Microsoft demos Internet Explorer 9

Microsoft today demonstrated an early, three week old, build of Internet Explorer 9 at Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference 2009.

IE 9 will take advantage of the power of the GPU for all page rendering and developers can exploit this using CSS, DHTML and javascript. In just three weeks Microsoft believes performance has increased for IE9 resulting in smoother rendering and improved performance. Interoperability and standards support is increasing and features such as rounded corner CSS support will be built in. A new JS engine will also be built into Internet Explorer 9.

Microsoft offered no time lines or indications as to when a build of Internet Explorer 9 will be available publicly. Steven Sinofsky, President, Windows and Windows Live Division, mentioned that Microsoft had only begun working on Internet Explorer 9 three weeks ago, according to our sources the latest internal build is labelled 7658.0.091116-1745.

Microsoft's Channel 9 team have posted three demo videos, check them out below.






[img]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=108181[/img]






[img]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=108181[/img]






[img]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=108181[/img]

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

PDC 2009 Live Blog Day 2 - Steven Sinofsky & Scott Guthrie

Next Story

Microsoft Office 2010 top new features

125 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm a little dubious about the "GPU Rendering". It stinks of:

"We can't be bothered making Trident any better, so we're just going to throw more power at it to make it faster."

An inefficient rendering engine is still, at the end of the day, an issue, regardless of how many processors it can use.

Joshie said,
Er...what? GPU rendering isn't a simple matter of adding a processor to the mix...

I wonder about the extent of this "GPU rendering" of text-based pages. Like if it has any real world benefit. Might just become a waste of battery power.

At the risk of sounding like a Firefox fanboy, IE will never be as good as Firefox until it adds addon support for such things as ad blocking. Ill never go to IE until it has a built in ad blocker and is as good as Adblock Plus.

Also GPU-Accelerated rendering, woop de do, for the common user that means nothing.

3dfxman said,
Also GPU-Accelerated rendering, woop de do, for the common user that means nothing.

You really should do your research. GPU-accelerated rendering should hopefully mean faster drawing of the page. In other words, quicker performance. Doh!

3dfxman said,
At the risk of sounding like a Firefox fanboy, IE will never be as good as Firefox until it adds addon support for such things as ad blocking. Ill never go to IE until it has a built in ad blocker and is as good as Adblock Plus.

Also GPU-Accelerated rendering, woop de do, for the common user that means nothing.


Oh man, why do people always talk about this lack of addon support and no adblock for IE WHEN IT HAS THOSE ALREADY!

IE8 has basic built in adblock through the InPrivate filtering system. Also you can install IE7Pro (works for IE8 as well), which is a full featured addon that has adblock and quite a few other things.

DonC said,
Out of curiousity, what is it about IE that makes you say it doesn't have add-on support?

Ok please educate me then, tell me where i can get add-ons for IE ?

GP007 said,

Oh man, why do people always talk about this lack of addon support and no adblock for IE WHEN IT HAS THOSE ALREADY!

IE8 has basic built in adblock through the InPrivate filtering system. Also you can install IE7Pro (works for IE8 as well), which is a full featured addon that has adblock and quite a few other things.

Ok maybe the "add-on support" was a little misdirected, but as for a comprehensible ad blocker, i was referring to something that did not require a 3rd party installation such as IEPro, rather something built in that captures as many ads as Adblock Plus for Firefox.

Adblock+ built into FF? Even today its a third party install. Just the mechanisms for third party code hooking to FF is way different from add-ons integrating with IE.

Did anyone clock how defensive they both became as soon as the interviewer mentioned Google Chrome?
They both crossed there arms and had a sort of, your not supposed to say those words here look....

Funny

I dunno, didn't they actually compare javascript performance in IE9 atm to how it is in Chrome 4 at one point? Or maybe I'm remembering it wrong. Oh well.

We all should thank you to Mozilla for lighting a fire under Microsoft's butt. If it wasn't for FireFox we would not have IE7, IE8 or even IE9. Microsoft honestly thought that they had the browser war won with IE6 lol. How funny is that. I don't use Mozilla but I am thankful for its creation. Thank Google and Apple and Opera too in fact

Er, when IE6 first came out, it HAD won the browser war. Netscape was dead (mostly by its own hands) and Opera was still too stubborn to realize the web had become too fundamental to have a pay model for a browser. Firefox started a whole NEW war when Phoenix came alone with speed, simplicity, and secure obscurity. Firefox has since lost a lot of its lightness, but still presents a good challenge and did motivate MS a lot by taking a crapload of marketshare no matter how passionately Opera insists Microsoft makes such an achievement impossible without legislation.

The new browser war is as childish as the old ("Sorry, this site only works in Netscape!"), with a bunch of idiot children fighting the cruel, totalitarian regime of letting Microsoft spearhead web standards by fighting for a...er...Webkit monopoly. Because monopolies are bad. Except when they're good.

Awesome progress for only three weeks of dev time! I'm interested to see how well the GPU-accelerated rendering works out.

Has anyone else noticed how many ignorant bloggers and reporters around the web (not here at Neowin) are pointing to the 32/100 Acid3 score saying things to the effect of "with only a 32, obviously they still aren't taking standards seriously since other browsers score above 90". Seriously, it's not like they were saying they only plan to score a 32 - they were pointing out that they went from 20 to 32 in just 3 weeks to emphasize their commitment to standards support. At the current rate of improvement they'll be up to 100 in 4 months...about the time of MIX 2010...

EXACTLY! Thank you for hitting it on the nail.

You should see all the raving idiots posting on the IEblog atm. Most of them, if not all, seem to miss the fact that they just started work on it ffs.

And acid3 boost aside, they redid the JS engine AND got it to the performance levels of FF 3.6 it seems. If IE9 has the performance of chrome 4 come beta time I don't think anyone should really be yelling. They never talked about standards like they have this time around, so everyone needs to chill and wait for them to release something we can use first before they pass judgement.

Yea, the trolling on that blog is baffling. People just love to put their foot in their mouth by shouting "WebKit!" At least it makes it easier to spot who is serious about web development and who isn't.

Probably a combination of reasons, namely they were still working on IE8 for Windows 7 (all the new touch stuff, for instance), and there is a lot of planning that goes into something like IE before you can start actually coding.

JonathanMarston said,
Probably a combination of reasons, namely they were still working on IE8 for Windows 7 (all the new touch stuff, for instance), and there is a lot of planning that goes into something like IE before you can start actually coding.

True, that seems fair.

I think it's ok, I mean, look where they got JS performance already in such a short time. If you take the slide at face value that is. But the demo video does show them running through a JS benchmark pretty quick.

In the first video, did you guys noticed the dev switched from Hotmail to Gmail within the same window, instead of opening a new tab? He could've done it but he decided to use the same tab. I wonder that is because the delay of opening a new tab, is still there...

He already sent an e-mail from Hotmail. What's the point of staying on that page if the task is already done? I would've done the same.

The tab lag is caused by bad plugins. Check your BHOs and make sure you don't have any unexpected ones installed. (Java SSV Helper is one of the big culprits.)

What delay are you talking about? The delay is usually caused by an add-on and or your "internet security" that you have installed.

It's scattered throughout. Honestly, if you're a developer, you'll want to hear all that they have to say. If you're looking for a demo... there really isn't much to show, other than standards that you probably don't see a whole lot of (yet).

Simon said,
It's scattered throughout. Honestly, if you're a developer, you'll want to hear all that they have to say. If you're looking for a demo... there really isn't much to show, other than standards that you probably don't see a whole lot of (yet).

Thanks.

Rounded corner CSS support. Thank God.

I'd like to think that Microsoft saw we were planning on using them in Atlas and decided it was time to implement them :P

Very intersting, looks smoth and quite fast... I know this sounds a little lame and I bet somebody else has done this, Come on put your hands up... Did anybody play all three videos at the same time? it sound like they are all talking to each other.

Um I'll get me coat then.

Bye

Nice set of videos and it appears that their hitting the two most important issues with this release, standards and performance. While the updates to the JavaScript engine sound great, the Direct2D interface and compliance with CSS3 (Acid 3 tests) will be a great change. It would be nice if we as web developers didn't have to put in special tags or script logic paths just for IE when virtually all other browsers render the pages correctly with no special coding.

I always expected them to pass Acid3 with the next version, the part that surprised me is that they're only 3 weeks in and upped the score by 10 points. I figure in a month they very well could be close to 100/100.

And MiX is in March now, we could see a beta or RC then. I think we could get a beta around CES actually. Or a CTP.

Glen said,
Nice set of videos and it appears that their hitting the two most important issues with this release, standards and performance.

That's extremely good news to me.

Another one again?
Why don't they stop releasing IE's that just look like IE7 and get everything sorted, updated and the best first, before releasing a new version!

ah ...i see were are you geting at you went them to make one like chrome

so you can start bushing them because of "copying" or whatever

Mr Spoon said,
Another one again?
Why don't they stop releasing IE's that just look like IE7 and get everything sorted, updated and the best first, before releasing a new version!

Tell that to Mozilla and Google.

Mr Spoon said,
Another one again?
Why don't they stop releasing IE's that just look like IE7 and get everything sorted, updated and the best first, before releasing a new version!

Uh, what is IE9 if not an "updated" IE7?

It's 3 weeks old, you can't expect everything. They did talk about HTML5 at todays PDC keynote, so that should cover video and audio support I'd bet.

hotdog963al said,
Stop "improving" it. Make it support the standards better first! FFFFFUUU-

they are, i think video 2 talked about supporting css3 standards.

what does that exactly tell you?

"Interoperability and standards support is increasing and features such as rounded corner CSS support will be built in. A new JS engine will also be built into Internet Explorer 9."

also,for the most people .the thing that will grab thier attention is "features"
not "standards"

Things I learned from this video:
1. The people at Microsoft use Logitech webcams
2. The people at Microsoft use Google Chrome and Gmail
3. The people at Microsoft use VERY old keyboards!

Ambious said,
Things I learned from this video:
1. The people at Microsoft use Logitech webcams
2. The people at Microsoft use Google Chrome and Gmail
3. The people at Microsoft use VERY old keyboards!


thing's I've learned at Microsoft,

1) there are Mac's on site *gasp*
2) Technology goes from low to very high to do testing
3) People have preferences, and they let them use their own prefered hardware for testing and development
4) MS doesn't force you to use MS products *gasp*

They use chrome as a base for JS performance testing, since it's the fastest one out right now. If you're job is to make your own JS engine faster, you're going to install the competitions so you can see what you have to do ofc.

neufuse said,


thing's I've learned at Microsoft,

1) there are Mac's on site *gasp*
2) Technology goes from low to very high to do testing
3) People have preferences, and they let them use their own prefered hardware for testing and development
4) MS doesn't force you to use MS products *gasp*


Microsoft has a LONG history of using competitors' products, in addition to their own, in testing. (If you were part of any of the WLM Technical betas, the odds are rather high that you got a Logitech webcam out of the deal.) Microsoft and Logitech have been among the friendliest of competitors for almost two decades (their keyboards and mice can, to a large extent, use each other's software). Before the LifeCam shipped, it was Logitech (and before that, Creative) that was the primary IHV featured in WLM. I currently have a Microsoft wireless keyboard, but a *Logitech* wireless mouse; the Logitech software detects the Microoft hardware (and the MS software detects Logitech's mouse) and I can configure any detectable feature, even using the *wrong* software.

GreyWolfSC said,
Anything about adding a CLR interface to make it easier to develop addins?


very bad idea, don't do it! don't use spicie! Trust me, microsoft discourages the use of CLR to develop addins for both IE and office for very good reasons. Never do it unless you controll every addin that is installed

XerXis said,
very bad idea, don't do it! don't use spicie! Trust me, microsoft discourages the use of CLR to develop addins for both IE and office for very good reasons. Never do it unless you controll every addin that is installed

They don't discourage it at all. They just don't have an interface for it in IE yet. And Office has had CLR support since Office 2007 came out. I don't understand why my suggestion would be any worse than Firefox's solution.

XerXis said,
very bad idea, don't do it! don't use spicie! Trust me, microsoft discourages the use of CLR to develop addins for both IE and office for very good reasons. Never do it unless you controll every addin that is installed

They only discouraged it for one reason - if different plugins use different versions of the CLR, it can cause incompatibilities. But when .NET 4 comes out, the limitation will no longer exist. So, if you can guarantee only one CLR version will be used (.Net 1.0/1.1 or .Net 2/3/3.5) you will be okay; addition of .Net 4 plugins won't cause any disruption. The CLR in silverlight does not count, as it has always been side-by-side capable from day one.

Anyone have the videos in non-Silverlight form? I'm trying to steer clear of yet another web plugin that I don't need.

Apparently, it's needed if you can't watch a video without it. Seriously, what's so bad about Silverlight?

xiphi said,
Apparently, it's needed if you can't watch a video without it. Seriously, what's so bad about Silverlight?

There is something wrong with people.

Menge said,
Anyone have the videos in non-Silverlight form? I'm trying to steer clear of yet another web plugin that I don't need.

Just install it if you want to view it. If you do not want to install it you do not want to view it.

Where does it end? How many more "tiny plugins" will we need to install. That's the point, we shouldn't have to install ANYTHING to get videos working. As it stands, all we really need currently is Flash, imagine if a couple more get introduced, urgh.

To be honest I haven't visited a site that required Silverlight yet.....now there's a single video I "might" want to watch (I haven't used IE as my main browsers since IE6...so a video about IE isn't very high on my priority list) requires it and now I should run and install it so it can sit there to never be used again? No thanks

M2Ys4U said,
well maybe if IE9 were to support ...


If you're thinking of HTML5 they specifically said that in todays keynote.

Rudy said,
To be honest I haven't visited a site that required Silverlight yet.....now there's a single video I "might" want to watch (I haven't used IE as my main browsers since IE6...so a video about IE isn't very high on my priority list) requires it and now I should run and install it so it can sit there to never be used again? No thanks


Microsoft.com uses it, microsoft download has a better interface with it, heck lots of MS sites require silverlight now for the full experience

Menge said,
Anyone have the videos in non-Silverlight form? I'm trying to steer clear of yet another web plugin that I don't need.

So I guess you don't watch Netflix streaming services online? btw, the plug-in doesn't even run unless the browser needs it (so you loose no performance). Plus it is way smaller than flash and runs smoother than flash...why? because it's from Microsoft and microsoft knows their own code......just like Apple software works best on Apple machines.

neufuse said,
Microsoft.com uses it, microsoft download has a better interface with it, heck lots of MS sites require silverlight now for the full experience

Again all sites I don't visit... the day Neowin or Google starts using it I'll install it :P

booboo said,
Neowin is using it, so it's time for you to get it.

I meant for more than just linking to a single video lol

Rudy said,
Again all sites I don't visit... the day Neowin or Google starts using it I'll install it :P

There are quite a number of websites that use it. Primarily, the ones focused on using it are Free-To-Air and Pay-TV sites where streaming video plays a major part in promoting the TV channel. Far better than Flash imo

Rudy said,
Again all sites I don't visit... the day Neowin or Google starts using it I'll install it :P


Well Neowin is using it in this news.

hotdog963al said,
Where does it end? How many more "tiny plugins" will we need to install. That's the point, we shouldn't have to install ANYTHING to get videos working. As it stands, all we really need currently is Flash, imagine if a couple more get introduced, urgh.

I agree, that's the whole point behind the latest work in web standards. :-/

Had this been on Mozilla.org, they would've used HTML 5 video.

Silverlight for not even interactive content is f'ing brain dead.

Rudy said,
Again all sites I don't visit... the day Neowin or Google starts using it I'll install it :P

it's sounds like you have an old computer. most users don't even care because their systems can handle almost whatever is thrown at them.

I'm yet to see a site "require" me to use it. And I frequently use MS sites, Google and Neowin. (I didn't even know Neowin used SL!)

So no, I don't "need" it for now. Besides - 64 bit support? Geez. What year is it?

Raa said,
I'm yet to see a site "require" me to use it. And I frequently use MS sites, Google and Neowin. (I didn't even know Neowin used SL!)

So no, I don't "need" it for now. Besides - 64 bit support? Geez. What year is it?

maybe because either windows update already installed it for you or it was installed if you've installed windows live services. Not sure if you are click happy or not when installing programs but if so then this is a valid reseon why sites don't ask you to install silverlight.

jesseinsf said,
it's sounds like you have an old computer. most users don't even care because their systems can handle almost whatever is thrown at them.

My computer is probably newer than yours, but it doesn't mean I want to install crap on it. People who install everything they see are usually the first ones complaining their "state of the art" computer is slow as ****

jesseinsf said,
Plus it is way smaller than flash and runs smoother than flash...why? because it's from Microsoft and microsoft knows their own code


Yeah that's why vista was such a hit!

Wow...you guys bitch about flash being a piece of a **** (which it is)

And then when a competitor comes out with a superior product, you guys bitch about that too.

My computer is probably newer than yours, but it doesn't mean I want to install crap on it. People who install everything they see are usually the first ones complaining their "state of the art" computer is slow as ****


Don't judge something before you've even given it a dam try. Silverlight is a tiny ass plugin that in some ares is much better than flash, and even offers features flash doesnt (deep zoom for example).

The plugin doesnt even run unless a website needs it, so theres no performance hit. Quit it with your bs and fud.

Besides - 64 bit support? Geez. What year is it?


Because your "beloved' flash has 64bit support doesnt it

Rudy said,
My computer is probably newer than yours, but it doesn't mean I want to install crap on it. People who install everything they see are usually the first ones complaining their "state of the art" computer is slow as ****

Do you install the QuickTime plugin? Or Flash? I'm not sure what the difference is.

GreyWolfSC said,
Do you install the QuickTime plugin? Or Flash? I'm not sure what the difference is.

on a Windows computer I never install the quicktime plugin.... on my mac Quicktime is actually good though (the windows version is horrible, Apple should be ashamed)

hotdog963al said,
Where does it end? How many more "tiny plugins" will we need to install. That's the point, we shouldn't have to install ANYTHING to get videos working. As it stands, all we really need currently is Flash, imagine if a couple more get introduced, urgh.


i agree. that's why there is HTML 5 coming out with video support.

neufuse said,
Microsoft.com uses it, microsoft download has a better interface with it, heck lots of MS sites require silverlight now for the full experience

Great example... Especially for people using Mac OS X or Linux.

Intelman said,
There is something wrong with people.


Right!! whats wrongs with you guys... Have you seen silverlight web applications..... its really amazing...... its really lights up the web......

hotdog963al said,
Where does it end? How many more "tiny plugins" will we need to install. That's the point, we shouldn't have to install ANYTHING to get videos working. As it stands, all we really need currently is Flash, imagine if a couple more get introduced, urgh.

Silverlight is far better than Flash.... everyone are moving to silverlight...
Youtube is implementing silverlight..... Apparently,you will see only silverlight

Rudy said,
I meant for more than just linking to a single video lol



Silverlight is in most of the sites now and the reason you have not seen is because u have not installed silverlight. most silverlight site renders the page as a normal html page if it is not installed.... try it and its really worth it. It will not decrease the performance since silverlight is used only when needed. it wont run in the background...

Rudy said,
Again all sites I don't visit... the day Neowin or Google starts using it I'll install it :P

Netflix.com uses Silverlight

Will this come to XP and Server 2003, they better not get ignored, mainly because Vista and 7 still hold a tiny fraction of market share.

thealexweb, man it is time to leave XP behind. Move to Windows 7 :). I highly dought that IE9 will have be supported on XP.

Yeah I doubt it too. You know that MS has a history of incorporating new features and functionality into the latest versions only. Take Win08 R2 for example. There are new "would be cool and nice to have" features in that release for AD and core functions that are only compatible with 2008 & Win 7 (not even Vista). Of course the core functinoality still supports all OS's but the really cool stuff is reserved for only the newest OS's.

thealexweb said,
Will this come to XP and Server 2003, they better not get ignored, mainly because Vista and 7 still hold a tiny fraction of market share.

I would guess that XP will still be supported as many organizations still use it as their primary desktop OS.

Glen said,
I would guess that XP will still be supported as many organizations still use it as their primary desktop OS.

Many? I have yet to come across a business that doesn't use XP.

If you think about, it would be a bad business move for them to cut support for XP. Microsoft may wish to cut off support to simplify IE development and support, but they won't do anything that might alienate their corporate customers. These customers make up a huge chunk of their sales, and they will continue to provide support until XP becomes the minority OS. This is not just my opinion, it's a standard business model.

Glen said,
If you think about, it would be a bad business move for them to cut support for XP. Microsoft may wish to cut off support to simplify IE development and support, but they won't do anything that might alienate their corporate customers. These customers make up a huge chunk of their sales, and they will continue to provide support until XP becomes the minority OS. This is not just my opinion, it's a standard business model.


This is why they came out with XP mode for Win7, so they can give you that XP app support on win7 in a VM and not have to worry about everything else.

If your business can't move off of IE6 yet for some inhouse app, then you use that to be able to move to win7 and still run IE6 for now.

It was a very bad business call to cut support for Windows 2000 when IE7 came out, yet they did.
I don't see XP support coming to IE9.

Well again, with things like App-V and so on, running a old copy of IE6 or w/e in a VM side by side with IE9 on win7 etc is possible. I don't see why business needs to stick to XP anymore.

For something that's only 3 weeks old they've done some great stuff. This time next month it could very well be on par or even better than Chrome, who knows?

Considering it's using the GPU to render pages, I'm expecting IE9 to be better then Chrome. I can't wait to see what the others (i.e. Mozilla, Google etc) will do now good times ahead me thinks.

I really wanna see how far they can get in another month. I think they've managed to do quite a good job with javascript performance in just 3 weeks.

dimithrak said,
well they just started.. I hope the change the UI to

Yes. They really really need to change that slow, bulky, stupid UI of IE.

The last well done UI of IE was in IE6. Since the birth of tabs in IE, it's gone seriously downhill. Maybe they just need to rewrite their browser UI code.

Jebadiah said,
Yes. They really really need to change that slow, bulky, stupid UI of IE.

The last well done UI of IE was in IE6. Since the birth of tabs in IE, it's gone seriously downhill. Maybe they just need to rewrite their browser UI code.


If you think that the last well done UI for IE was in IE6 you seriously need to look at how other browsers UIs are.

Face it, tabs are the way all browsers are going/have gone and, just like the ribbon in MS Office, thats not going to change any time soon

I like IE8's UI, I have all my RSS feeds in the fav bar at the top above my tabs and it gives me quick access to them with one click. It's a pretty clean UI, I don't see what's really wrong with it actually.

Jebadiah said,
Yes. They really really need to change that slow, bulky, stupid UI of IE.

The last well done UI of IE was in IE6. Since the birth of tabs in IE, it's gone seriously downhill. Maybe they just need to rewrite their browser UI code.

what??? IE7 and 8 has really matured and they are the best of IE's.
Everyone loves tab in abrowser....

IE8 has the best GUI in my opinion, you just get the address bar, tabs and a few small buttons. Not huge oversized buttons taking up space that could be used for displaying the webpage content.

neo158 said,

If you think that the last well done UI for IE was in IE6 you seriously need to look at how other browsers UIs are.

Face it, tabs are the way all browsers are going/have gone and, just like the ribbon in MS Office, thats not going to change any time soon


Umm DUH! Who said anything about removing tabs? I love tabs. I said MS needs to rewrite code/redesign the whole crap of a browser UI they have now.

Find a way to put the Menu in a good location. Find a way to keep tabs away from other Buttons like Favorites. Find a way to make Space for browsing. Find a way to make the browser load faster. Find a way to make space to display at least 10 Tabs on a 1280 pixel wide screen without hiding the title. These would be some of the things I would tell them about IE7+. I don't care if they copy Firefox or Chrome. They just need to overhaul the existing UI. Make things look neat, tidy and intuitive.

You just love putting words in other people's mouths just for the heck of it, don't ya?