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/
