5 ms·

Internet Explorer 9 launches tonight, we've got your early look

16 points by solipsist 16y ago

thematt 16y ago
It's refreshing to see them adopt some minimalism in the application, even if it does look like a ripoff of Chrome.
- tomlin 16y ago
  Except worse looking. Not sure what they were thinking with the tabs. For higher contrast, or those with colour deficiency it is hard to see which tab is selected. I noticed this in the beta, but had hoped it would be ironed out before the final. sigh
flexterra 16y ago
If this makes people get off IE6 & IE7 it's good enough for me.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  It will mostly get users off IE8. Users of older versions of IE who still haven't upgraded to IE8 (2 years old!) simply can't or don't want to upgrade. Also, most IE users run Windows XP. IE9 will never be available for Windows XP, so those users are stuck (unless they switch to a third party browser or buy a new computer).
  - makecheck 16y ago
    If Microsoft were truly committed to moving people off of IE6, they would have a modern solution specifically for XP users. They screwed it up, they fix it. 3rd party developers target older OS versions all the time; Microsoft should be in a great position to support XP. And even if they don't want to, they should still have an official stance that encourages the use of some modern browser, even if it means they have to suck it up and recommend Firefox for XP users. Better still, issue a service pack for XP that installs Firefox automatically; then IT groups can be sure that a modern browser is on all their machines, and internal apps can finally target the modern browser and require its use.
    - tzs 16y ago
      Microsoft is trying to kill BOTH IE 6 and XP. Encouraging modern browsers on XP would work against kiling XP.
      - makecheck 16y ago
        Mac OS 9.2 was released in June of 2001, several months after Mac OS X 10.0. And 9.2.2 arrived after 10.1 had been released. Sometimes you don't just cut the cord, you evolve the old and the new.
    - likpok 16y ago
      No other operating system manufacturer (outside of the embedded realm) does anything near what Microsoft does for XP. Suggesting that it is a failing of the IE team to not support XP is a little disingenuous with the rest of what people say. I see very few people complaining that Apple killed the PowerPC line, and XP far predates that. Microsoft has been pushing people off of XP for ages, but many people hold the misapprehension that XP is 'good enough' in some sense. This is further complicated by the fact that most people who still use XP don't want the system to change. If Microsoft were to release such a service pack, the first thing that nearly all of the IT groups of whom you speak would do would be to block it from automatically installing. Those that wouldn't would have already set up the base install to have a modern browser (IE8, Firefox, Chrome).
      - tomlin 16y ago
        Microsoft has been pushing people off of XP for ages, but many people hold the misapprehension that XP is 'good enough' in some sense It's true in some sense. Vista really made Windows users question further upgrades. I personally couldn't wait to move from Windows 3.1 to 95, 98 to 2000, 2000 to XP. Super excited for these upgrades. I had no such enthusiasm for Vista after seeing initial reports and usability findings. Thankfully Windows 7 is far superior to Vista and XP and definitely a much more inviting experience.
      - noibl 16y ago
        > No other operating system manufacturer (outside of the embedded realm) does anything near what Microsoft does for XP. Who are you including in that category apart from Apple? Compatibility with 30-year-old OS features is often considered a worthwhile goal among current UNIX descendants. > I see very few people complaining that Apple killed the PowerPC line, and XP far predates that. Is WinXP compatible with x86 and x86-64? Is Win7 not compatible with those? I don't see what point you're making by mentioning CPU architectures. And the 'universal binary' made this switch largely transparent to owners of either CPU. > many people hold the misapprehension that XP is 'good enough' in some sense Leaving aside the accuracy of this, surely if it is a misapprehension then it should cause problems only for those people. Instead Microsoft have made it clear that it's a problem for their own profit growth and that those users need to be coerced into upgrading. But even that's being done in a half-assed way that makes it more of a problem for web developers. Which other Microsoft titles are being developed to be XP-incompatible? Certainly not Office 2010. Aside: backwards compatibility was largely maintained under Mac OS Classic from 1984 to 2001. The break, coming with OS X, was necessary, not contrived.
dholowiski 16y ago
More importantly, when will iFixit have their teardown?
noibl 16y ago
Is it possible to move the tabs onto their own line? I rarely browse with fewer than 10 tabs open so having them share space with the address bar and buttons would be pretty awkward. Likewise, long addresses are obscured by the fixed width of the 'one box' even when all the space to the right is vacant. Can that be resized? I would like to be able to just try it out instead of asking basic questions but first I would have to make a Windows 7 VM etc. etc.
- zaatar 16y ago
  Yes, dedicated tab row was one of the #1 feature requests, and indeed, was fixed for the IE9 Release Candidate. See: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/15/user-experiences-listen-learn-refine.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/15/user-experienc...
  - noibl 16y ago
    That apparently kills both birds.[1] Thanks for the link. :) [1] http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/IEBlog/2011/Feb/uellr-image7.png http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/IEBlog/2011/Feb/uellr-imag...
thematt 16y ago
Does the big back button on the left bother anybody else? It's layering looks horrible. Either bring it to the front or decrease it's size so the bottom isn't cut off.
- noibl 16y ago
  It looks a bit wrong but it's an effective use of space (creating emphasis and a comfortable click zone while also conserving real estate).
aDemoUzer 16y ago
Why not compare it against firefox 4, rather than 3.6? Acid: 97 SunSpider: 426.7ms Peacekeeper: 3221 Points Chrome 12: SunSpider: 417.5ms Peacekeeper: 7030 Points
- noibl 16y ago
  Because it's the stable release, not beta.
tajddin 16y ago
I just can't stand the cut-off back button and the odd WPF-inspired font anti-aliasing. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Otherwise, a decent release.
cookiecaper 16y ago
I'd like to see them compare against Firefox 4 RC instead of Firefox 3.6.15. Firefox 4 is going to be final in the next couple of weeks or sooner, and IE9 is not final yet either. A comparison against Fx4 and Chrome 10 would be much more representative of the current state.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  Alright, I applied some Google-fu to find out how FF4 RC1 scores on the same tests that Engadget mentioned in the IE9 article. FF4 RC1 scores 97/100 on the Acid3 test, IE9 scores 95/100. We don't need to go into the accuracy of the rendering, they both fail. It would be nice if they caught up, Apple has been shipping an Acid3 compliant browser for 21 months already. Then there's SunSpider, the results of which differ as different hardware is used, but in all the reports that I found, IE9 scores better than FF4 RC1. And lastly, there's Peacekeeper. FF4 RC1 is dead last in that test, by quite a long ways. So it didn't really matter whether Engadget used FF 3.6 or FF4 in their tests. UPDATE: IE9 is out now: http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/ http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/
thenduks 16y ago
Feels to me like a browser that isn't cross-platform doesn't have much legs in 2011 (at least Safari can pull the WebKit card)... I use multiple platforms every day and it just doesn't make much sense to use a different browser on each one. I guess they'll get the current IE8 users, hopefully even convince some people to get new machines or upgrade to W7 -- all good for a web developer. But as an actual competing browser? I don't think so.
drdaeman 16y ago
Yeah, "the next-generation Web" of the previous generations. There's no support for: — HTML5 forms. More precisely, <input>s with types of "search", "tel", "url", "email", "datetime" (even more, anything of /^date.*/), "number", "range", "color"; <select>, <datalist>, <progress> and <meter> elements. Also no support for :valid, :invalid, :optional and :required selectors. — "placeholder" (!), "autofocus", "autocomplete" and "multiple" attributes. — HTML5 history API (let's all enjoy the hashbang kludges) — HTML5 drag and drop — HTML5 app cache — Microdata — IndexedDB — FileReader and FileWriter APIs — WebSockets — WebGL — Web Workers (Source: http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/ie/115460/#comment_3739820 http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/ie/115460/#comment_3739820 [in Russian]. The list contains only features that are supported by at least one browser.)

16 points by solipsist 16y ago

thematt 16y ago

It's refreshing to see them adopt some minimalism in the application, even if it does look like a ripoff of Chrome.

tomlin 16y ago
Except worse looking. Not sure what they were thinking with the tabs. For higher contrast, or those with colour deficiency it is hard to see which tab is selected. I noticed this in the beta, but had hoped it would be ironed out before the final. sigh

flexterra 16y ago

If this makes people get off IE6 & IE7 it's good enough for me.

Samuel_Michon 16y ago
It will mostly get users off IE8. Users of older versions of IE who still haven't upgraded to IE8 (2 years old!) simply can't or don't want to upgrade. Also, most IE users run Windows XP. IE9 will never be available for Windows XP, so those users are stuck (unless they switch to a third party browser or buy a new computer).
- makecheck 16y ago
  If Microsoft were truly committed to moving people off of IE6, they would have a modern solution specifically for XP users. They screwed it up, they fix it. 3rd party developers target older OS versions all the time; Microsoft should be in a great position to support XP. And even if they don't want to, they should still have an official stance that encourages the use of some modern browser, even if it means they have to suck it up and recommend Firefox for XP users. Better still, issue a service pack for XP that installs Firefox automatically; then IT groups can be sure that a modern browser is on all their machines, and internal apps can finally target the modern browser and require its use.
  - tzs 16y ago
    Microsoft is trying to kill BOTH IE 6 and XP. Encouraging modern browsers on XP would work against kiling XP.
    - makecheck 16y ago
      Mac OS 9.2 was released in June of 2001, several months after Mac OS X 10.0. And 9.2.2 arrived after 10.1 had been released. Sometimes you don't just cut the cord, you evolve the old and the new.
  - likpok 16y ago
    No other operating system manufacturer (outside of the embedded realm) does anything near what Microsoft does for XP. Suggesting that it is a failing of the IE team to not support XP is a little disingenuous with the rest of what people say. I see very few people complaining that Apple killed the PowerPC line, and XP far predates that. Microsoft has been pushing people off of XP for ages, but many people hold the misapprehension that XP is 'good enough' in some sense. This is further complicated by the fact that most people who still use XP don't want the system to change. If Microsoft were to release such a service pack, the first thing that nearly all of the IT groups of whom you speak would do would be to block it from automatically installing. Those that wouldn't would have already set up the base install to have a modern browser (IE8, Firefox, Chrome).
    - tomlin 16y ago
      Microsoft has been pushing people off of XP for ages, but many people hold the misapprehension that XP is 'good enough' in some sense It's true in some sense. Vista really made Windows users question further upgrades. I personally couldn't wait to move from Windows 3.1 to 95, 98 to 2000, 2000 to XP. Super excited for these upgrades. I had no such enthusiasm for Vista after seeing initial reports and usability findings. Thankfully Windows 7 is far superior to Vista and XP and definitely a much more inviting experience.
    - noibl 16y ago
      > No other operating system manufacturer (outside of the embedded realm) does anything near what Microsoft does for XP. Who are you including in that category apart from Apple? Compatibility with 30-year-old OS features is often considered a worthwhile goal among current UNIX descendants. > I see very few people complaining that Apple killed the PowerPC line, and XP far predates that. Is WinXP compatible with x86 and x86-64? Is Win7 not compatible with those? I don't see what point you're making by mentioning CPU architectures. And the 'universal binary' made this switch largely transparent to owners of either CPU. > many people hold the misapprehension that XP is 'good enough' in some sense Leaving aside the accuracy of this, surely if it is a misapprehension then it should cause problems only for those people. Instead Microsoft have made it clear that it's a problem for their own profit growth and that those users need to be coerced into upgrading. But even that's being done in a half-assed way that makes it more of a problem for web developers. Which other Microsoft titles are being developed to be XP-incompatible? Certainly not Office 2010. Aside: backwards compatibility was largely maintained under Mac OS Classic from 1984 to 2001. The break, coming with OS X, was necessary, not contrived.

dholowiski 16y ago

More importantly, when will iFixit have their teardown?

noibl 16y ago

Is it possible to move the tabs onto their own line? I rarely browse with fewer than 10 tabs open so having them share space with the address bar and buttons would be pretty awkward. Likewise, long addresses are obscured by the fixed width of the 'one box' even when all the space to the right is vacant. Can that be resized? I would like to be able to just try it out instead of asking basic questions but first I would have to make a Windows 7 VM etc. etc.

zaatar 16y ago
Yes, dedicated tab row was one of the #1 feature requests, and indeed, was fixed for the IE9 Release Candidate. See: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/15/user-experiences-listen-learn-refine.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/15/user-experienc...
- noibl 16y ago
  That apparently kills both birds.[1] Thanks for the link. :) [1] http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/IEBlog/2011/Feb/uellr-image7.png http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/IEBlog/2011/Feb/uellr-imag...

thematt 16y ago

Does the big back button on the left bother anybody else? It's layering looks horrible. Either bring it to the front or decrease it's size so the bottom isn't cut off.

noibl 16y ago
It looks a bit wrong but it's an effective use of space (creating emphasis and a comfortable click zone while also conserving real estate).

aDemoUzer 16y ago

Why not compare it against firefox 4, rather than 3.6? Acid: 97 SunSpider: 426.7ms Peacekeeper: 3221 Points Chrome 12: SunSpider: 417.5ms Peacekeeper: 7030 Points

noibl 16y ago
Because it's the stable release, not beta.

tajddin 16y ago

I just can't stand the cut-off back button and the odd WPF-inspired font anti-aliasing. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Otherwise, a decent release.

cookiecaper 16y ago

I'd like to see them compare against Firefox 4 RC instead of Firefox 3.6.15. Firefox 4 is going to be final in the next couple of weeks or sooner, and IE9 is not final yet either. A comparison against Fx4 and Chrome 10 would be much more representative of the current state.

Samuel_Michon 16y ago
Alright, I applied some Google-fu to find out how FF4 RC1 scores on the same tests that Engadget mentioned in the IE9 article. FF4 RC1 scores 97/100 on the Acid3 test, IE9 scores 95/100. We don't need to go into the accuracy of the rendering, they both fail. It would be nice if they caught up, Apple has been shipping an Acid3 compliant browser for 21 months already. Then there's SunSpider, the results of which differ as different hardware is used, but in all the reports that I found, IE9 scores better than FF4 RC1. And lastly, there's Peacekeeper. FF4 RC1 is dead last in that test, by quite a long ways. So it didn't really matter whether Engadget used FF 3.6 or FF4 in their tests. UPDATE: IE9 is out now: http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/ http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/

thenduks 16y ago

Feels to me like a browser that isn't cross-platform doesn't have much legs in 2011 (at least Safari can pull the WebKit card)... I use multiple platforms every day and it just doesn't make much sense to use a different browser on each one. I guess they'll get the current IE8 users, hopefully even convince some people to get new machines or upgrade to W7 -- all good for a web developer. But as an actual competing browser? I don't think so.

drdaeman 16y ago

Yeah, "the next-generation Web" of the previous generations. There's no support for: — HTML5 forms. More precisely, <input>s with types of "search", "tel", "url", "email", "datetime" (even more, anything of /^date.*/), "number", "range", "color"; <select>, <datalist>, <progress> and <meter> elements. Also no support for :valid, :invalid, :optional and :required selectors. — "placeholder" (!), "autofocus", "autocomplete" and "multiple" attributes. — HTML5 history API (let's all enjoy the hashbang kludges) — HTML5 drag and drop — HTML5 app cache — Microdata — IndexedDB — FileReader and FileWriter APIs — WebSockets — WebGL — Web Workers (Source: http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/ie/115460/#comment_3739820 http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/ie/115460/#comment_3739820 [in Russian]. The list contains only features that are supported by at least one browser.)