Delivering Fast JavaScript Performance in Microsoft Edge
blogs.windows.com
blogs.windows.com
But the thing is, other browsers don't stand still and IE releases are so infrequent, that even if IE really is super-fast at release, within six months it's an also-ran. Maybe Edge will break this pattern? It'd be nice.
IE11, from November 2013: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Benchmarks/sunspider/Defau...
IE10, from 2012: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/140337-ie10-on-windows-7...
IE9, from 2010: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/03/18/the-new-javasc...
All three blogs that you point to talk about SunSpider benchmark (from Apple), and since IE9, or the day the first blog was published, the story holds true. Across platforms (32-bit or 64-bit), Microsoft Edge and IE remain as leaders in that benchmark across all competing browsers. The nearest competitor is around 40% slower. Here are the nos. across major browsers on SunSpider
MSEdge: 103 FF Nightly : 176 Chrome Canary: 171
Is Microsoft coupling their browser again?
Serious I think I am not alone in wanting to be able to run snow leopard on recent hardware. Apple please make software as good as your hardware.
I honestly thought IE11 would be the last major IE release, guess I was wrong. This new one looks no better.
In any case, I'm not doubting that it's easier to pitch an update if it's free. All I'm saying is that purchase cost isn't the main or only barrier to Microsoft software updates.
New Windows licenses, licensing on lots of other software, MSDN, enterprise support, and all the things that aren't upgrades of existing Windows licenses.
IIRC, those examples you listed, you don't need to install the latest OS X to get the latest version of Safari (though you need to have a recently supported OS).
I'm simply stating the following sentence is true:
Windows 10 and Edge are coupled.
The reason that Edge requires Windows 10 and not Windows 8 is that Microsoft bungled Windows 8 structurally, and they don't want to write their software for "sinking ship compliance".
Straw Man logical fallacy.
I am simply saying the following is a fact: Edge is coupled with Windows 10.
Based on a previous comment to the effect of: "It's not coupled but requires windows 10 API's"
Whether or not that is good,bad,or indifferent I make no judgement on. Especially given that both Chrome and Firefox are really great alternatives and are on a lot of platforms already.
Many versions of Safari are coupled with OS X updates.
1. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Microsoft should be "universal, across all OSs" about them releasing their new browser with their new OS. It's completely reasonable for MS to make the break with their bad browser design to occur at an OS boundary, since what was made their design exceptionally bad was largely coupling of components in to the OS.
2. You're just being completely unfair talking about the versions. The answer is just that Microsoft uses different version schemes than Google and Mozilla with regards to browsers. Your comparison about the gaps in IE compatibility would be like saying Chrome 30 isn't the same as Chrome 20. In your comment, you're comparing different sized steps, based on the assumption that an integer is a reasonable unit to compare the numbers based on. Shame that version numbers aren't numbers in that sense that that tactic doesn't work.
3. Continual updates pushed to the browser already happens under Microsoft's suggested running of Windows -- both minor upgrades (which are the equivalent of the Chrome and FF upgrades you reference), and the suggestion for major upgrades. It just doesn't happen across the board right away because of IT policies in place. This is a concession to major corporate clients who don't want tens of thousands of copies of their software across the globe randomly changing at the behest of some other company, and prefer to manage their own upgrades.
False.
This is the opposite. Edge requires windows 10. Complaining about new software having a dependency on something, is a bit odd. But this isn't even that. It's software built for a target platform. When you design software you pick hardware and OSes to support. Sometimes older versions are cut, just like older versions of Android don't get all the latest updates to Chrome.
Additionally, it turns out that most commercial OSes are going to be tied in with the OS, and consumers seem select OSes/devices that package the basics like this.
They're going above and beyond to make up for past mistakes, for that I'm grateful.
I'd be more than willing to pay a large premium for an officially supported version of OSX that runs in VMware/Virtualbox/Hyper-V/etc. But I suppose it probably isn't in Apple's best interests to offer one.
I have vagrant vm's for OS X back to 10.7. You might be able to run esx on a mac then use vm's that way but I have no idea. In either case what you want has existed for some time.