Duncan - Absolutely, us early adopters sometimes pay the price for living on the bleeding edge. My issues with this were not really about how IE9 impacted me but more how it demonstrates how messed up Microsoft is and their strategy to promote their own platform and products.
Me, I'm happy using the best product that works for me regardless of who makes it. 6 months ago that was FF, now it's Chrome. --- Brian On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:51 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >>>> >>> >>> >>>
