2 ms·

I agree that those four items you mentioned I think would make IE10 a very competent browser. Do you have any idea how hard they each are to implememnt (since

I agree that those four items you mentioned I think would make IE10 a very competent browser. Do you have any idea how hard they each are to implememnt (since they've all been implemented in existing browsers)? Regarding XP support -- I hope they never support it. I really wish the OS would go away. They do support WebM today, just install the codec. Presumably if you have Chrome on your machine, WebM will work with IE (I assume Chrome installs the codec). Given that IE is not open source, you will almost certainly never see a public bugtracker.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Agreed on XP. It's just a complete dead-end waste of effort at this point. XP is already 11 years old, and two major releases have happened since. Even RHEL2 is newer! It was plenty good 6 years ago, but time marches on.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- dave1010uk 15y ago
  My problem with IE9+ not supporting XP is that XP users (still a fairly large % of visitors) will still be on IE8. Some of them can manually upgrade to a newer OS or a different browser but many will be "stuck" for a few more years. Even if IE10 was released today and (perfectly) supported more web technologies than Firefox and Chrome combined then IE would still be my biggest problem in front-end development. Microsoft have (likely) spend millions on getting XP users to upgrade to Vista / 7. Releasing IE9 / IE10 for XP seems to be the most feasible way to upgrade these IE8 users. An upgrade to Windows 7 through Windows Update isn't going to happen and I can't imagine MS bundling a 3rd party browser to replace IE8 on XP.