Well, let's agree that IE10 does well whatever it is designed to do well. Cool. Now what? We have an IE10 browser that compares well with Google Chrome, Opera and perhaps Firefox too (I don't know the exact details about your tests that were making Firefox crash as often as you've claimed in your article).
So is this the point where Microsoft takes on the real challenge? Will it go beyond its typical high-speed sales pitch for the new browser and attack the more relevant problem that is to really get those IE6/IE7/IE8 and perhaps even IE9 users to adopt IE10 immediately?
Just a few days ago, I saw on HN how IE6 has become a political election issue in South Korea!
Pushing the lazy and entrenched users out of the hole is a much more important (and harder) problem to solve than to win medals over browser speed and performance tests. Even if tests like these help push the cause of IE10, it would be appropriate to give out all details of the tests and realize why Firefox was 'disagreeing' to your test at all?
IE 6, 7 and maybe 8 users are probably running XP so can't upgrade.
IE 9 users on Vista are similarly out of luck.
I won't be recommending IE 10 even to my clients on Windows 7 or 8 until they have an silent auto-updater and a frequent release cycle. It's the only way we'll stop IE's user base holding back the web.
But it's not quite there yet because it relies on Windows Update and it only shows the option if you haven't previously declined an upgrade to a new version of IE. But at least it's a start.
This is the one thing which always mystified me about MS and IE. Why do they continually dead end their browser to a specific OS release?
I can't imagine someone in their marketing department actually thought by doing so would get people to upgrade their OS so they could have a more up to date browser.
The newer versions use features that didn't exist in older Windows. Features which are core components to how the new browsers work, both in terms of rendering and security. Someone made the decision that having these features was more important than backwards compatibility; it wasn't a marketing decision made after-the-fact. If there were no marketing department, IE10 still would not be able to run in Windows XP.
IE10 and Windows 8 are even stronger on the security points. Think of PC security as somewhat akin to vaccination. It only works for everyone when enough people are immunized. Herd immunity, it's called. Your sticking with objectively less secure browsers on objectively less secure platforms hurts us all. It's not something Microsoft should be encouraging, not just from a business or marketing standpoint, but a moral one as well.
Oh, and IE10 is objectively faster than Firefox too, thanks to the integration with DirectX 10 which is already compositing everything else on the screen in Windows 7 and 8.
Haha, I use a modern Linux 95% of the time these days, but keep an old box around for testing. I run a very tight ship and that box has never been owned (except for the one morning in ~2004 when the dcom exploit hit). Your implication that I'm a security threat is amusing.
The nice technologies the article mentions are operating system level and don't "have to" be tied to the browser. They are using fancy terms to describe security features from the 80's (on more professional systems). "Browsers can't write to the OS to install rootkits"... wow.
MS decided not to backport to further corporate goals, fine. But, the idea that IE has to be part of the OS was debunked a decade ago.
Given that IE 10 (and 9 before it) builds on core Windows APIs only introduced in Windows 7 I'd consider that unlikely. And they definitely won't invest the time and effort of backporting DirectWrite, Direct2D and whatnot to XP (this might even include DirectX 10 and/or 11 along with WARP) which is already out of mainstream support and only get security patches.
I think they should see if they can release a strip down demo version of windows. No frills or anything just the basic required functionality with clear path for upgrading. That version should be able to work on WinXP level hardware and be easy to upgrade.
I would probably be hard to offer something like this without cannibalizing some of their sales but in Asia, they have tons of users who will never purchase a legitimate version of windows but are sizable enough that they have to cater to them for other services.
If they aren't your (potential) customers and/or those of your advertisers, do you really care?
All the countries in North America, Europe and South America ex-Chile and and Venezuela are at less than 1% IE 6 usage.[1]
7 & 8, which are better but still not great developer-wise, unfortunately still have a ways to go before passing that threshold. But at a minimum you should think long and hard before pouring time into IE 6 compatibility.
I think part of the problem is that IE is the browser of choice for the Dept. of Defense. If you've ever worked for the DoD, you know that updates, etc. take forever because of security concerns. I wonder if that relationship informs IE's decision to hold back on their browser capabilities.
I'm very familiar with the DoD's byzantine and prehistoric policies. You're absolutely right. And it's ironic, because changing their patch management strategy would provide better security. The DoD is stuck in a compliance world, rather that one in which they manage risk.
Yea but IE9/IE10 are number one at stopping malicious downloads which happens to be the easiest/most prevalent way to take over a computer. Plus IE 8+ is the only browser that has TLS 1.2.
So is this the point where Microsoft takes on the real challenge? Will it go beyond its typical high-speed sales pitch for the new browser and attack the more relevant problem that is to really get those IE6/IE7/IE8 and perhaps even IE9 users to adopt IE10 immediately?
Just a few days ago, I saw on HN how IE6 has become a political election issue in South Korea!
Pushing the lazy and entrenched users out of the hole is a much more important (and harder) problem to solve than to win medals over browser speed and performance tests. Even if tests like these help push the cause of IE10, it would be appropriate to give out all details of the tests and realize why Firefox was 'disagreeing' to your test at all?