Zool/Brian,
Both of you read as "Feature junkies." No harm, no foul. Load on.
I like and accept Greg's opinion. Thanks.
Now I scurry back to my XP/IE8/FF3.6 corner.
It reads to me like all of your 64-bit adopters are just being a bit
too emotional with your personal 64-bit Earth Domination vision.
Please enjoy your new-world perspective. Do great things. PAX.
The 32-bit world is alive even though you wish it to just die.
IIRC, the switch from 16-bit to mainstream 32-bit took many years.
Best,
Duncan
On 03/16/2011 20:29, Zulfiqar Naushad wrote:
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/
