Google bookmarks was my reason. ;) Sent from my Windows Phone From: Brian Weeden Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:18 AM To: hardware Subject: Re: [H] IE 9 is out and rocks, except if you are using 64-bit Windows To Reason 4, Chrome has a built-in sandbox for Flash and Acrobat. One of the many reasons why I switched to it.
--- Brian On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Greg Sevart <[email protected]> wrote: > Worthless article IMO. > > Reason 1: Bunch of crap. You can't upgrade at all if you're running XP, so > it's not really a reason why to CHOOSE not to, more like a lack of options. > IE9 makes use of display technologies that simply don't exist in XP. By the > way, the DirectWrite/Direct2D hardware acceleration in FireFox 4 will also > not work in XP, but they are providing fallback to legacy software > rendering. XP had a good run, but it's time for it to die. > > Reason 2: Wow, it's slower than Google's Chrome on Google's benchmark and > slower than Mozilla's Firefox on Mozilla's benchmark? Shocker! The fact is > that it's quite competitive, and I honestly think we're getting to the point > now where a few ms here and there rarely translate into any real perceptible > difference. > > Reason 3: More FUD. First, the IE downloads are by system (OS) > architecture, not by the version of IE you're installing. If you're running > x64, you need the x64 build, and that includes the x86 (32-bit) version. > Second, if the x86 version was your default before the upgrade, so it > remains after. Third, I don't think Google or Mozilla have 64-bit release > versions of their browsers, so I fail to understand how this could possibly > be a negative. > > Reason 4: The most common attack vectors anymore are Flash and Acrobat, not > the browser. Anyone who looks at raw vulnerability data knows that FF at > least isn't much--if any--better. Now, add NoScript and AdBlock, and FF > becomes a nice secure little platform, but that's a different story. > > Reason 5: The first legitimate reason, but with compatibility mode, even > this issue fades. Most of the problem is caused by braindead web developers > doing a blind check of a user-agent instead of actually testing to see what > features a browser supports. Still, that's the world we live in, and it's > why compatibility mode exists. MS maintains a list of sites that require > compat mode, and just like IE8 before it, that list will be updated as the > browser ages. > > I'm not saying IE is superior to either FF or Chrome, but that article at > least is a bunch of BS. It's a sensationalist headline and not much more. > For the record, I use IE8, IE9, Opera 11, and FF 3.6 daily. They each have > their strengths. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stan Zaske > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:01 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [H] IE 9 is out and rocks, except if you are using 64-bit > Windows > > > > Five Reasons not to “Upgrade” to Windows’ Internet Explorer 9 > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/five-reasons-not-to-8220upgrade- > > 8221-to-windows-8217-internet-explorer-9/817?tag=nl.e539 > > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:24:48 -0500, Brian Weeden > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Good review of IE9 over at Arstechnica: > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/reviews/2011/03/the-most-modern- > > brows > > > er-there-is-internet-explorer-9-reviewed.ars > > > > > > Once again, MS screws up it's own product strategy: > > > > > > "It's also a little disappointing that the 64-bit version is less > > > polished than the 32-bit version. It can't be made the default > > > browser, and it doesn't include the new, high-performance scripting > > > engine. Microsoft has long argued that 64-bit browsing isn't > > > necessary; most plug-ins are only 32-bit, and so, the argument goes, > > > browsing must be a 32-bit activity. > > > This > > > is unfortunate. One, it leads to a certain chicken-and-egg problem: > > > there's > > > little incentive to develop 64-bit plug-ins since nobody uses a 64-bit > > > browser due to the lack of plug-ins (though Adobe Flash 11 is likely > > > to include first-class 64-bit support, resolving one of the big > > > stumbling blocks). Making the 64-bit version first-class—the same > > > features and performance as the 32-bit version—and ensuring that, at > > > least, Microsoft's own plug-ins (such as Silverlight) were supported > > > would go a long way towards making 64-bit browsing viable. This is, > > > after all, much the same route as the company took with Office." > > > > > > > > > And there are good reasons why you would want to run the 64-bit > version: > > > > > > "The reason that 64-bit is desirable is particularly because it offers > > > the potential to strengthen certain anti-hacking mechanisms. Address > > > Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) depends on the ability to change the > > > in-memory layout of things like DLLs. In a 32-bit process there are > > > only a limited number of random locations that can be chosen. 32-bit > > > processes are also more vulnerable to anti-ASLR measures such as "heap > > > spraying" (wherein a large proportion of the browser's memory is > > > filled with malicious code to make it easier for an attacker to trick > > > the browser into executing it). > > > 64-bit is by no means a panacea, but it does strengthen these > > > protection systems. For something that is as frequently attacked as a > > > Web browser, this kind of defense in depth is desirable." > > > > > > Unfortunately, if you're running 64-bit Windows, you can't install the > > > 32-bit version. You're stuck with the 64-bit version, which means no > > > scripting performance improvement and far fewer plugins. Which means > > > I'm sticking with Chrome. > > > > > > --- > > > Brian > > > > > > -- > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > >
