4 ms·
Just to clarify for those that haven't read the answers, this doesn't look anything like the "IE9 team" responding. It looks like a marketing team responding.
by points 16y ago
Just to clarify for those that haven't read the answers, this doesn't look anything like the "IE9 team" responding. It looks like a marketing team responding.
That's why you get BS answers like "XP is a platform that doesn't allow for the performance characteristics of a modern web experience."
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- riffraff 16y agobut d2d is not available on xp, so they are not actually telling lies, the tl;dr version is correct, they simply don't want to port new apis to old boxes.
- robin_reala 16y agoFirefox 4 worked around the same problem by accelerating using Direct3D on XP boxes: there’s a small shim that decides which API to use. Seems like the IE team were unwilling to go down this route.
- sid0 16y agoThe best part is that Firefox 4 is going to ship with four backends for its layers API: Direct3D 9 for XP, Direct3D 10 for Vista/7, OpenGL for Mac/Linux, and software as a fallback.
- sid0 16y agoThat quote is out of context. Yes, GDI on XP is faster than GDI on Vista or 7, but that is irrelevant to any discussion of IE9. Direct2D is a much more expressive API than GDI (think Cairo vs XRender on Linux), so obviously it's going to be a lot faster.
- heresy 16y agoCheers, not sure why I thought Direct2D was supported on XP. Deleted my comment for being factually incorrect.
- nuclear_eclipse 16y agoPersonally, I prefer that comments don't get deleted; you lose context for the conversation to anyone reading the thread later. Just update it to say it's incorrect, or just leave it as is and corrected by the replies.
- philjackson 16y agoI'm just wondering; if they had said "we don't want to have to spend time and money backporting new APIs and we want to encourage you to upgrade Windows", how would we react? Frankly I would have far more respect for an honest answer like that.