early days.
Sadly I suspect that enough People will ignore Linux on the Desktop though. But, it its a choice of having this or Windows 8, or having a System that can use DVB-C (TV-Cable). and DVB-S2 with SD & HD decoding via an nVidia VDPAU Graphic Card - (Video Disk Recorder & XBMC). Something THAT Microsoft is (or has been), unwilling to do up till now has already pushed me to Linux ages ago. It's just that now that I'm felling "confident" about it (i.e. Linux), plus the imminent death of XP, plus the fact that my current "Rig" dates back to AMDs' 754 Socket AMD64 w/DDR. Not the best system w/which to run handbrake with! One shudders to think how it would get on with Vista / 7 or that fecking cluster*'&@ of an OS Windows 8.
Besides all that having a Linux install also means that I can actually compile more useful up-to-date applications for my NAS Box as well. Wow actual programing on a Computer. I mean what is the 80's LOL
Microsoft isn't quite dead yet. Hopefully Someone over their will catch the hint and chuck Ballmer into the Street before its too late. Then again, it may already be ~too late~...
I have XP here so no use...
Oh boo hoo, no support for a 10 year old OS.
Guess what same goes for all other browsers and OS' out there.
Try getting the latest version of Safari to work on a 10 yr old version of MacOS
Try getting latest version of FF to work on a 10yr old version of Linux.
You cant expect companies to support (obsolete) software for free, forever.
And yes I also have XP machines.
Windows XP users have always had the choice to upgrade to a better browser for free. Ditto all the other versions of Windows. And this was a long time ago.
All IE10 will do will be to make it safe for web developers to implement HTML5 & CSS3 features already available on all the other browsers.
The point is two-fold:
* it will allow companies that for whatever reason, are tied into the IE system to upgrade to a more usable browser
* upgrades mean less support for older versions of IE which Microsoft is obliged to supply.
Of course, it's basically too little, too late. I think any website statistic will show a continuing downturn in IE's market share and those users are not coming back, not for Minesweeper and not for Angry Birds. IE 10 should have been released for Windows 7 last summer before Windows 8 puked all over everyone's breakfast. This will be the last major version of Internet Explorer. A collector's item if you will.
I'm all for grabbing the new version and taking it for a spin... getting a bit disenchanted with Chrome and went off FF ages ago. IE9 is pretty good but still not as good as Chrome so I'd hope IE10 would be good.
BUT that "protracted development" makes me nervous it might not quite be there yet. Not that I use IE as my main browser just yet anyway so maybe I'll take the plunge as and when it wants to install.
Only Microsoft could make it hard to port a web browser.
Mozilla, Google, Opera and Apple can all not only manage multiple versions of windows but also multiple operating systems. You really have to wonder what Microsoft's thinking is of tying some of the capabilities so tightly to the OS are.
You mean like how IE9/10 run on Windows desktop, phone and tablet which are essentially 3 separate OS?
Yes, how separate are they actually? Didn't Microsoft make a lot of noise about them all now having the same kernel? For a userland application the API, which for Windows >= Vista is defined in .NET should be all that matters. And other browser manufacturers have managed it on those three operating systems and more.
"You really have to wonder what Microsoft's thinking is of tying some of the capabilities so tightly to the OS are."
Umm, I'll go out on a limb and say planned and enforced obsolescence. The thinking is if you want the new browser? You have to pay for the new Windows. The new MS Office (2013) isn't any different, they want Windows 7 or better. I don't know that it won't run on the older Windows and hopefully I won't have to find out if it runs on the current Windows but there it is.
>>Umm, I'll go out on a limb and say planned and enforced obsolescence.
WinXP is about to lose any support or patches. Why would they waste time supporting it, or implicitly supporting it? Considering IE9 doesn't run on XP this is not even an argument, they clearly aren't going to re-support XP.
The argument is only if they should be supporting Vista. I note not one single person has complained about lack of IE10 in Vista which is probably why they aren't doing it... not even Windows users want Vista. No diehard XP users are going to upgrade to Vista when patches stop being released - they'll go to W7 if they can get a copy.
The problem here is that XP and earlier do have bits of IE squirreled away fairly low down. The fact that the update system for earlier releases relies on IE is a good clue here. In Vista and up "Explorer" and "Internet Explorer" are different beasties, while on earlier versions they share a fair number of common DLLs and such, going back to them actually being the same thing on 95.
So the fact that 9 and up are very much different and seperate to the OS makes them nigh-on impossible to replace the IE version on legacy Windows versions with. The others have an advantage here in that they happily coexist with the IE rat's nest on earlier versions, not replace it. The only practical approach for MS would be to bite the bullet, rename IE as something else and change all its calls to be that something else so it could be the default browser while coexisting with, er, IE like everyone else does. Having punted a stonking great wodge into the IE brand, I can't see them even considering that.
It looked like a good idea in terms of being lightweight and in using one bit of code to do several jobs (you have to remember that with most people on dialup connections, patch sizes were critical at the time, so using two big DLLs where one could be made to do the job was a nono). Then it went through being a millstone around their necks to being a full-blown fuckup. Now it's all fixed, but not in the obsolete OS versions.
With IE10 it most likely is the dual nature (Metro/Desktop) that needs to be stripped out. From the looks those are not two programs but one, similar to the old Explorer/IE combo(1)
Older Versions, IIRC up to IE8, where coupled with stuff like the Windows Explorer sharing components/DLLs both ways so they where really "build into" the OS. This changed with either IE8 or IE9
(1) Makes sense, why maintain the same code twice
That would seem a bit odd. Even Chrome works in the full-screen Metro-ified form if you set it as the default browser in Windows 8.
I just reckon Microsoft were holding out to see what the Windows 8 uptake would be, and behind all the ranting and BIG CAPITAL LETTER COMMENTERS, Microsoft have thorough and reliable feedback through their hosts of forums and developers that are showing them that the corporate world isn't interested, let alone eager, to move into Windows 8 territory. Everybody just spent a couple of years getting Windows 7 out to everyone and ironing out all of the problems that came with their legacy software.
MS would be well aware that businesses wouldn't suddenly jump to W8 because half of them haven't jumped to W7 yet. It's a pattern they know very well because it happens every time and forces them to support software 10 years after the consumer market has stopped using it.
If IE10 was W8 only, that would be another story.
IE6 will be officially damned after July 14, 2015, when the last operating system that runs it (Windows Server 2003) will reach end of life. IE7 will unfortunately probably linger until January 14, 2020 though...
Regarding those demos, yes, most I've tried actually do run under Firefox and Chrome, even in Linux. I haven't tried Opera, Safari 6, or anything else on Mac. HTML5 is an incomplete specification though, so until the W3C signs off on HTML 5.0 next year, nothing that implements HTML5 is actually standards-compliant.
I'm not holding out much hope for Windows XP Embedded. It is almost exactly the same product and so if MS kept the patches rolling then all XP users would be OK until 2016. However, I think it is far more likely that MS will take the view that embedded systems are not internet-facing and therefore don't need patches.
I am sure that somewhere, someone with too much time on their hands has already got IE10 running on Win3.1.
I have XP and Win7 boxes, I also prefer XP, it lets me do things Win7 refuses to allow, or makes very difficult, like use the full capabilities of my HP printer, which only has XP or Vista drivers (and NO WAY am I installing Vista!!); or my ancient, but excellent Epson GT7000 SCSI scanner - how ancient?? It shipped with a Win95 install disk.
No I am not a tightwad, I have had THREE newer scanners, but none of them is as good as the old GT, either too noisy, too fussy or just too damned LOUD.
The icon depicts me with my first pint mug of "morning" coffee - the extra strong stuff to get me moving. (I wish I really had that much hair left).
Good enough for some, not everyone needs >= 4GB memory.
You have old apps that only work on XP and/or you can't re-licence for a new OS.
You are not a geek so see spending money for OS changes, most of which you suspect your won't like, is not worth it compared to other choices.
<= other choice.
We already do that in some cases, having VMs for old w2k and XP stuff. Easy to backup/snapshot, safe from a lot of internet issues, no hardware driver problems when machines die, or re-licensing problems. Can run on other OS (e.g. Linux in our case, or MacOS or Win7 if you please).
What not to like?
Security is more than an AV scanner. That is only one part of it. And AV software will likely not get any more updates for XP post April 2014. Same for other software. Basically the same status as a Linux distribution 2-5 years after that version of Linux came out. And unpatched holes can allow takeovers that an AV scanner does not detect.
XP soon will like a car with rust holes in important parts and run down breaks etc. (1). The TÜV (german safty board) would deny the operations permit to such a car on the next 2 years check because it is dangerous to others.
(1) that will get no more spare parts
"And a well planned switch takes time"
My switch from XP-in-a-VM to Win7-in-a-VM took no longer than the time to install the OS and apps, and then to swap over the virtual discs containing my data. I wouldn't call it well-planned -- how else could I have done it.
It was, of course, just one system and one that I was intimately familiar with. But then, that probably describes rather a lot of systems. If I were migrating my company from XP to Win7 then, yes, I would expect to do quite a lot of planning, but the people who currently face that problem have probably already started work and if they haven't then it is probably because they do intend to "run it in total isolation from the Internet".
"You have old apps that only work on XP and/or you can't re-licence for a new OS."
Like some older (but perfectly usable) versions of Sage, for which the only upgrade path is to buy the whole thing again, at full price. Or use virtual XP (e.g. VMware).
If IE10 is the "final release", what will MS supply in future - Chrome?
We have a few customers who do not want to update their software, happy with our DOS version, had it for years ect ect.
It was the best DOS software of its type and caused us major issues when creating our windows version, making sure we did not lose features.
Now that cannot run on anything newer than XP due to MS removing features. Vista lost full screen support (our application was VGA mode 30 lines), 7 lost IP stack for the IP engine. Something gets removed every version.
Server access was via a small Windows app which talks to the server in IP, IPX was native and was great in the Netware days
For more info. it uses a 30 line VGA full screen mode, with a decent (at the time) graphics card I was able to run in a window on my Win98 work PC. But 2000 & XP were stuck with full screen.
Prior to 2005 or so we used IPX as the IP thunking engine was slow, when that caught up we were able to use IP for the lesser servered customers. others kept with IPX.
We used the same database engine for our Windows software, we took 3 or more goes to get a working system some languages dropped due to various issues. Until we ended up with a Windows language written by the same company as the DOS compiler.
As to newer to IT people. Yes there have been client server engines for DOS applications, in fact the one we used started as one, over time things such as Windows server, Linux server, IP, Windows clients got added.
The server was also once demonstrated to be four times quicker on a dual boot server between whatever were the current flavours of Netware and Windows, when on Netware.
IPX and Netware. That is oold stuff. What versions of Windows could not run your server? NT family or the DOS-Externders?
Netware was nice in it's days, ran ORACLE 6 and IIRC 7 on Netware 3.x in the 1990s. But over time it has lost the App-Server race to other systems, both NT and various Unix boxes. Administration was nicer than NT for a while but even there Win2K and better won the race
Not to mention that Netware programming was typically done in C and that language has fine support on Unix, OS/x and Windows.
Well back when we started with Netware, Windows Server was an Oxymoron. NT4 was pants compared to the nearest equivalent from Novell.
A couple of customers switched from NT4 to NW5.1
Our DOS app works on
The last version of MSDOS
Windows for Workgroups
Win Myalgic encephalomyelitis
Apart from 2000 or XP IP was a nono
Our Windows app works
No idea about Vista or 8
Database server I have used on NW3.12, 4.0, 4.11, 4.2, 5, 5.1, 6, Win NT4, 2000, 2003, 2008, 2012
Still need to try the Linux version
From my web logs, IE10/w8 is running at 0.8% compared with Chrome's 34%. All the IE's bundled together only reach 24%.
This will have no effect on IE's decline as the only effect will be IE9 being replaced with IE10
Anyone with a choice doesn't choose IE
And in any case IE10 is still the *worst* modern browser, scoring a lowly 320 on the HTML5Test. As ever, IE is born to stagnate when compared with all other browsers.
He actually provides the stats. IE 10 on Windows 8 is a minnow at the moment so 0.8 % sounds absolutely right. The stats I have access to (international corporate site) have a similar breakdown - Chrome edging ahead of Firefox and Firefox now ahead of IE (combined) for the first time ever. MS really dropped the ball with the IE 10 release strategy. This coupled with the serious vulnerabilities that went for weeks unpatched (September and January) forced corporate IT departments to look for alternatives. FF 10 had been under evaluation from the start of last year, it was pushed out worldwide as standard before the end of December. The decision was taken to skip IE 9 so IE 8 is still on the install disk. My guess is that over the next quarter we'll switch to IE 10 but only if the intranet apps work in it. Other companies I know of that are just starting Windows 7 migrations will be sticking with whatever they have until the migration has been completed but I would expect IE 10 to replace and IE 9 and IE 8 by the end of the year but it'll be the biggest fish in a shrinking pond. Safari mobile is already about 15 % because of the all the managers with I-Pads.
Yes and no. The OP gave us some data:
>From my web logs, IE10/w8 is running at 0.8% compared with Chrome's 34%. All the IE's bundled together >only reach 24%.
So the IEs and Chrome get 58 percent of the market. The question I had is: What do Firefox etc. get. If the stat is something like
All Chromes: 34
All IEs: 24
All FFs: 20
then the IE versions actually come in high since IE10 currently is Win8 only and more than one likely runs compatibility mode. And the numbers for the browsers also depend on the website you run, a Linux site likely will see less IE hits
From how this article reads the MS coders are so inept that they don't know squat about how IE 10 was written on Windows 8 so its taken 2 years for them to port it to Windows 7.
No doubt within a few months it will be eclipsed by the latest Chrome or Firefox build again and it will take another 2 years before they finally release another update for Windows 7 or maybe then they will only be releasing browser updates for Windows 8 as Vista and XP are still in support but aren't getting IE10
My initial review. "It does the job averagely."
"Everything is now Square. Might suit Windows 8, don't suit windows 7. Other than that I really can't in all honesty say it is an improvement as most stuff is background stuff. The portal is pants as normal because it is something to do with 'frequent' things, not actually needed things. AND it doesn't represent this comments entry box correctly, the lines for email, password and title are missing, looks 'odd'."
Though I still find it funny that IE 10 is still not 100% with leading standards. 30% more isn't great.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019