|
Mozilla surprised by Microsoft's abandonment of XP support in IE9
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 21 March, 2011
Mozilla has expressed surprise after hearing that Microsoft had abandoned support for Windows XP with the release of Internet Explorer 9.
IE9, released last week, does not support the decade-old operating system, which is still the most popular operating system, although 2009's Windows 7 is quickly gaining.
According to NetApplications, XP still accounts for 55 percent of all PC users, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
22. March 2011 @ 11:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.
If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...
I'm not a fanboy of ANYTHING. I like certain things but recognize incoherent stupidity when I see it.
So can I, and I recognize some right now.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
22. March 2011 @ 11:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
No...I think most of us actually understand that. Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, and leaving behind OSs they don't want to support should make perfect sense. Nobody in particular is complaining that Microsoft doesn't want to support XP.
It's when the trolls start in and begin calling everyone who uses XP stupid, immoral luddites that people here are piping up in support of XP.
However, if Microsoft fails to support 55% of their installed user base it gives 3rd party browser providers an excellent opportunity to gain more market share.
And to add I do not think having IE9 would offer any advantage to XP. It is not like IE8 is going to stop working. Heck there is plenty of information about people unwilling to abandon IE6.
The newer browsers from Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla all are shown to perform better and offer better security on Win 7 compared to XP so to download a newer version is not much more than a GUI change
Running FF 4 on both an XP and a Win7 machine now pretty much proves that just as it did with IE8.
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
22. March 2011 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
No...I think most of us actually understand that. Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, and leaving behind OSs they don't want to support should make perfect sense. Nobody in particular is complaining that Microsoft doesn't want to support XP.
It's when the trolls start in and begin calling everyone who uses XP stupid, immoral luddites that people here are piping up in support of XP.
However, if Microsoft fails to support 55% of their installed user base it gives 3rd party browser providers an excellent opportunity to gain more market share.
This is exactly right. Microsoft makes money off the sale of Windows 7 now but it is clear by the 50 market share for XP that many believe XP is "good enough" for their current needs. I bought Windows 7 on launch day for $50 (running 64-bit version now) and could not be happier. It is leaps and bounds better than XP and Vista but that doesn't mean that most Americans aren't ok with XP.
Let's be real here. How many people use their computers for what that average AD user does? Not too many :) Most people are happy to read the news, check their emails and maybe stream some videos (Hulu, Netflix). An upgrade is certainly not required.
Eventually we will see the numbers get closer...35 percent XP, 35 percent Win7, because many people who bought computers in 2006 (or earlier :o) will be replacing soon and every new computer comes with Windows 7. Not rocket science.
I do agree with lissenup, however, when saying that if you are building a new computer and choose to put Windows XP instead of Win7, you may need to rethink your frugality a bit :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
22. March 2011 @ 12:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
No...I think most of us actually understand that. Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, and leaving behind OSs they don't want to support should make perfect sense. Nobody in particular is complaining that Microsoft doesn't want to support XP.
It's when the trolls start in and begin calling everyone who uses XP stupid, immoral luddites that people here are piping up in support of XP.
However, if Microsoft fails to support 55% of their installed user base it gives 3rd party browser providers an excellent opportunity to gain more market share.
I do agree with lissenup, however, when saying that if you are building a new computer and choose to put Windows XP instead of Win7, you may need to rethink your frugality a bit :)
Exactly what I said. Upgrading makes no sense, if you buy a new computer with 7 and downgrade or build and put XP on it, you better have some really good reasons.
|
Senior Member
|
22. March 2011 @ 12:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ps355528:
windows users are little more than sheep .. accepting forceware and paying through the nose at the whim of a big corporation...
payware operating systems are obsolete before they hit the shelves
mozilla may be surprised, but I'm not.. this is just another way to force people to scrap perfectly capable hardware.. archaologists in the future will dig through landfill sites and have a nice dating point.. the vista layer... when perfectly good 5 year old computers were scrapped in their millions just because they wouldn't run the latest pile of shit from microsucks..
anyway.. if wincrap 7 is SO fantastic how come it STILL needs antivirus and antimalware things sucking up heaps of the massive amounts of hardware power people are forced to buy in the first place.. and how come it self destructs just as often as xp or fista? .. because it's the same monolithic crap they have been conning people with for 16 years...
You know for a senior member of Afterdawn you sound very much like a troll. Only trolls say things like Microsucks and Wincrap.
It is fine that you do not like Windows but to insult the people that use it because they do like it or want/need to use it for their applications is just childish.
Also if you had any sort of clue you would realize that malware goes after who they can harm the most. If you think another operating system or software was used by so many and not be a target of attack then you are as about as ignorant as your post. No matter what Operating System or software you use Security begins and ends with the person using it. There are exploits for virtually every piece of software out there and they pretty much all require some sort of user intervention to cause damage. Security was beefed up in Windows Vista and then again in 7 just like every other Operating System does. No one is saying you are forced to upgrade but you have to accept that technology evolves and old technology cannot be supported forever.
|
|
SomeBozo
Member
2 product reviews
|
22. March 2011 @ 13:13 |
Link to this message
|
@lissenup2 -- It is interesting, and anyone on here who should argue and urge you to get Win 7 would be me, yet i'm not doing that and say upgrade if you need it and there is a benefit. Oh and I say this because if you buy it you'll be helping drive my stocks up, if their stock goes up $.50 I'll make 8K, so buy away and upgrade to Win 7, but personally i don't think it is ethical to have someone buy something they don't need. I'm not one to argue, i'm just happy to see people like you so controlled by marketing and advertising you will do something from a few 20 second advertisements and do it. In the end I'd like to say thanks for the money in my pocket :)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. March 2011 @ 13:16
|
|
POGK
Junior Member
|
22. March 2011 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
I use XP on my 12 year old laptop. Works fine for school, media, and internet access while traveling. Based on the amount of use the old girl gets there is absolutely no reason to buy a new one just for IE9 or a new OS for that matter. Beware, I am untrustworthy and could very well do abhorrent things with maple syrup to people you like.
|
|
BeezleStuff
Newbie
|
22. March 2011 @ 15:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!
Those that use the stupid reason "it works therefore I'll keep it" should bury their heads and consider keeping their Pentium Packard Bell 133MHz computers too..........because "they work".
XP users are lazy, cheap, simple-minded and can't be trusted.
As for TBandit.............YES..........those that invent and those that are innovators do want people to stay current by upgrading, and as an engineer myself.....I'm tired of people using old ass tech because of the compatibility issues with better, more current tech. Your tard way of looking at that makes you sound like you actually believe it's isolated to MS "forcing" people. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE WITH ALL TECH. What............you gonna bitch about using fuel other than gas because "it's another way for us to be forced to use electric, hydrogen, natural gas,etc"
Get a clue!
And it's precisely people like this that deserve to have every penny stripped away from them by the tech industry... I myself run 7 different OS' in various forms and versions, and the fact of the matter is, I use each one because to me they are USEFUL. Anyone can try to advance technology at breakneck speed to push us forward into a sci-fi future, but ultimately it's the consumers that decide whether they want it or not. The statistics speak for themselves, which is that a huge share of people online today are happy with XP and that's the end of it. They will change to a new OS if and when they want to, but I think we're more likely to see Microsoft backtrack on their current tactics and IE9 become available for XP in due time.
|
|
lupine25
Newbie
|
22. March 2011 @ 15:55 |
Link to this message
|
All I gotta say about this thread (not going to mention any names) is some people are just full of hate. ;) Whatever OS works for you is the best one to use. While I can see the importance of staying current (more security holes get patched over time, more features, etc) some people are fine with lower-end machines and older OSes. Heck it took my Dad a long time to loosen his grip from Windows 2000! So, to each his own, but at the same time be cautious that older OSes = more security risk.
Meanwhile, I use Linux which is impossibly easy and cheap to keep updated. ;)
|
|
banzaigtv
Newbie
1 product review
|
22. March 2011 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Come on, people. Don't whine and cry just because IE9 is not available on your 10-year-old grandfathered Windows XP. Just upgrade to Windows 7 and ditch that obsolete OS. Problem solved.
Intel Core i7-950 3.06 GHz, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, ATI Radeon HD 6770, 1.5 TB 7200 RPM HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit SP1
|
Senior Member
|
22. March 2011 @ 17:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by banzaigtv:
Come on, people. Don't whine and cry just because IE9 is not available on your 10-year-old grandfathered Windows XP. Just upgrade to Windows 7 and ditch that obsolete OS. Problem solved.
See that is not a solution either. Now if a person can upgrade I do highly recommend it for the added security and loads of other features too but not everybody can or wants to. IE9 offers better security as it should being a new version but the version of browser you use is not going to save you. IE8 or the latest version of Firefox is fine too. They should take the better steps to secure themselves than just relying on a browser.
|
Senior Member
|
22. March 2011 @ 18:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you don't see the need to upgrade to a modern OS then keep your older OS and older browser.
No one is making you upgrade.
A great many programs do not work in both XP and Win 7. I run XP in a VM... solves everything.
But seriously, If you do not need the latest OS or browser then use your old hardware and old software forever. Who is stopping you?
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
22. March 2011 @ 18:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
lissenup2, lightning struck!!!
|
Member
|
23. March 2011 @ 00:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
lissenup2, lightning struck!!!
Thank you!
?Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this... and attaining enlightenment is the least of your problems.?
?Zen Judaism by Someone Clever
|
|
ivymike
Member
|
23. March 2011 @ 10:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Makes me wonder when the patents for XP expire....Anyone here know?
When they day comes that XP *IS* too old to support current hardware/software, the folks at ReactOS should have a release candidate at the ready...
|
|
mark19821
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. March 2011 @ 10:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Alot of stuff requies windows 7, like windows messenger and the latest IE
www.priceladder.co.uk
|
Senior Member
|
23. March 2011 @ 11:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mark19821:
Alot of stuff requies windows 7, like windows messenger and the latest IE
That is true. Less and Less software and hardware drivers are supporting XP as time goes on. This is the nature of technology. For example the school district I work for where I manage IT has a entire site license for Adobe Creative Suite CS5 Master Collection and programs like Premiere Pro and After Effects require Windows Vista or Windows 7 64bit. If you still have XP I believe they give the option to obtain the 32bit CS4 versions. We also have an annual subscription to Autodesk for their AutoCAD suite and version 2012 will be Windows 7 x64 only I am told.
I only mention this because I know someone will come here and post something that it is Microsoft stopping to make updated versions of their software for XP but the truth of the matter is other companies are too.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
23. March 2011 @ 14:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by banzaigtv:
Come on, people. Don't whine and cry just because IE9 is not available on your 10-year-old grandfathered Windows XP. Just upgrade to Windows 7 and ditch that obsolete OS. Problem solved.
Or simply don't bother with IE9; there's several superior products out there. Problem solved.
Being a bloated posterior doesn't help anyone. Relax.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
23. March 2011 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
lissenup2, lightning struck!!!
Does it matter when he's immediately back as lissenup3, etc.?
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
23. March 2011 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
found him.
|
Senior Member
|
24. March 2011 @ 13:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Originally posted by mark19821:
Alot of stuff requies windows 7, like windows messenger and the latest IE
That is true. Less and Less software and hardware drivers are supporting XP as time goes on. This is the nature of technology. For example the school district I work for where I manage IT has a entire site license for Adobe Creative Suite CS5 Master Collection and programs like Premiere Pro and After Effects require Windows Vista or Windows 7 64bit. If you still have XP I believe they give the option to obtain the 32bit CS4 versions. We also have an annual subscription to Autodesk for their AutoCAD suite and version 2012 will be Windows 7 x64 only I am told.
I only mention this because I know someone will come here and post something that it is Microsoft stopping to make updated versions of their software for XP but the truth of the matter is other companies are too.
Oh the irony! :D
Autodesk only keep updating AutoCAD because their users are too old fashioned to move onto its successor Inventor. rofl
Originally posted by core2kid:
Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.
Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.
(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. March 2011 @ 13:29
|
|
valentine
Newbie
|
25. March 2011 @ 12:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just for Listenup2 and the rest of his ilk, there are many hundreds of thousands of systems running XP controlling many industrial systems and processes that require XP systems to maintain and modify them, where the old addage " If its working its doing what it is supposed to do, so dont try to modify, update, or do anything that will stop it doing its thing. They don't care what the latest software is capable of, or whether anybody is supporting it, it's only only you theoretical whizz kids that feel they know all there is to know about computing when in actuality youre spouting your so called knowledge about probably 20% of the uses of computers.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
25. March 2011 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.
Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.
(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.
|
|
Darney53
Newbie
|
25. March 2011 @ 14:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.
If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...
I'm not a fanboy of ANYTHING. I like certain things but recognize incoherent stupidity when I see it. I'm a pragmatic and highly objective and not subjective in the wrong situations so pipe down because you're sorely mistaken.
As for "fanboyism"......wake up! You're either a fanboy of Apple products or MS products or Hp, Dell, IBM, etc but calling out those that are lazy and cheap that retain severely outdated tech like XP is not being a "fanboy" because I'm not emphasizing anything other than GET CURRENT.
Being behind hinders the progress of modern day networks, the performance of employees and especially hinders tech trying to concentrate on resolving issues with CURRENT DAY TECH.
You really need to check your head before calling out someone that has clearly made a much more valid point than you. I see you as a politician.........the wrong people in positions of authority and power. You're a MOD man........set a better example.
Some of us cannot afford all the upgrading needed to run Windows 7. So should just stop using my computers to do the things we need to do?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. March 2011 @ 17:04
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 16:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.
Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.
(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.
*sigh*
I know what version of Win7 I installed on this and other old netbooks mate.
{Yet another person who has no idea how services run in an OS. Pro and Ultimate provide access to a greater number of them only and I mean ONLY if they are called upon.}
Ultimate runs as least as well as XP Home ever did on them and they are frankly more stable.
================================================================
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. March 2011 @ 21:01
|
