Hacker News Reader

Comment by csmeder | Hacker News Reader

How many important W3C tests pass on windows XP running IE9?

None... (IE9 wont run on XP)

How many important W3C tests pass on windows XP running Firefox 3.6?

Most...

And according to Wikipedia as of April the XP has a OS market share of 52.94% This value is the median of 7 different data sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...

What this means is that by Microsoft refusing to make IE9 available for XP, web developers often can't take advantage of CSS3 or HTML5 and still reach even 70% of the audience.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/chrome-continu...

I would tend to agree with pavs that this is more FUD from Microsoft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

View on HN

You're missing the bigger, and much more legitimate omission: Windows Mobile 7 is running with IE7. Which effectively means these things won't work their way into WinMo for at least a year after the release of IE9.

Since Windows Mobile 7 isn't out yet, I'd like to note that the current version of Windows Mobile's IE is a hybrid of IE6's rendering engine with IE7's JavaScript engine, a Franken-browser no one is ever truly going to support.

So we are going to say that a standard is only a standard if it's considered important by you? A standard is a standard. It's either supported, or not. Firefox devs don't just sit there and say "Hey, we have 80% of the standards done, that's enough. The rest isn't important."

As for the XP talk: wtf does that have to do with IE9?

IE9 won't run on XP, Microsoft can release this for Windows 7 and still hinder development of web apps. They look good in the public eye "Hey, we are 99% CSS3 and 99% HTML5 we are standards complaint" but in truth screwing us just as they have for years. If they wanted to stop screwing us they would release a compliant browser for XP and offer it as an upgrade in a windows update.

"IE9 won't run on XP"

Yeah, I know. So what?

"Microsoft can release this for Windows 7 and still hinder development of web apps."

So, instead of building a better browsing experience, they should port IE9 back to XP... despite it not supporting half of what they need it to support to do what IE9 is doing?

I understand what you are asking. I understand why you think it's reasonable. I disagree, however, because it's not reasonable, and it's a very bad idea for many reasons. It's also silly, and ignorant.

Edit: Ignorant might sound strong, but I really do think you just don't know why backporting IE9 to XP is probably a bad idea. I'm not calling you stupid.

it's a very bad idea for many reasons

The only bad reason that I can think of is that they might want to use IE9 as an incentive for XP users to upgrade to Win7. I can't think of any others. (Maybe you could share.)

If XP users want a more compliant browser without upgrading from XP, they'll have no problem, though, so this doesn't sound like a good choice of leverage on Microsoft's part.

It's quite simple. IE9 will be making use of OS features that aren't available on XP, which is after all a nine year old OS. MS have chosen to take advantage of OS features in their OS-specific browser. No mystery.

I was kind of hoping for something more specific. After all, WebKit manages to use modern APIs (CoreAnimation, etc.) on MacOS X, yet Chrome and Safari both ship on XP. Can you think of anything that can't be easily shimmed?

Web Kit isn't a single rendering engine.

http://www.quirksmode.org/webkit.html

There is a reason Safari on OSX performs much better then on Windows. Safari and Chrome are differnet browsers. Safari on Mac is different from Windows, even at the basic level. Web Kit is a foundation, not the end result.

Run over to the IE9 testing site, and run the animated stuff on Chrome and on Safari, and you'll see abysmal results when run on a Windows machine. Then, run the same test with Safari on Mac, and it will be like night and day.

Now, if IE9XP can't support the same features of IE9Win7 like SafWin can't support the same features as SafOSX, then there is arguably more harm in supporting XP from a developer stand point, and therefore, a user standpoint. As a developer, it's like having 2 more browsers to check for IE9XP/IE9Win7.

That's not even getting into the security concerns with XP.

Even Apple doesn't support Safari on Cheetah!

Even Apple doesn't support Safari on Cheetah!

I'll hazard a guess that this might have to do with the success they've had in getting users to update off of old versions. While you might be able to find a Tiger box out in the wild, I bet you'd never find someone running Cheetah. Doesn't over 60% of HTTP traffic come from XP boxes, in contrast?

They are using Direct2D (or DirectSomethingOrOther) for the hardware accelerated rendering. I don't believe this is available on XP. There will no doubt be a bunch of other Win7/Vista specific bits of functionality that would build up to an appreciable amount of hassle when implementing an XP version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com