7 ms·

Well, I'd love to do that (upgrade to IE9 and get the magical wonderful experience that no other browser offers). Let's try...oh wait, you mean I need to buy a

Well, I'd love to do that (upgrade to IE9 and get the magical wonderful experience that no other browser offers). Let's try...oh wait, you mean I need to buy a new version of Windows? Hmm, uh, well, okay then...oh wait, you mean I'd also need to buy a new computer to go with it? Well screw that, I'm staying right here with Opera, Chrome, and FF. Buying a new computer just to pin Pandora seems the tiniest little bit of an overkill - no other browser offers that, indeed.

twapi 15y ago
>> you mean I need to buy a new version of Windows? +1
- jtsagata 15y ago
  you mean I need to buy a version of Windows?
coderdude 15y ago
Yep, you'll have to upgrade your 12-year-old operating system. Positively absurd isn't it? Editted to elaborate: It's not upgrading for the sake of upgrading. 12 years may as well be 100 years in the tech sector. Windows XP is end-of-life'd in 2014. Why on Earth would Microsoft release a brand new browser on a dead OS? They're not going to spend another 5 years of time and money on that dinosaur patching security issues for something they haven't even sold in God knows how long. Expecting them to is completely unreasonable. The fact that they've supported us XP users for even this long shows how committed they are. It's also not upgrading simply because the OS is old. Lots of old things still run fine. Windows XP is not in that class of things. It will continue to have security issues for as long as people are on the platform. Also, if you're worried about whether you'll be able to eat tomorrow or pay your rent then upgrading your computer and upgrading to IE9 are both very irrelevant to your life right now. @politician: Because Chrome and FireFox strive for platform independence while Microsoft does not, which allows them to take advantage of Windows-only features and APIs; Some of which may actually be quite useful (like some kind of native DirectX rendering of pages, for example). It does come down to money though. As I said before, they don't have a good reason to support a new browser and its various security fixes on an operating system they're about to stop updating forever.
- bunderbunder 15y ago
  Meanwhile in the smartphone world, people are complaining that Android apps don't advantage of newer APIs in order to support OSes that are only a few years old.
- techiferous 15y ago
  The choice between (1) 12-year-old operating system and (2) current operating system seems like a no-brainer. But I suspect the choice for some people is between (1) upgrading 12-year-old operating system and (2) paying rent/eating.
- kgen 15y ago
  I'm not sure that's how people think of it, if someone just came up to you and said that your desk is coming up on 5 years and you should replace it, or your car is nearing a decade and you should replace it "just because", I'd be pretty hesitant.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    Current cars aren't going to last a full decade without some repairs and maintenance. People don't maintain their computers very well. And upgrading your operating system is part of that maintenance process after a while. Plus changing computers is probably cheaper than a new transmission after 10 years.
    - Piskvorrr 15y ago
      Yup, exactly: Ashtray in the car is full? Well buy a new car then! (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point: most stuff is built shoddy and unrepairable - for you to buy new shoddy and unrepairable stuff to replace it)
  - freehunter 15y ago
    If your current 12 year old car had a 2 star crash rating while the newer ones had a 4 star crash rating and you knew there were people on your daily commute actively looking to smash your car, you'd probably want to upgrade. Same as if there were people roaming with flamethrowers ready to burn down your wooden deck unless you get a fire-resistant deck installed. Also, this car/deck costs less than $100. Security holes aren't a "just because" thing.
simba-hiiipower 15y ago
One of the greatest factors that's been holding MSFT back in recent years has been its need to maintaining this backward compatibility (among other things).. Sure, with an OS like Windows (which, let’s be honest, much of the world depends heavily on) it's somewhat necessary, but the plug has to be cut somewhere. I’d say in the case of XP that should have been a few years ago, but, at this point, 2014 makes sense as it gives Windows 8 some time to mature in the market before forcing mass enterprise adoption. This need to maintain backwards compatibility has presented a huge competitive disadvantage for them as players like AAPL, who freely ditches compatibility in favour of performance (and sales) regularly, can produce higher quality products utilizing the latest technological developments. MSFT seems to have finally realized this (likely in part due to looming threats to its dominance and in part from what appears to be a refreshed outlook on product development), and this is for the better. ..And come on, you're really still using XP?
- Piskvorrr 15y ago
  Yes, quite a lot of notebooks (not to mention netbooks) still use XP around here (most were upgraded from Vista); usually not directly exposed to the internet. They're sloooooowly getting replaced with new hardware with W7, but yes, XP is still the predominant OS around here. For the users, "nuke and reinstall" is still faster and cheaper than "buy a new OS, and install"; and there is a significant "screw this, I'm getting a Macbook" crowd amongst those who would consider an upgrade. As for me, personally - I use XP when I need IE, and then in a limited VM, for as long as needed; so the scenario of always-on, open-to-internet XP box doesn't apply. (I would still be using XP today - but for a new laptop with Vista and no upgrade options some time ago: it drove my frustration high enough to leave Windows as my primary OS altogether.) So yes, I use XP in a limited way, if I need it.
  - simba-hiiipower 15y ago
    Well if IE is so important to you and you're running it virtually anyways, might as well jump up a couple generations and grab the Windows 8 Consumer Preview: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/consumer-preview http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/consumer-previe... I have to say that in using it over the past few weeks as essentially my primary OS I'm really liking it and actually think MSFT's heading in a good direction with it. Plus you get IE10.

twapi 15y ago

>> you mean I need to buy a new version of Windows? +1

jtsagata 15y ago
you mean I need to buy a version of Windows?

coderdude 15y ago

Yep, you'll have to upgrade your 12-year-old operating system. Positively absurd isn't it? Editted to elaborate: It's not upgrading for the sake of upgrading. 12 years may as well be 100 years in the tech sector. Windows XP is end-of-life'd in 2014. Why on Earth would Microsoft release a brand new browser on a dead OS? They're not going to spend another 5 years of time and money on that dinosaur patching security issues for something they haven't even sold in God knows how long. Expecting them to is completely unreasonable. The fact that they've supported us XP users for even this long shows how committed they are. It's also not upgrading simply because the OS is old. Lots of old things still run fine. Windows XP is not in that class of things. It will continue to have security issues for as long as people are on the platform. Also, if you're worried about whether you'll be able to eat tomorrow or pay your rent then upgrading your computer and upgrading to IE9 are both very irrelevant to your life right now. @politician: Because Chrome and FireFox strive for platform independence while Microsoft does not, which allows them to take advantage of Windows-only features and APIs; Some of which may actually be quite useful (like some kind of native DirectX rendering of pages, for example). It does come down to money though. As I said before, they don't have a good reason to support a new browser and its various security fixes on an operating system they're about to stop updating forever.

bunderbunder 15y ago
Meanwhile in the smartphone world, people are complaining that Android apps don't advantage of newer APIs in order to support OSes that are only a few years old.
techiferous 15y ago
The choice between (1) 12-year-old operating system and (2) current operating system seems like a no-brainer. But I suspect the choice for some people is between (1) upgrading 12-year-old operating system and (2) paying rent/eating.
kgen 15y ago
I'm not sure that's how people think of it, if someone just came up to you and said that your desk is coming up on 5 years and you should replace it, or your car is nearing a decade and you should replace it "just because", I'd be pretty hesitant.
- nkassis 15y ago
  Current cars aren't going to last a full decade without some repairs and maintenance. People don't maintain their computers very well. And upgrading your operating system is part of that maintenance process after a while. Plus changing computers is probably cheaper than a new transmission after 10 years.
  - Piskvorrr 15y ago
    Yup, exactly: Ashtray in the car is full? Well buy a new car then! (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point: most stuff is built shoddy and unrepairable - for you to buy new shoddy and unrepairable stuff to replace it)
- freehunter 15y ago
  If your current 12 year old car had a 2 star crash rating while the newer ones had a 4 star crash rating and you knew there were people on your daily commute actively looking to smash your car, you'd probably want to upgrade. Same as if there were people roaming with flamethrowers ready to burn down your wooden deck unless you get a fire-resistant deck installed. Also, this car/deck costs less than $100. Security holes aren't a "just because" thing.

simba-hiiipower 15y ago

One of the greatest factors that's been holding MSFT back in recent years has been its need to maintaining this backward compatibility (among other things).. Sure, with an OS like Windows (which, let’s be honest, much of the world depends heavily on) it's somewhat necessary, but the plug has to be cut somewhere. I’d say in the case of XP that should have been a few years ago, but, at this point, 2014 makes sense as it gives Windows 8 some time to mature in the market before forcing mass enterprise adoption. This need to maintain backwards compatibility has presented a huge competitive disadvantage for them as players like AAPL, who freely ditches compatibility in favour of performance (and sales) regularly, can produce higher quality products utilizing the latest technological developments. MSFT seems to have finally realized this (likely in part due to looming threats to its dominance and in part from what appears to be a refreshed outlook on product development), and this is for the better. ..And come on, you're really still using XP?

Piskvorrr 15y ago
Yes, quite a lot of notebooks (not to mention netbooks) still use XP around here (most were upgraded from Vista); usually not directly exposed to the internet. They're sloooooowly getting replaced with new hardware with W7, but yes, XP is still the predominant OS around here. For the users, "nuke and reinstall" is still faster and cheaper than "buy a new OS, and install"; and there is a significant "screw this, I'm getting a Macbook" crowd amongst those who would consider an upgrade. As for me, personally - I use XP when I need IE, and then in a limited VM, for as long as needed; so the scenario of always-on, open-to-internet XP box doesn't apply. (I would still be using XP today - but for a new laptop with Vista and no upgrade options some time ago: it drove my frustration high enough to leave Windows as my primary OS altogether.) So yes, I use XP in a limited way, if I need it.
- simba-hiiipower 15y ago
  Well if IE is so important to you and you're running it virtually anyways, might as well jump up a couple generations and grab the Windows 8 Consumer Preview: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/consumer-preview http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/consumer-previe... I have to say that in using it over the past few weeks as essentially my primary OS I'm really liking it and actually think MSFT's heading in a good direction with it. Plus you get IE10.