Windows Blue and IE11 may support Google's faster SPDY protocol

It's now been 15 days or so since the 9364 build of Windows Blue was leaked to the Internet, yielding tons of information about what Microsoft may or may not have planned for the next major update for Windows 8. That update will also include Internet Explorer 11.

There's already been some information about what IE11 might contain, thanks to the work of others who have examined the code. References to tab syncing and maybe the use of WebGL in the browser have already been discovered. Now Within Windows has revealed there is evidence in the IE11 code of its support for SPDY, a web protocol originally developed, ironically, by Google.

The SPDY page on Google's Chromium website has the details of the protocol, which in very basic form is being developed to make surfing the Internet on a web browser faster while still using the current Internet infrastructure. The goal is to make web pages load as much as 50 percent faster than they currently do with the HTTP protocol. While SPDY (pronounced as SPeeDY) does replace some elements of HTTP, the intent of SPDY is to augment HTTP, according to the Chromium page.

Within Windows claims that SPDY is not only showing up in IE11 but is also being put into the Windows Blue OS itself, via the Windows Internet API. That could mean that any Internet apps that Windows Blue has will support SPDY.

Source: Within Windows | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Secrets of the BUILD 2011 Samsung Windows 8 prototype tablets revealed

Next Story

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen to open new office in Silicon Valley


Commenting is disabled on this article.

Haha +1 Microsoft.
Let the world see you have no issues in working together with Google promoted services.
While the world sees every day that Google refuses to work together with anything coming from Microsoft.

Sun became Oracle, but I think Google took the position in the IT world Sun once held.

n_K said,
This article seems incorrect, SPDY is for HTTPS only NOT normal HTTP afaik.

Much less interesting if that's the case.

Enron said,
Oh, I thought that said Google SPY protocol.

Google SPY protocol is unfortunately closed source and only available in Chrome, Chromebooks, Google services and Android

SPDY, a web protocol originally developed, ironically, by Google

Incorrect. Promoted by Google, but not 'created' or developed by Google.

Google has created a bit of a Buzz around SPDY and helped get HTTP 2.0 standards support (IETF) but do not mistake SPDY as being Google's technology.

SPDY pulls from various technologies, with the oldest dating back to (ironically) Microsoft's HTTP multi-plexing, parallel fetching, pipeline proposals in the 1990s for IIS and IE4/5. It was during the anti-trust and IE4-5 era, so the industry essentially ignored Microsoft's work, or chose not to acknowledge the work came from Microsoft at the time.

(There used to be Microsoft Research from years ago on the actually technologies, with more recent discussions around HTTP S&M and Microsoft's HTTP 2.0 proposals as they relate to SPDY.)

Microsoft's intention is to use Google's public attention for the proposal (as this site proves by this article existing) add in the additional features to make it a viable technology by supporting selective compression, encryption, websockets, etc to make the technology viable for more web technologies. (I.E. low powered device browsers that would suffer with the full time SPDY compression and encryption when not necessary.)

IE11/Windows 8 Blue should have SPDY support, but this would be a fall back mode when the richer Microsoft variation is not offered by web sites.

Hopefully websites will see the benefits of and need the features of richer Microsoft and other's proposed HTTP 2.0 versions of the technology and not implement just the reduced functionality Google variation of SPDY.

The only way this information would be 'ironic' is if the author/writers fail to understand the technology and didn't pay attention to what Microsoft position on the technology was over a year ago. The real irony is the source and Neowin haphazardly assume Microsoft is copying or using a Google technology in IE11/Windows 8 Blue.

Understanding that that technology didn't originate at Google and the Microsoft implementation is far more robust than the basic Google proposed SPDY should provide enough information for any tech writer to see that Microsoft is doing anything 'but' copying or using Google technology.

The recent focus on news from: is providing early access to information, but at the expensive of sourcing a tech site that has more knowledge than understanding of the technology.

Several recent articles coming from are providing 'information' but shows the site's writers lack of understanding. Unfortunately, this is creating a situation where confusion and sensationalism is overshadowing the actual 'knowledge/information' presented by the site.

All I have to say is thank you for sharing this information. It's great how we have people in the community who know lots of stuff about stuff! It is true that SPDY is a trademark of Google but you are 100% right in saying that the technologies behind it have been taken from Microsoft and other web pioneers. The funny thing is when developers/hackers find something like SPDY support then think themselves qualified to comment on their find. The quote he uses is sourced directly from Wikipedia and the wikipedia source is referenced directly to a chromium portal- go figure.

How on earth can you say that Microsoft's version of SPDY is "more functional" that what Google is offering? Considering that the only differences between Microsoft and Google's proposal is that the Microsoft proposal removes things from SPDY (Like having compression/encryption optional)

Microsoft don't own the idea of multiplexing or pipelining, The support for HTTP pipelining in IIS is bad enough that browsers won't even attempt it when dealing with anything below IIS 6.

ingramator said
The quote he uses is sourced directly from Wikipedia and the wikipedia source is referenced directly to a chromium portal- go figure.

Well that's just the first of "43" references.. The reference link I posted above goes to MSDN :-P

with how spdy works, it makes more difficult for https/script scanner to detect malicous formed code, before the browser interprets 'em.

i love it.

Things like AV scanners and such just need to be able to speak TLS, which they (the good ones) already do.

At worst they'll just disable SPDY support, and the browser will fallback to plain HTTP over TLS.

Zagadka said,
I see MS is catching up to the "new version every other day" bandwagon. Which is probably good, in the end.

New version every other day? No... yearly updates... IE9 (2011), IE10 (2012), IE11 (2013).

I spy a Windows 7 user choosing to ignore the fact that IE 10 came out in October last year because it didn't come to their beloved platform until February. Am I close?

Timble said,
I spy a Windows 7 user choosing to ignore the fact that IE 10 came out in October last year because it didn't come to their beloved platform until February. Am I close?

So what if he is? How about business that will not upgrade to Windows 8?

I'm running Win8, actually, just not IE.

I obviously didn't mean literally coming out every day, just version numbers coming out more frequently which, again, is a good thing.

I realise that but that means you have to install codecs, the whole point of web standards is not having to install codecs, they are built-in.

Firefox is going to support H.264. Via system codecs, same way as IE handles all 'exotics'. The only difference is, H.264 is used right now like in 99% of video content on the web. And it's in ISO standard. Microsoft goes by philosophy of "we support what's in standards, some almost-standard features, but none of your crazy experimental stuff until it's stable enough". And you can understand them, they've this big huge corporate customer base, and it's not gonna work like "Oh, remember that experimental codec support we've added in previous version? Well, guess what, we've removed it because it's obsolete and completely redone by its devs" (which is what is happening with VP family of codecs right now)

While it would be great to have "free as in speech" codecs supported by all browsers, these codecs are not stable enough. Not to mention the fact that the VP-family of codecs are technically inferior to H.264. I'd rather see the VP codecs improve to a point where they are stable and look just as good as, if not better than, H.26x codecs. I'm sure you've seen the video comparisons. The difference is clear (pun not intended).