Ouch, so opinionated. Uh ok, you win! LOL
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:14:39 -0500, 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/
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
