Well, I'd love to do that (upgrade to IE9 and get the magical wonderful experience that no other browser offers). Let's try...oh wait, you mean I need to buy a new version of Windows? Hmm, uh, well, okay then...oh wait, you mean I'd also need to buy a new computer to go with it? Well screw that, I'm staying right here with Opera, Chrome, and FF. Buying a new computer just to pin Pandora seems the tiniest little bit of an overkill - no other browser offers that, indeed.
Yep, you'll have to upgrade your 12-year-old operating system. Positively absurd isn't it?
Editted to elaborate:
It's not upgrading for the sake of upgrading. 12 years may as well be 100 years in the tech sector. Windows XP is end-of-life'd in 2014. Why on Earth would Microsoft release a brand new browser on a dead OS? They're not going to spend another 5 years of time and money on that dinosaur patching security issues for something they haven't even sold in God knows how long. Expecting them to is completely unreasonable. The fact that they've supported us XP users for even this long shows how committed they are.
It's also not upgrading simply because the OS is old. Lots of old things still run fine. Windows XP is not in that class of things. It will continue to have security issues for as long as people are on the platform.
Also, if you're worried about whether you'll be able to eat tomorrow or pay your rent then upgrading your computer and upgrading to IE9 are both very irrelevant to your life right now.
@politician: Because Chrome and FireFox strive for platform independence while Microsoft does not, which allows them to take advantage of Windows-only features and APIs; Some of which may actually be quite useful (like some kind of native DirectX rendering of pages, for example). It does come down to money though. As I said before, they don't have a good reason to support a new browser and its various security fixes on an operating system they're about to stop updating forever.
Meanwhile in the smartphone world, people are complaining that Android apps don't advantage of newer APIs in order to support OSes that are only a few years old.
The choice between (1) 12-year-old operating system and (2) current operating system seems like a no-brainer. But I suspect the choice for some people is between (1) upgrading 12-year-old operating system and (2) paying rent/eating.
I'm not sure that's how people think of it, if someone just came up to you and said that your desk is coming up on 5 years and you should replace it, or your car is nearing a decade and you should replace it "just because", I'd be pretty hesitant.
Current cars aren't going to last a full decade without some repairs and maintenance. People don't maintain their computers very well. And upgrading your operating system is part of that maintenance process after a while.
Plus changing computers is probably cheaper than a new transmission after 10 years.
Yup, exactly: Ashtray in the car is full? Well buy a new car then! (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point: most stuff is built shoddy and unrepairable - for you to buy new shoddy and unrepairable stuff to replace it)
If your current 12 year old car had a 2 star crash rating while the newer ones had a 4 star crash rating and you knew there were people on your daily commute actively looking to smash your car, you'd probably want to upgrade. Same as if there were people roaming with flamethrowers ready to burn down your wooden deck unless you get a fire-resistant deck installed.
Also, this car/deck costs less than $100. Security holes aren't a "just because" thing.
Well, y'know, back in the day, we used to say "if it's not broken, don't throw it out." Of course, that was before the current tech boom, where you absolutely must throw away anything that's older than a year (correction: older than two weeks), whether it works or not, else you'd be a social outcast - because the New And Shinier point release Sucks Less, And You NEED It. New iThisOrThat, gotta catch 'em all!
As for that 12-year old operating system I paid for and which I still keep inside of a VM: I'd drop it, but the damn IE just refuses to run anywhere else. And now I'm supposed to shell out for another Win to run alongside that? Yes, I'm aware that's MS's main business model; happiness is not currently required for purchase (IANAL of course).
Edit: I am definitely not facing a choice of food versus W7, that was some other poster; it just seems to me that I don't see that much extra benefit for me from paying MS for a new OS. (and no, XP is not my primary OS; that one was released some months ago)
I don't know if there was a point in there or not, but...
People don't generally use a C64 with an always-on Internet connection as their main computer. C64 viruses and malware are fairly rare. Windows XP malware, on the other hand, is all too common.
Yup, eventually XP becomes less attacked, and in practice, more secure.
While people moving in droves to newer untested Windows that are heavily attacked.
I'll stay with XP until it becomes undefendable. Then i'll move to Linux.
Do you have a better reason why he should buy new software other than, "because it's old"? Sounds like his current setup does everything he needs it to do right now. I haven't seen any compelling reason why Windows 7 is better than XP for day-to-day use. A lot of people are getting Windows 7 now only because the computers they're running XP on are slowly dying out, and you generally can't buy a new computer with XP.
Come to think of it, I have an entire shop full of all kinds of tools, many of which are more than 12 years old. Should I replace my workhorse power drill? My cylinder hone? My bench grinder? Heck, I've got a 1940's DeWalt radial arm saw with a neat feature -- I can unbolt the motor and flip it over and turn it into a router. Should I replace that with a new thing too?
I know there are some things that Windows 7 does better, and many things it does different, but the chart doesn't include anything I'd consider a compelling reason to switch, based on the usages we see.
From the chart:
Find files and programs instantly.
People don't use Windows search to find their files and programs. They go to their desktop. Or to "My Documents" (or "Documents"). They go to that one folder where they always dump everything. And then they scroll through it and pretty quickly find what they're looking for because it's still in the same place it's been every other time they've gone looking for it.
Open programs and files you use most in a click or two.
The programs and files that people use most are always on their desktop, regardless of whether it's Windows XP or Windows 7.
Connect to any available wireless network in just three clicks.
Of all the complaints we hear about using a computer, this isn't one of them, except when the wireless network was incorrectly set up and the WEP key was entered into the hash boxes, which confuses the hell out of XP depending on the contents of the hash. (XP will sometimes think the wireless network is expecting a security certificate and will complain that it doesn't have one.)
Navigate lots of open windows more quickly.
This is a power user problem. Most of the people we work with have just a few windows open: email (Outlook, typically), a web browser (Chrome, if they're one of our clients), and then either Word or Quickbooks. Typically.
Easily share files, photos, and music on your home network.
Ha ha. People share photos on Facebook now. Very few of our home clients have anything that any reasonable computer nerd would consider a "home network".
Print to a single printer from any PC in the house.
I literally don't understand what Microsoft is trying to claim here. Windows XP works fine with sharing printers, and besides, I think most printers sold now have network capabilities built-in.
Manage printers, cameras, and other devices better.
Better how? Again, not a problem that people actually seem to have, and certainly not something that 7 does so much better that it's got a reputation for being "compelling" here.
Organize lots of files, documents, and photos effortlessly.
Again, how? Organization comes down to the user's habits, not the operating system. Last I saw, Windows 7 still used the same files-and-folders paradigm that XP did. Am I missing something huge here? Are files "taggable" now?
Built-in defense against spyware and other malware.
Funny, that still hasn't stopped Windows 7 from being infected. Oh, and Windows Defender was pushed to XP as an update ages ago.
Help keep your data private and secure.
Again, HOW? What does 7 do here that is fundamentally different from XP?
Manage and monitor your children’s PC use.
OK, this has actually come up, and Windows 7 does have some nice features for this. However, there have also been plenty of third-party tools for doing the same with Windows XP.
Designed for faster sleep and resume.
Who cares?
Improved power management for longer battery life.
More dependent upon hardware than software, and I see almost as many power cords as laptops every time my Go club meets at Starbucks.
Create and share movies and slide shows in minutes.
Amongst our clients, the people who actually do this are exclusively Mac users.
Get the most realistic game graphics and vivid multimedia.
...If there are no XP-compatible drivers for your video card, that is.
Stream music, photos, and videos around your house.
We have maybe two or three clients out of several hundred that do this kind of stuff. One uses Apple TV, I don't know what the others use. Again, not exactly a must-have for a lot of people.
Connect to your home PC media library while you're away.
Organization comes down to the user's habits, not the operating system. Last I saw, Windows 7 still used the same files-and-folders paradigm that XP did. Am I missing something huge here? Are files "taggable" now?
Well, there are the Libraries[1], but in my limited experience, I've never see anyone creating new ones or adding folders to the existing ones; in fact, I think the whole concept is unclear and confusing to someone who hasn't read a guide or article about them.
...If there are no XP-compatible drivers for your video card, that is.
Well, there's DirectX 10/11, since XP is stuck on 9. To me the differences are somewhat irrelevant, but I know many a gamer who dropped $400 to get a new graphics card and a copy of Vista just because of it.
Well, that's a nice resource. IMHO, 70% of that list is "improved this and that", which is understandable; another 20% are actual reasons which would make me consider an upgrade, and the remaining 10% is just mumbo-jumbo ("print from any computer in the house" - I mean, was this point left in the feature list since Win98?). I agree that 64-bit support is practically nil for XP, and its security record is horrifying; this was much improved in later OSes. I guess it's a "something for everyone" kind of comparison :)
Don't be obtuse--there is a vast difference between machine tools and operating systems.
Here's a better reason: because it's old and will no longer be receiving updates, one of which is support for new versions of IE. Good on you if you see no compelling reason to switch to Windows 7 from XP. I see no reason to uninstall 3.11 from my old Compaq 386, but then again I also don't bitch that it doesn't support WebSockets.
We need to stop defending people that refuse to upgrade their operating systems while at the same time complaining about not being able to run new applications.
I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to drive home a point that seems to be impossible for those of us who live behind a computer to understand: that for many people, the computer is a tool, just like their TV, just like their microwave, just like their car, just like their wrench set.
They want to use the same tool for as long as they possibly can, to get the maximum value out of it. They do not understand why computers are the only tools which seem to need constant attention and maintenance, even more than cars.
And I don't really think they're wrong, either. If anything, I think that the mobile phone and tablet markets are proof that computers are becoming more like tools, not less. So why can't we -- the programmers and developers and designers and engineers behind these tools -- accept that?
We need to stop demanding that people treat computers completely differently from all of their other tools.
The amazing thing isn't that Firefox/Chrome/Safari run so well on XP--it's that they run at all. That they do so is more due to their status as hobby projects (effectively) than as paid products.
EDIT: Note that I respect those other projects immensely... and that the truth is that their goal/motivation is different from IE. Consider, for example, that at the end of the day Chrome is a Google product, and in some way must tie into the advertising thrust of the company. So, it makes sense to try and make it available for as many things as possible.
If it's still being supported, why should they? Has it gone stale? Bad case of rust in the networking stack? Or is it just because it would suit Microsoft's business model better if it did rust away?
Care to explain why Chrome and Firefox run just fine on XP? It seems to me that every excuse for upgrading the OS is rendered moot by the observation that the two primary competitors have no problem running on XP.
Just call it what it is - an attempt to increase the price of browsers from free to non-free by tying upgrades to the OS.
One of the greatest factors that's been holding MSFT back in recent years has been its need to maintaining this backward compatibility (among other things)..
Sure, with an OS like Windows (which, let’s be honest, much of the world depends heavily on) it's somewhat necessary, but the plug has to be cut somewhere. I’d say in the case of XP that should have been a few years ago, but, at this point, 2014 makes sense as it gives Windows 8 some time to mature in the market before forcing mass enterprise adoption.
This need to maintain backwards compatibility has presented a huge competitive disadvantage for them as players like AAPL, who freely ditches compatibility in favour of performance (and sales) regularly, can produce higher quality products utilizing the latest technological developments.
MSFT seems to have finally realized this (likely in part due to looming threats to its dominance and in part from what appears to be a refreshed outlook on product development), and this is for the better.
Yes, quite a lot of notebooks (not to mention netbooks) still use XP around here (most were upgraded from Vista); usually not directly exposed to the internet. They're sloooooowly getting replaced with new hardware with W7, but yes, XP is still the predominant OS around here. For the users, "nuke and reinstall" is still faster and cheaper than "buy a new OS, and install"; and there is a significant "screw this, I'm getting a Macbook" crowd amongst those who would consider an upgrade.
As for me, personally - I use XP when I need IE, and then in a limited VM, for as long as needed; so the scenario of always-on, open-to-internet XP box doesn't apply. (I would still be using XP today - but for a new laptop with Vista and no upgrade options some time ago: it drove my frustration high enough to leave Windows as my primary OS altogether.) So yes, I use XP in a limited way, if I need it.
Well if IE is so important to you and you're running it virtually anyways, might as well jump up a couple generations and grab the Windows 8 Consumer Preview:
I have to say that in using it over the past few weeks as essentially my primary OS I'm really liking it and actually think MSFT's heading in a good direction with it. Plus you get IE10.
That's a limited OS (legally, not technically) - an evaluation version, to be precise. "Don't want to buy Win7 (right now)? Buy Win8 (in a little while)!" just substitutes one expenditure for another (IANAL, but it doesn't look like you could use an evaluation version of Windows for an unlimited time).
But getting to try IE10 and IE10metro is useful, I agree.
It's not that Microsoft writes terrible software, it's that they deliberately cripple things like HTML5 which threaten to establish a new non-proprietary non-Windows platform as the standard to which all software will be written.
What I wonder is, how do "normal" people actually find these sites? Microsoft have these campaigns every now and then, highlighting the capabilities of their new versions, but why would John Smith visit "browserfame.com"?
They tend to run offline campaigns at the same time: some time ago, at IE9 launch, there was a huge promotional campaign trying to credit HTML5 to MS - something like "We're changing the web. Forever." (Gee thanks, but doing that once with IE6 was quite enough) staring at you from every RL advertising space anywhere.
I like that they include a cute cat as a point of reference, so I can tell how outdated IE9 is by comparing it to Peak Lolcat on Google Trends[0]. I realize this is a bit unfair to IE9, but it's not too far off.
The funny thing about this commercial, marketing-wise, is that it isn't making fun of older IE versions. It's making fun of us geeks who hated older IE versions.
The primary message is: "you geeks who hated us, give us a chance!" But I get the feeling the subtext is more important: "normal non-geeky people have always preferred IE, and now all you normal non-geeky people have an excuse to ignore all those silly geeks who tell you to uninstall it."
Edit: one other thing -
This commercial has the anti-IE guy trying to "uninstall" older versions of IE. It looks like he's dragging the icon to the trash bin. That bit was interesting primarily because, as I recall, you couldn't uninstall IE before Windows 7, particularly not by doing anything as simple as dragging it to the trash bin. I guess he's just doing what a lot of us have done: trying to make sure an unsuspecting family member doesn't just have the icon there to reflexively click on.
We're doing that geeky thing now where we're delving too deep into minutiae, but:
> as I recall, you couldn't uninstall IE before Windows 7, particularly not by doing anything as simple as dragging it to the trash bin.
Sorta, kinda. In XP, you could "uninstall" IE by going to the "Windows features" part of Add/Remove Programs. This would make IE no longer the default browser on the user's system, and make it slightly harder to access, but it was still there.
Dragging the desktop icon to the recycle bin would trigger some warning I don't clearly recall, but would still leave IE as the default web browser on the user's system, available at the top of the Start menu.
From the rest of the page (references to PBR, fixies, moustaches etc.) it appears to be attacking hipsters and accusing you of being hipster if you still don't like IE, because it's not "cool". So they're implying IE has always been good, it just went out of fashion amongst a certain set of people, (that no-one on the internet seems to like).
>"It's making fun of us geeks who hated older IE versions."
It's also making fun of people who are still ranting about browser wars in the post-LoLcat era, e.g. all those people who used IE to download other browsers.
At a deeper level it reminds me of the WP7 "Really?" campaign by the contrast it draws between obsessive behavior in regards to technology and life away from the screen. It even shares the motif of a woman in bed being ignored.
I know that the article says this is a comedy website, but are they also trying to be "funny" on their testimonials page. (Capitalisation is direct copy/paste, I'm not shouting! )
> "IE9 OFFERS FUNCTIONALITY THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE IN ANY OTHER BROWSER."
Like, lack of developer tools and the requirement to buy a new operating system?
> "IE9 is one of PCWorlds best products"
That reminds me why I haven't shopped at PCWorld ever.
> "INTERNET EXPLORER 9 TAKES THE BROWSER SECURITY CROWN."
Just no. This one won't even hard to disrepute.
> Chrome sucks, freezes on FB, back on IE and it seems to be great! #Chrome #FB #IE9
Yeah, everything on their testimonials page is totally a bag of lies. I actually thought whoever made the site was trying to be serious, but then I saw they quoted Engadget.
> "The new IE is way better than Chrome, especially in terms of safety. You are only fooling yourself to stay loyal to one browser"
Engadget have never said this. The article they link to for this testimonial is actually,
Sorry, IE has had built in dev tools for ages. The current dev tools in IE9 are better than those shipped with Firefox, and on par with Chrome's. (and I say this as someone who's been using Firefox as a primary browser for years).
The reason developers hate working with IE isn't because they're teenage nerds with OCD. Why are they trying to ostracize the very people who are responsible for converting the home market to other browsers? It's not like soccer moms and CIOs are the audience for this video. And why focus on selling IE9/Windows 7 when IE10/Windows 8 is around the corner?
It will be very interesting to see this strategy applied to, let's say, Windows XP, the Start menu, the WIMP paradigm etc.. when Microsoft is tired of those!
How's the silent browser update from Microsoft coming? Australia and Brazil were lined up for January. Is it making a difference getting all XP users on IE8 and Vista and Win7 users on IE9, and hopefully IE10 later this year.
In this article they also mention the GMailMan ad (to promote Office 365) I followed the link, and found that it was very interesting as a satyre of contextual/personalized advertising.
I can't wait until they're making fun of themselves for this fucking horrible ad. The people who hate IE, like koeselitz said, are the tech geeks who know what's wrong with it. I can't imagine a stupid ad like this that rests its merit on childish cat humor and will appeal to much of IE's hate-base. I don't think Microsoft will ever be able to come across as cute and playful no matter how hard they try at this point.
IE9 is the only browser among safari/chrome/firefox/ie that I can't get to render html5 audio tags, or respect document.createElement('audio').canPlayType tests. Ridiculous.
nope. ie can go to hell. I hope every future version of ie has less and less market share, and I wish it a painful, but fast death.
if you're a frontend developer, you've got to have that 'ie moment' curse engraved into your brain.
the moment where everything gets developed smoothly in other browsers, and it fails in ie.
the moment that everything looks beautiful in other browsers, and it sucks in ie, and because the majority of the visitors use ie, you have to kill that beautiful feature.
the moment that everything runs fast (or fast enough when it comes to firefox, the new ie), and it's so fucking slow in ie you can hear your cpu fan dying too fly.
remember those moments? now integrate them over time, start from since you were young. when you're done, integrate it in another dimension over all developers all around the world. you will get a big number. a very big number, which is the number of hours that we have suffered, for free, so that fucking microsoft can sell more.
reply