No IE9 for Windows XP - Will Microsoft regret this decision?

[notuptome2004]

IE9 itself is a complete rewrite of the browser above and below in the code it is based on HTML5 and GPU rendering services witch Requirer underlining portions of new API under windows vista and windows 7 to run that also run different code based drivers WDDM stuff . now in the current beta you can turn off Direct2write and run in software mode but even then it still runs on newer Rendering code witch XP does not provide

oh and not to mention on windows 7 IE9 is even more robust

[Joseph B]

The problem is, MS exists to earn profits. So:

1. IE9's hardware acceleration would have to be re-written. That would cost time, and money. You would then require 2 teams to update a free software

2. Windows XP sale has stopped. Which means MS won't be earning any money from XP anymore.

3. If MS kept releasing patches, updates and software for older OSes, nobody would upgrade. I mean there wouldn't be much point left.

Very true, very good 3 points sir. I bow to you. :)

[Lazure]

Hey, people have ran other things (such as Halo 2) on XP...

Halo 2 wasn't written to depend completely on WDDM-based APIs now was it? No, it wasn't. It was just hard coded to simply detect XP and block it out.

[Azies]

IE9 itself is a complete rewrite of the browser above and below in the code it is based on HTML5 and GPU rendering services witch Requirer underlining portions of new API under windows vista and windows 7 to run that also run different code based drivers WDDM stuff . now in the current beta you can turn off Direct2write and run in software mode but even then it still runs on newer Rendering code witch XP does not provide

oh and not to mention on windows 7 IE9 is even more robust

...your post makes absolutely not sense... and wasn't Direct2D a Windows 7 only thing, or did that get back ported to Vista?

[Mr. Gibs]

...your post makes absolutely not sense... and wasn't Direct2D a Windows 7 only thing, or did that get back ported to Vista?

Vista has Direct2D support.

[DrJohnSmitherson]

I voted yes, but I don't really think they will regret it. If other browsers develop for XP, and if Microsoft wants to compete, then they should probably make an XP version. If all the other browsers don't come out for XP, then nevermind.

[Azies]

Vista SP2 has Direct2D support.

Ah ok.

[honda]

Halo 2 wasn't written to depend completely on WDDM-based APIs now was it? No, it wasn't. It was just hard coded to simply detect XP and block it out.

Certain Vista API (or DX DLLs, not sure right now) had to be backported so no, it wasnt as simple as bypassing detection.

[MajorSham]

I don't believe Microsoft will regret the decision. I wouldn't mind sticking with IE8 if its performance didn't bring your average corporate Netburst Pentium equipped workstation to its knees. Only the few Core and Core 2 workstations scattered throughout our company can handle IE8 without making you want to slap the monitor with the keyboard. Unfortunately, switching to a browser other than IE is not an option at my company, and nearly everything runs XP.

[zeke009]

Of course they are going to regret it.

90% Of the offices I walk into, still use... *drum roll*

XP.

Thats not even a exaggeration. The instant it starts cutting into profits, magically a version of it will become available for XP, watch.

As the end of XP nears (in the corporate space), backend servers get upgraded, and IT wants to secure the environment; XP will fade away. It takes so much extra software to secure XP, Win7 cuts a lot of that out.

It's on the verge of happening where I work and that is 50,000+ machines.

[DDStriker]

I'm sure those idiots who still stay with IE6, will finally care when most of their favorite websites stop working/looking properly. In fact, this is already occurring on a somewhat minor level as it is, with sites using PNGs that IE6 cannot handle and whatnot.

What will happen when a website becomes unusable, or doesn't even load at all in IE6? What will these people do? I am wondering what their responses would be to this scenario.

This is exactly what needs to be done, to truly phase out XP. Stop supporting it. Obviously telling people that it's an old and outdated OS isn't going to change their minds, they like their old fashioned XP and believe it will work for them for the rest of their lives. What will happen when just about everything stops supporting XP? As in, Windows 98-style lack of support. Will they keep using it anyways, even at the cost of using completely outdated software and hardware? What if their hardware fails, and the new hardware on the market doesn't have working XP drivers down the road?

People who cling so adamantly to the aged, 8 year old OS, neglect to realize the future is going to grind further and further against them. They fail to see what's going to wind up happening sooner or later. All it takes is a lightning bolt to strike their computer 3 years from now, and if the hardware released then doesn't support XP... they won't have a choice in the matter will they?

what is wrong with you? so a lot of people don't like change and want to stay on an old browser big deal theres no need to insult everyone who doesn't use the latest (not always the greatest) software just because you might

when the browser stops functioning then they may look for alternatives or just not care about the site anymore it depends on the person but whatever thats irrelevant, if you can't/don't want to design websites to cater for ie6 users then don't no one is holding a gun to your head, and if its part of your job to support ie6 then again who cares you're getting paid to do it if you don't like your job then quit

some people just don't know how to upgrade their browser, not everyone is a computer literate and may not understand how to do it so why should they be punished? and better yet why should we they be forced to change because of random people like you?

i'm sure if someone is given a new computer they will adapt to it or be frustrated that again Microsoft has changed virtually every aspect of the way the system works and they have to re-learn it all and request someone to set them up a pc with xp

you neglect to realize that not everyone needs to upgrade and sometimes using older software isn't as bad as you make it out to be, even myself I've used windows 7 for about a year now and yeah it has nice features that I've gotten used to but at times i need to jump on my P4 that has windows XP and it just feels so much more responsive than windows 7 sometimes xp hangs but generally its very snappy (more noticeable since I've been using windows 7) thats just one thing i prefer on xp without going into more details (i don't feel like a heavy discussion with the zealots today) which shows to me that newer isn't always better you may gain in some areas but you lose in others you may not care but some people do also my vote for this poll is that Microsoft won't regret it, it's a smart move because if people truly want fancy 3d accelerated effects in their browser they may be inclined to upgrade then again i doubt it upgrade costs money and if your computer already works adequately with the operating system why pay money for a new operating system and/or new hardware? people will upgrade when the time is right

for ie6 users they should upgrade, but only if they want to assuming it will benefit them for example people playing flash games perhaps on facebook eve would benefit from switching to chrome or a newer ie browser which doesn't suffer as much whilst running flash

[Joshie]

This is a simple matter. People who talk about "switching to Linux" when XP is finally strangled are already using Linux. Nobody who works and develops with Windows, or who takes advantage of it for gaming or productivity, is highly unlikely to completely give it up in favor of something completely different. Windows XP might be locked out of a new browser, but Linux is locked out of BUTTLOADS of Windows software. Not to diss Linux, of course. I just think it's important to point out the amusing contradiction in the reasoning.

Sure, Linux may be free, and that's compelling to many, but it's not like Windows is expensive. For someone who "just wants to check email and browse the web" while maintaining access to any and all new software that will be Windows 7 only, a basic home license is dirt cheap. There's this strange misinformation that has taken hold of a sector of tech enthusiasts, that commercial OSes are expensive. These are, what I like to call, 'toddlers'. They have no awareness of the 1980s, back when OSes were 'competitive', and back before the 'big bad evil M$' did their gosh darn evil conniving tricks to violently steal control of the market, and--the point--back when OSes cost HUNDREDS of dollars (and I don't mean $200). Primitive, lack-luster OSes. Heck, MS-DOS may have been the cheapest major DOS player out there, and the low cost is certainly one of the top reasons why IBM PC-DOS crapped out.

A sub-$100 pricetag on a lifetime license of a piece of software you'll use every single time you compute, with updates included? Historically this is a bargain, and there's honestly no reason not to make the investment. Have more than one PC? Let those testicles drop, son, and cheat the game a little with a TechNet subscription or something, and get a bunch of licenses for Windows and Office to boot. Sub-$300 for as a brand new Windows/Office installation on every PC in the house? Holy crap! (just no commercial uses there, eh?) Saying no to that just makes you look like a cheap punk.

The most remarkable opinion some have had, is that they would defect to Mac OS. This is rarely said, but certainly said, and the saddest thing anyone could say. To give up Windows because it drops support for a 9 year old product and switch to a platform that no longer supports FIVE year old hardware? Talk about lock-out. Good luck running ANY of today's Apple software on even the most powerful, high-end, bleeding edge Apple computer from 2001. You simply can't.

Ah well. Haters gonna hate.

[SoCalRox]

what is wrong with you? so a lot of people don't like change and want to stay on an old browser big deal theres no need to insult everyone who doesn't use the latest (not always the greatest) software just because you might

when the browser stops functioning then they may look for alternatives or just not care about the site anymore it depends on the person but whatever thats irrelevant, if you can't/don't want to design websites to cater for ie6 users then don't no one is holding a gun to your head, and if its part of your job to support ie6 then again who cares you're getting paid to do it if you don't like your job then quit

some people just don't know how to upgrade their browser, not everyone is a computer literate and may not understand how to do it so why should they be punished? and better yet why should we they be forced to change because of random people like you?

i'm sure if someone is given a new computer they will adapt to it or be frustrated that again Microsoft has changed virtually every aspect of the way the system works and they have to re-learn it all and request someone to set them up a pc with xp

you neglect to realize that not everyone needs to upgrade and sometimes using older software isn't as bad as you make it out to be, even myself I've used windows 7 for about a year now and yeah it has nice features that I've gotten used to but at times i need to jump on my P4 that has windows XP and it just feels so much more responsive than windows 7 sometimes xp hangs but generally its very snappy (more noticeable since I've been using windows 7) thats just one thing i prefer on xp without going into more details (i don't feel like a heavy discussion with the zealots today) which shows to me that newer isn't always better you may gain in some areas but you lose in others you may not care but some people do also my vote for this poll is that Microsoft won't regret it, it's a smart move because if people truly want fancy 3d accelerated effects in their browser they may be inclined to upgrade then again i doubt it upgrade costs money and if your computer already works adequately with the operating system why pay money for a new operating system and/or new hardware? people will upgrade when the time is right

for ie6 users they should upgrade, but only if they want to assuming it will benefit them for example people playing flash games perhaps on facebook eve would benefit from switching to chrome or a newer ie browser which doesn't suffer as much whilst running flash

This is a period. ---> .

Please learn to use them, along with commas, question marks, and other punctuation.

[Joseph B]

This is a period. ---> .

Please learn to use them, along with commas, question marks, and other punctuation.

Please don't troll, and actually contribute to what they are typing about.

[DeusProto]

Yes, because it's one less incentive for businesses to upgrade from stock IE6. If IE8 is no longer going to be used on other platforms then why bother migrating web-based business apps to it? So, since they're locked out of IE9, they're going to stick to IE6 and botnet authors are going to be pleased.

It would not be too difficult for Microsoft to release an IE9 without Direct2D. The only reason they're doing this is to force obsolescence -- much like hardware companies stop making drivers for products at some point.

For ME, Windows XP outperforms Windows 7 in games because I use an AGP card and the WDDM Nvidia drivers for some reason have a slowdown on Vista and 7 vs the 93.xx drivers I use in XP. I get a 25-35% performance hit in all games -- with or without Aero Glass.

Will they ever publicly admit this regret? No. Of course not.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

No, MS won't regret the decision. XP is already a dying OS, and its demise will most certainly be accelerated with upcoming holiday sales, the return of the Windows 7 family pack etc.

By the time IE 9 final is released the market share of XP will likely be smaller than that of Vista and Win7 combined.

[notuptome2004]

Yes, because it's one less incentive for businesses to upgrade from stock IE6. If IE8 is no longer going to be used on other platforms then why bother migrating web-based business apps to it? So, since they're locked out of IE9, they're going to stick to IE6 and botnet authors are going to be pleased.

It would not be too difficult for Microsoft to release an IE9 without Direct2D. The only reason they're doing this is to force obsolescence -- much like hardware companies stop making drivers for products at some point.

For ME, Windows XP outperforms Windows 7 in games because I use an AGP card and the WDDM Nvidia drivers for some reason have a slowdown on Vista and 7 vs the 93.xx drivers I use in XP. I get a 25-35% performance hit in all games -- with or without Aero Glass.

Will they ever publicly admit this regret? No. Of course not.

First what hardware you running cause it sounds like the issue is hardware related to your slow down not software. tho i have windows 7 on a 1800mhx AMD XP system with 1.5gb of ram and a 8400GT graphics card PCI and and it runs games in windows 7 better then XP does on some older games course stuff like Farcry 1 and stuff ya know. so not sure what hardware your running like GPU and CPU also

Also ya can get get the latest nvidia drivers for GeForce 7 and lower AGP cards in windows 7 and XP

Now on to IE9 if you have not read anything most have posted IE9 is a new engine not a re-hash with added on new stuff it is new thus not made for XP it does not have much if any legacy code in it

[torrentthief]

ms should release IE9 for xp users, this will help html5 adoption and make it easier for web developers to create websites as less users will be using IE8 as a result, more websites would be standards compliant as a result of IE9 being released on XP which has a 60% market share. Most corporations, govts and some businesses only use IE so not releasing IE9 hurts them by not having a standards compliant browser. They should release IE9 with no hardware acceleration for XP or figure a new way for it to work for XP users.

[.Neo]

Windows users are an interesting bunch. I've never seen a Mac user complain about the fact Safari 5 doesn't run on Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X 10.1 Puma anymore...

That said I fully support Microsoft's decision to finally move on. Windows XP is almost ten years behind the times and should have been dropped years ago. The only thing people can blame Microsoft of is the whole debacle around Windows Longhorn / Vista and the fact they kept pushing Windows XP on netbooks until very recently. I fully understand the sentiment if you bought a relatively new netbook with Windows XP on it. Microsoft should offer those people free / next to free upgrades to Windows 7 (if they don't already).

Why people have state-of-the-art Intel Core i7 rigs and run Windows XP on them is beyond me. It would be like installing Mac OS 9 on this 27-inch iMac. So if you're still running Windows XP for the sake of running Windows XP, simply because you don't feel like moving on, you shouldn't complain about the fact that your operating system doesn't support the latest software either.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Windows users are an interesting bunch. I've never seen a Mac user complain about the fact Safari 5 doesn't run on Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X 10.1 Puma anymore...

Quoted for truth.

[watchthisspace]

If people still using XP want to continue to use XP, they have IE8 and other browsers to choose from, no need to get sad that IE9 won't run on XP. I'm sure Opera, Google,Mozilla, Apple and all those other companies will welcome these users with hugs.

[tennoguchi]

to be honest the average pc user (not power users, gamers etc) as long as they can check their email, won't be bothered until you get a massive banner saying "Upgrade your web browser or operating system",see this on a daily basis with small business\home users running IE 6 on Windows XP with no service packs, you can point them to downloads for the network install so they can install them on as many of their machines as possible, however they may be running some ancient application they paid tons for and dont want to pay more to upgrade to the latest version, or cant get their head around virtualisation.

My dad over the last year switched from Vista to 7 (resistance following the XP to Vista migration, we all remember the fun with the hardware drivers don't we ?) - for a guy in his 50's, retired etc hes probably in a minority who is willing to try new operating systems (if his data is backed up to another partition :)

That said if home users\small business users did upgrade their OSes and browsers to the latest version, IT journalism would die overnight

[TonyLock]

Most Gov institutions will still continue to use XP for a long time.

[stezo2k]

Kind of stupid because you can still buy new computers that are preloaded with XP...ie. alot of netbooks.

Exactly what I was going to say :)

[Ryster]

I could care less. I hate IE. I still have IE6 on my XP.