Internet Explorer 9

[hazelnut]

Just in case you fancy a play with some of the little demos.

 

I tried out the speed demos... you want to try out the download preview?

 

Let us know how it goes!

 

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/

[Aethec]

The demos are really fast on my system with IE9 preview. Firefox is sloooooow.

And they killed Ogg Theora and Vorbis for <video> and <audio>

 

However, DirectWrite-rendered text is really ugly with white text on a dark background.

[Ishi]

Well IE has long been criticized and considered slower than other browsers such as Firefox. Maybe they have now made a reputation on improving IE 9 following the death of its ancestor, IE 6.

[fireryone]

seems quite usable and feels like an improvement so far, lets hope they don't bloat the interface.

But I doubt I'll change form firefox....

[Aethec]

I tried some tests on my computer (2.20 GHz Intel processor, GeForce 7300 GS) between IE Platform Preview 1.9.7745.6019 ans Firefox 3.7a4pre.

Both use DirectWrite and Direct2D. No plugins or addons were enabled on Firefox.

 

IE took 811ms to complete SunSpider, FF took 817. No real difference here.

IE makes 130 runs/s on Dromaeo JS test, Firefox 154 (but the Dromaeo test suite is made by Mozilla...)

On the Flying Images demo, moving the mouse a bit, FF has weird results ; sometimes it performs really good (64 frames/sec with 36 images, 35 with 256 images, and it uses 72 MB of RAM), and sometimes really bad (respectively 10 and 2 frames/sec, 160 MB of RAM are used...). IE always renders 64 and 15 frames/sec and uses 42 MB of RAM.

 

FF doesn't render borders when border-style is set to dotted or dashed and border-width to a high number - but it seems it's a bug in the nightly, the stable release is able to render them. However, even the stable release renders borders corners badly with a dotted or dashed border-style. It also can't justify the text on the "Text justification animated" demo. Also, FF fails with the "Atlas zur Europawahl" demo. And it fails to render colors correctly on the charts demo with a very high zoom level. And it fails to zoom on the radial chart. And it doesn't render shapes inside their borders, sometime it's a bit off. All of those things are rendered correctly in IE.

[Icedrake]

Apparently this is only available for Windows 7 and Windows Vista?

 

 

* Internet Explorer Platform Preview requires Windows 7 (x86 or x64) or Windows Vista SP2 (x86 or x64).

* For Vista users, Windows Internet Explorer 8 and DirectX 2D (D2D) must be installed on your system. If you’re not already running Internet Explorer 8, download and install it first. Then install DirectX 2D by installing the Platform Update for Windows Vista, available on Windows Update.

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/Rel...es/Default.html

 

This will work on my new computer, but it won't work on my old one that has XP. Ahh... to hell with IE. In fact, I'll probably be saying to hell with Microsoft pretty soon, when I finally get around to switching to Linux.

[Aethec]

Why would Microsoft - or anyone - want to support a 9-years-old OS, that will probably be 10 years old when IE9 launches ?

[Anomaly]

Why would Microsoft - or anyone - want to support a 9-years-old OS, that will probably be 10 years old when IE9 launches ?

 

Because the sad fact is most people use Windows and most Windows users use XP.

 

No offense to Windows users but I find Linux and Mac users to be more computer literate and willing and able to keep up with tech progress. Windows XP users probably had a hard time learning the little they know and don't want to make the effort to learn any more. Windows 7, Mac OS X, and especially Linux are going to require learning much more and XP users don't want to leave their comfort zone.

[Andavari]

In fact, I'll probably be saying to hell with Microsoft pretty soon, when I finally get around to switching to Linux.

I've been saying that for years myself, yet I'm still using Windows simply because it works without any b.s. of trying to get some hardware to function in Linux. That and I rely upon Windows for the software I like to use.

[Anomaly]

I've been saying that for years myself, yet I'm still using Windows simply because it works without any b.s. of trying to get some hardware to function in Linux. That and I rely upon Windows for the software I like to use.

 

I think I have seen you post that you are still using XP. Do you plan to upgrade to Windows 7? There should not be a problem getting your soft ware to work with it.

[marmite]

I agree that most Linux users are likely to be technically savvy ? that?s one reason why they?re running it in the first place. Not so sure about Mac users generally ? always seen that as a niche market anyway.

 

Windows XP users probably had a hard time learning the little they know and don't want to make the effort to learn any more.

I think this is a massive generalisation and an over-simplification. Historically, for many users "computers come with Windows". There?s always a financial cost associated in upgrading a Windows OS (at least if you?re doing it legally) and quite often there?s a reluctance to upgrade the OS because of either perceived or genuine issues with newer Windows OSs being resource-hungry. XP was a hugely popular OS - add to that the fiasco that was Vista and you can see why there?s such a big XP user population. At the same time, as Aethec says, it is an aging OS and XP users have to accept that things move on.

 

I like Windows and I make a living writing software for the Windows platform. At home I?m still running XP and for me it?s practicable to move to W7 at the same time as upgrading my desktop hardware ? coming soon I hope. But for the moment XP does what I need it to and I?m not in a hurry to upgrade.

 

Yes people have to move on, but it's more complicated than apathy and comfort zones.

[Anomaly]

I agree that most Linux users are likely to be technically savvy – that’s one reason why they’re running it in the first place. Not so sure about Mac users generally – always seen that as a niche market anyway.

 

 

I think this is a massive generalisation and an over-simplification. Historically, for many users "computers come with Windows". There’s always a financial cost associated in upgrading a Windows OS (at least if you’re doing it legally) and quite often there’s a reluctance to upgrade the OS because of either perceived or genuine issues with newer Windows OSs being resource-hungry. XP was a hugely popular OS - add to that the fiasco that was Vista and you can see why there’s such a big XP user population. At the same time, as Aethec says, it is an aging OS and XP users have to accept that things move on.

 

I like Windows and I make a living writing software for the Windows platform. At home I’m still running XP and for me it’s practicable to move to W7 at the same time as upgrading my desktop hardware – coming soon I hope. But for the moment XP does what I need it to and I’m not in a hurry to upgrade.

 

Yes people have to move on, but it's more complicated than apathy and comfort zones.

 

The huge majority of present day computer users (I'm talking 99.9999%) learned on computers with a Microsoft OS on it. Most are still extremely ignorant on how to use their computer. They don't even consider trying Linux or Mac OS X since they don't even maximize their current Windows OS. The little they do know was a huge learning curve for them and trying another OS is just over whelming for them, even another Windows OS. Most Mac and Linux users learned Windows inside and out and wanted to expand their knowledge base so branched out to other OS's. That's not a "massive generalisation". It's very plain to see that this is the way it is. Unless Microsoft kills XP these people will not leave their XP comfort zone and come up with all kinds of excuses to justify being stagnant in their computer knowledge.

 

Cost is not really an issue with Linux and the upgrade from XP to Windows 7 is not really an issue when you consider how cheap new computers with Windows are and the upgrade disks are not very much money either. I will admit that even the low cost of up grading to Windows 7 might be too much for some but that doesn't explain the huge user base for XP that still refuses to move on. They are just unwilling to improve because it's too much work for them as long as they have a OS around that they already know.

[marmite]

I'm very impressed that you are cognizant of the thought processes of 99.9999 recurring percent of today's computer users.

 

Of course cost isn't an issue with Linux - that's why it's easier for people using open source find it easier to upgrade than those tied to Microsoft.

 

You're still generalising, in my opinion. At the end of the day this is just an exchange of opinion. There may be many people in that position, but I would still say that you're over-simplifying matters.

 

Many people use computers as a means to an end, in the same way that many people stick with a basic saloon car and couldn't give a damn about the latest Ferrari. Doesn't necessarily mean to say they couldn't drive one. Their motivation for change is because the car breaks down, not because there's a new Ferrari out.

 

That's me done on that topic.

[Anomaly]

Many people use computers as a means to an end, in the same way that many people stick with a basic saloon car and couldn't give a damn about the latest Ferrari. Doesn't necessarily mean to say they can't drive one. Their motivation for change is because the car breaks down, not because there's a new Ferrari out.

 

Basically what I am saying to. They can't be bothered to learn a new system as long as the old one still works.

 

Doesn't matter any ways they will move on or be left behind and there is no debating that.