Internet Explorer 10 Drops Vista Support 438
Pigskin-Referee writes "This week at Microsoft's MIX11 Web developer conference, the company surprised many by making a pre-release version of Internet Explorer 10 available — less than a month after IE9 came out in its final form. But another surprise was uncovered by Computerworld's Gregg Keizer: the next IE won't run on any OS before Windows 7, including Vista. Microsoft took some heat when it came out that Internet Explorer 9 would leave millions of Windows XP users in the lurch, as the new browser would only run on Windows 7 and Vista. But the company confirmed that IE10 won't even run on Vista."
This is the best thing they can do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great marketing for alternative browsers :^)
Re:This is the best thing they can do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Great marketing for alternative browsers :^)
There's an implication beyond "Vista support is dropped", which considering the number of companies that avoided Vista on the desktop itself isn't a big deal... Server 2008 support is also dropped. R2 is the Win7 kernel so that's still valid, but my users on Terminal Servers as little as three years old won't have access to the next IE version.
Think beyond your desktop and consider that much of the corporate ecosystem "supports" IE. I've got clients who need - through no choice of their own - to access partner sites that are only officially supported on IE. For many of them, alternative browsers aren't something I can recommend, sadly. Now we're also being told our future with IE is... "OS upgrades".
Thanks Microsoft. Dropping XP is understandable. Vista/2k8 is too soon.
Re: (Score:2)
What Microsoft is announcing is effectively a lack of support for Vista, so even if it can be tweaked to be installed on Vista, Microsoft wouldn't offer any support for it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a valid implication.The installer would and does do SKU checks, not just kernel version checks, so it's easily possible that it can still be installed on Server 2008 and that it can be tweaked to be installed on Vista as well. What Microsoft is announcing is effectively a lack of support for Vista, so even if it can be tweaked to be installed on Vista, Microsoft wouldn't offer any support for it.
Oh yeah. Running tweaked, unsupported applications. That's the sort of thing businesses love.
Re:This is the best thing they can do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So, I guess their support timeline for Vista must've been about a month?
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what I was thinking. They are not left in the lurch. IE 10 is likely to get left behind when it becomes an also ran in distant 3rd behind Firefox and Chrome. Maybe a 4th behind Safari, but that is pushing it.
Re: (Score:2)
They want you to upgrade asap, because the longer businesses delay, the more likely that other devices - tablets in particular - will replace an increasing share of desktops.
Desktop sales are down in absolute numbers, and this has Microsoft scared. Every seat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
afaik Ubuntu - like Windows Vista - is not a supported platform for IE10. Why should Microsoft's decision push the usage of alternative OS?
Re:This is the best thing they can do. (Score:5, Funny)
Because 2011 is the year of the Linux desktop!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, with their turn signal on!
I think it's encouraging news that they're finally going to let go of legacy stuff, that really is the root of so many issues. Th
Re: (Score:3)
Not for those of us who will now need to add a Vista VM to our 3 XP VMs to make sure that our websites look right in IE6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you watch. Two years tops and win7 will be "legacy". That's obviously what they want, and who can blame them?
I'm sure software developers will just love having to develop software that runs on four different versions of Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? IE 9 runs fine on 7. IE 8 runs fine on 7 *and* XP. If your only concern is being able to run all the browsers, you don't need Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that you can have only one version of IE installed on a system at once, you were going to have to do that anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Know what. Your clients are not representative of all Windows users, some of whom are trapped on IE6 due to corporate reliance on apps that will only run on that terrible POS. In any case even if you're right I will still need to support IE7, IE8, IE9 and IE10 for similar reasons.
Re:This is the best thing they can do. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. "corporate users" are the only ones trapped on IE6, and so they can just find some way to use that on their coporate LANs. There is no requirement they use IE6 at home or anywhere else. If it's such an issue, the corporation can either pay to upgrade the sites, or pay for their customers to have VMs that run IE6 to access their legacy sites. Or you can just install FireFox or Chrome next to IE6 and use one for legacy sites, and the other for everything else.
The vast majority of people have no NEED to use IE6, and the vast majority of web developers have no need to support IE6. In fact, I's say there is ZERO requirement for ANY web developer to EVER support IE6 at this point. Anyone who says otherwise is making excuses or lying.
And there's no need to support IE7 either. Because it's such an easy, pain-free upgrade from that to IE8, and there aren't any sites out there that REQUIRE IE7 in the way that some coporate sites require IE6. IE8's "compatability mode" is "good enough".
So you're just wrong here. You only need to suppot IE8 and IE9 right now. Period. Once IE10 comes out, you will only NEED to support IE9 and IE10 (IE 9's compatibility mode is "good enough" for any site quirky enough to run only in IE8).
Every web developer just needs to put their foot down on IE6 support (and now IE7). Period. Even MS wants developers to do this. Nobody should code to, or test on IE6 any more, period. It's a complete waste of time and money and effort. Just stop it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like screwing people who've paid for Vista all over again -- "look, we gave you a break with IE9, but let's face it, tha
Re: (Score:2)
screwing users over with Vista is like screwing over users with windows ME.
if you feel guilty you should go see a shrink. If they complain they should go see one.
Re: (Score:2)
hell, you might even argue that anyone currently still running vista is somehwat of a masochist, who WANTS to be screwed by MS..
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try downloading Safari 5 for OSX 10.4. Let me know how that goes for you.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a disclaimer about how many years you get Windows updates for, and Windows updates includes Internet Explorer as it is supposed to be an integral part of the operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you have never written bad code?
Vista sucked. They learned a lot from it, and built something MUCH better (Win 7). MS doesn't want to waste the dev time to make their new browser work correctly with Vista -so they decided not to.
Gert over it, and move on.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a little confused as to the limitation at all. Under the hood, Vista and Windows 7 are pretty damned close to each other. I can't really think of an architectural reason for this limitation. At least I'm unaware of any vast difference under the hood between the two operating systems, mainly some UI differences, some speeding up (although Vista with SP2 isn't too bad) and some extra goodies like VM tacked on to some of the editions. They pretty much can run on the same hardware, and I've heard some r
Um, it's just a web browser ya know.... (Score:5, Interesting)
What a load of bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet all this backward compatibility is NOT hurting, Chrome, Opera, Firefox and yes, even Safari.
How come ALL these can support older windows versions without problems but MS somehow runs into issues supporting its own OS that they are STILL selling?
Yes, I want to get rid of old Windows as well but mostly because of IE. If MS actually released some decent upgrades to its old crap they could help people who can't afford to upgrade their PC constantly. If IE9/10 was available XP (as other browsers more capable browsers are) then IE6 would be dead and buried. Clearly MS doesn't want IE6 gone badly enough, or are their browser developers not as capable as EVERY other browser make out there?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the issue goes back to this "native" support MS was talking about (and most of Slashdot completely misinterpreted).
IE9 (and presumably IE10) talks directly to the OS, without translation and abstraction layers that other browsers need to use in order to run across OS's. This presumably gives IE9 (and soon 10) an advatage over the competition in browse speed, deep integration with OS features, and more nimbleness in that they have less code to maintain and don't have to worry about how to implement
Re: (Score:3)
If MS actually released some decent upgrades to its old crap they could help people who can't afford to upgrade their PC constantly. If IE9/10 was available XP (as other browsers more capable browsers are) then IE6 would be dead and buried. Clearly MS doesn't want IE6 gone badly enough, or are their browser developers not as capable as EVERY other browser make out there?
Not sure what you're basing this on. IE 7 has been out for ages, and is available for XP. Lots of people still use IE 6. IE 8 is also available for XP, still there are people on IE 6. Why on earth would IE 9 or IE 10 Make a difference to the IE 6 market share?
That's ok (Score:2)
I don't run on any OS before System 7.5
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
If this browser is unable to run on even Windows XP, all it says to me is "Hi, I have to interact with your computer in a way no browser should need to."
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the times of Netscape, they wanted the browser to replace the OS (the user-visible parts of it, of course, not the kernel/drivers/etc.). The company failed to achieve it, but its brainchild -- Firefox -- managed to push Microsoft and Google close to that point.
The more `rich content' (3D graphics and whatnot) runs in browser, the closer it needs to be to extra hardware (3D accelerator) and OS software (security provider, data store etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
While true, it I'm still dubious that it cannot be sufficiently achieved to run on the older, and still fairly Modern OSs. Especially as I expect tHe other leading browsers will certainly be able to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Most modern browsers are or will be interacting with those same parts of Windows (Direct 2D) for hardware acceleration. The difference is that most other browser manufacturers include fallbacks for legacy OSes and hardware. Strangely IE9 has fallbacks for legacy hardware, but not for a lack of DirectX 10.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, as much as I loathe Microsoft, what you are saying is nonsense. Newer operating systems offer greater functionality. It's entirely possible for an application - browser or otherwise - to require features that older operating systems don't have without nefarious "interaction".
Just recently, I've stopped supporting iOS 3 because iOS 4 offers features that cut down development time significantly. My applications are sandboxed away from the operating system just like any other, much more separate than any typical application running on a desktop machine. There's nothing sinister about it, it's simply more cost-effective that way.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing sinister about it, it's simply more cost-effective that way.
While it appears in this particular instance that you are correct, there are other instances of breaking stuff or offering new releases that do seem nefarious. Vista, itself, seemed like it was not so much a new OS as it was a placeholder. As much as 7 is adored by everyone, I can't think of any good reason for a company with 10K installs of XP and Office 2003, Server 2003 (that they already own licenses for, that the IT dept. knows how to immediately fix ANYTHING that breaks) to update to 7 (and Office 201
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, it seems that newer releases of wetware apps are missing the feature to give examples.
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 3 cant run on any windows earlier than 2000, IIRC. Sometimes dependencies just arent there.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
There's a massive architectural difference between NT-based and DOS-based Windows.
For example, all system library calls that pass a string need to use a different API on Win95/98/ME and NT+. Using SomeFunctionA will mysteriously break the moment someone tries to input a string with a letter that happens to be not present in a legacy locale-dependent "code page", or access a file with such a character in its name. Supporting both APIs is possible but is a major chore, even with wrappers like MSLU.
And this is just a tip of an iceberg. What if you want to write some persistent data? Can't use C:\Program Files\YourProgram\ since it is not writeable without elevation. Easy -- SHGetFolderPath(). But, that function is not present on Win98 that did not have a specific Internet Explorer (???) update. So you need to fall back to that fixed location in C:\Program Files\YourProgram\. And so on...
On the other hand, there are no significant changes between 2000 and Win7 where user mode programs are concerned. New API has been added, but it gives little advantage, you can do about everything the old way with no functionality loss. I think the only actual goodie are filesystem transactions.
There was a large change for kernel drivers between XP and Vista, but a program like Firefox has no valid reason to touch that. Not any program which doesn't touch debugging, hardware or virtualization -- ie, any game which installs a kernel driver has a rootkit like SecuROM included.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, there are no significant changes between 2000 and Win7 where user mode programs are concerned. New API has been added, but it gives little advantage, you can do about everything the old way with no functionality loss.
Um, have you actually looked at what Direct2D does?
How would you paint, say, an anti-aliased rotated gradient rectangle in Win2K (where you only had GDI)? Aside from writing all the code for that yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Windows Vista supports condition variables where earlier versions didn't. It's possible to emulate them, but it's very difficult to get right. It's totally possible that the IE team wanted to take advantage of features that made the code much cleaner or run faster. What's the point of having those new features built into the operating system if they can't be used?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that support cannot last forever, and eventually people either have to upgrade or accept that they are running on a retro system. I don't expect MS to fix bu
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't had any trouble with WIndows 7 search, but if you have.. my guess is that you have a permissions issue that search isn't able to look in some locations.
I'm not sure what you mean about the useless clutter. Every option in the network config has text links, some have icons next to them but the actual controls themselves are text.
UAC is essentially the same as that used by OSX and Linux... At some point, a user has to have some knowledge. If they don't, then they need to contact someone that does
Re: (Score:3)
Vista and 7 both "require" a GPU powerful enough to do that, so MS can get away with not keeping a software renderer in the browser.
Um, no. Microsoft cannot get away without a software render in the browser even on Windows 7. There are far too many GPUs on Win7 systems that they don't support or don't support them. There are also plenty of places that the "renderer" doesn't use the GPU.
I know it's a common thing on /. to take a little bit of knowledge about things and pretend it's a lot of knowledge, but wh
Obligatory "It ain't half hot mum" reference (Score:3)
And nothing of value was lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How much is a cost of an abstraction layer in native code, really? A well-designed abstraction layer would pretty much always just call directly into the underlying API where the latter provides all the necessary functionality. And modern C++ compilers are exceedingly good at inlining, even across translation unit boundaries (with link-time code generation, which VC++ supports [microsoft.com]), which puts the cost squarely at zero.
Even where the features are available but semantics are sufficiently different where translat
Fixed that for you.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Windows Vista customers have a great browsing experience with IE9, but in building IE10 we are focused on continuing to drive the kind of innovation that only happens when you take advantage of screwing customers into buying modern operating systems and modern hardware for no good reason other than greed.""
I fail to see why IE 10 would not run on vista which is like 98% the same as Windows 7. What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks? It even has DX11. So hardware acceleration is not the issue.... I mean seriously. There is probably some mere flag in the installer that forces it to only work on Windows 7 and that is likely the only thing preventing it from running on Vista.
I mean google chrome runs on ancient P4s running XP. Give me a break.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There probably is no technical reason why IE 10 couldn't work (to some degree) on Windows as far back as XP. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since you value £100 so little please send it to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Horror barely describes it... (Score:2)
Oh no! You have to use Windows 7! The horror!
My wife's new laptop came with Win7, and so far "I hate it" barely scratches the surface about my feelings for it. Can't seem to customize it in any way that makes it more convenient. I just cringe every time I have to do something on it.
Her brother wanted her to get an Apple. She wanted to stick with something she was familiar with. She may as well have gotten an Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
OS customization seems to me like painting racing stripes on your car--you may think it's cool, everyone else doesn't care and thinks you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? How is windows 7 less customizable than say XP? If anything once you get used to the new layout of certain things (explorer comes to mind) its a lot more customizable and convenient than XP ever was. If you think Windows 7 isn't very customizable you would utterly hate MacOS X where it is Jobs way or the highway. I mean there is very little you can actually customize in MacOS. You can tweak the dock a little and change the bar colors but that's really about it.
For maximum tweakage there is always Linux
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want it to be customizable. I'm more than happy if it looks exactly the same as XP, and everything would be in the same place.
Re: (Score:2)
What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks?
More money for Microsoft from people who upgrade. This is how MS makes money from IE -- people need to upgrade Windows to get the new version of IE. The other major browsers all run on Windows and Mac, and most run on Linux and other operating systems as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm running Win7 on a 2 different P4s. A 7 year old ThinkPad and an 8 year old HP desktop. I have no reason to think that either machine will have any problems with IE10 either. So I'm failing to see your point about Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah and how much ram do they have? most people running machines that old are lucky to have 512-1gig of RAM. Something tells me XP would be faster on such machines. Even so my point is that chrome runs on Windows XP which is something that even IE9 cannot do. I don't necessarily understand why this is necessary. Even firefox runs on nearly anything, though they finally dropped PPC Mac OS support with version 4.
This is easy to answer. (Score:5, Informative)
What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks?
Just look at the public IDL files in the Windows SDK and look at what's inside #ifdef NTDDI_WIN7 blocks.
Hint: It's not a small list.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that only for driver developers, though? Since we're talking about browsers here, a list of changes relevant to userspace applications would be more interesting.
wild speculation (Score:2)
I suppose this is related to IE being tied into the operating system. That was initially used in a lame attempt to make an excuse why MS had to force IE on their windows users. But now it's becoming a problem. Their current, most secure browser won't run even ONE version of OS behind? wow.
Not that any serious person really wants to continue using vista if they have any choice in the matter. Besides getting another OS upgrade sale under their belt I'm sure this was one of the driving factors.
Re: (Score:2)
What does it matter.... (Score:2)
Everyone is still using IE6 anyway.
(If they're using IE at all that is. Everyone else is on Firefox, Chrome, etc..)
Internet Explorer? I think I've heard of it... (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... Internet Explorer? Oh yeah - that thing I use to load Chrome, Firefox and Opera on a new PC?
Why? Does it do something else i'm unaware of?
Re: (Score:3)
You need four browsers on a system?
A developer or tester of a web site needs each browser.
The owner of a PC used by multiple people in a household might need to approve installation of multiple browsers. One needs IE for work, someone else prefers Chrome, someone else needs a specific Firefox extension, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You need four browsers on a system?
A developer or tester of a web site needs each browser.
Bingo! Congratulations, you win a no-prize.
Firefox & XP (Score:2)
Vista (Score:2)
.
But not nearly as much as some of Microsoft's customers wish that Windows Vista had never occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
IE won't run on Vista? (Score:2)
King of Kings (Score:2)
- From Ozymandias [wikipedia.org], by Percy Shelley
Best use for IE (Score:3)
The best use for IE is to download another browser after installing Windows.
Safari is similar... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, they do build it for XP, Vista and 7. so in effect, they're supporting rival operating systems that are older than their own. That's interesting as it enables them to fragment the opposition more; giving the older OS users less of a reason to upgrade to 7...
I'll be honest though, I'd like to see IE10 on other platforms. It won't happen, but I think the underlying changes and the direction that a current Microsoft are taking are good. Crap marketing speak not withstanding, IE9 is a good browser, whatever the past history for the name.
Continued OS integration (Score:2)
This just goes to show you they have not learned yet that tying your client ( browser ) into your OS at that level is bad thing for security.
Who on earth (Score:3)
Engineering the decline of their own market share (Score:2)
Installed IE9..saw there was no way to configure a separate search bar or disable blurry type and uninstalled it after 10 minutes.
IE10 may be a good browser in its own right but with millions still on XP and Vista they are basically forcing those users to other browsers while pissing off content developers in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO this is a non-event in terms of pissing off content developers. That's water under the bridge, since MS has already been dragged (kicking and screaming) in the direction of standards compliance. IE6 (universally loathed by content developers) has already been EOLed (it is not supported on Vista AFAIK).
This is definitely a customer-hostile move though.
Would Vista Users Even Care? (Score:3)
Every person I know who's still running Vista and hasn't bothered to upgrade to Win7 is only running Vista because that's what came on the new PC/Laptop and they didn't know any better. They certainly don't care whether they're using IE9 or IE10.
Everyone who'd actually care upgraded to Win7 so fast you could hear the sonic booms.
Okay, so we're not really using IE at all either... ... who's IE10 for again?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the deal with Slashdot still using the Bill Gates Borg icon to represent Microsoft? That icon is so dated on both levels these days. Bill Gates hasn't worked at Microsoft in years, and the Borg reference just is no longer current or relevant. Anyone under 25 would hardly get the references.
You guys just had a redesign, and you still can't deign to use the real Microsoft icon? For gods sake you have the real ones for Facebook and Twitter, it's not like its that hard. If anything, it makes slashdot just look so horribly unfunny and irrelevant.
This is an on-topic meta comment.
I don't think you get it.
Re:Slashdot's Microsoft Icon (Score:5, Funny)
I'd vote for a chair flying through a broken window!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your right. How about an angry gorilla?
Re: (Score:2)
Your right. How about an angry gorilla?
The problem is, that many people don't have the instant Steve Ballmer face recognition that they had with Bill Gates
Re: (Score:2)
If you must have it explained, you'll never understand.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the deal with Slashdot still using the Bill Gates Borg icon to represent Microsoft? That icon is so dated on both levels these days.
Well, it's from when Microsoft started. Imagine if there was an icon for aviation - a picture of Wright brothers' early gear would suit fine.
Re:Finally! This is Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Finally! This is Great! (Score:5, Informative)
That's certainly one way of spinning it. On the other hand, the way I see it is they are once again, illegally using one product to affect the users of another product. In this case, they are trying to use MSIE to draw people away from Windows XP and to buy Windows 7.
I'm waiting for someone to package MSIE9 for Windows XP. Maybe it has already been done....
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. Because we're discussing the web browser and Microsoft has a known history of leveraging its monopoly position (remember the company IS a convicted monopolist, even if the current regulatory environment makes it possible to forget that ever happened) by tying browser and OS together, it's reasonable to be concerned.
I've hated Microsoft at least since the Windows 95/DR-DOS fiasco, but I still consider any moves the company can make away from the crippling insistence on remaining backward-compatible
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to disagree. This is not great, at least for me.
The only thing a decision like this accomplishes is drawing out the time I have to keep supporting old versions. Old versions that even on the day they were released were behind in standards compliance in comparison to their competition.
What would be REALLY GREAT is if Microsoft would at least continue to provide basic updates to the rendering engine for IE8 and IE9 after IE10 is released. Even if they're just fixing and providing support for popul
Screwing your customers is not a good thing (Score:2)
No, the best thing that Microsoft could do is offer Vista users a free upgrade to Windows 7. It's bad enough that early adopters had to deal with shitty driver support, an unpolished security system, and rough edges all around. Now they cant even use new software from the same damn company that wrote the OS. On computers as new as 18 months old. Many people were avoiding Vista like the plague but a few trusted Microsoft (or were oblivious), and now the thanks they get is a big middle finger. If Microsoft is
Vista = favorite excuse to bash M$ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, same here. Been running Ubuntu on my primary desktops (home and work) since shortly after 8.04 LTS came out, and haven't looked back. Also got my youngest daughter (who is in high school) to switch a couple of months ago, and she's a satisfied Linux convert as well.
Amusing side story: Friends and co-workers who have previously relied on me for advice on troubleshooting their Windows-related problems are discovering that I'm not as reliable of a source any more, since my Windows expertise tapers off pre
Re: (Score:3)
As a remaining Vista user, I can't see the point in forking out £80 for Windows 7, and my existing PC is more than powerful enough for what I need. I doubt I'm the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's forwards compatibility.