4 ms·

Also they need to support XP. XP usage is still mind-boggling-high: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 h

by Tobani 13y ago

Also they need to support XP. XP usage is still mind-boggling-high: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.... ~1/3 of windows users are still forced to run IE8 at best. If Chrome, Firefox and Opera can run on XP why can't IE11?

usaphp 13y ago
Maybe because Windows XP is 12 years old now, and people who use Windows XP are mostly from third world countries who don't really care wether they have IE6 or IE11 installed.
- 300bps 13y ago
  There are, sadly, a ton of Enterprise clients still using Windows XP as well as a ton of home users in first world countries. Windows XP still works "good enough" for most computing tasks. Having said that, since I'm used to more modern operating systems I find I'm lost on XP now but for people that never left it, it generally works "good enough".
  - mgkimsal 13y ago
    "Windows XP still works "good enough" for most computing tasks." Well... when those computing tasks increasingly involve using web services, then no, Windows XP doesn't still work "good enough".
    - mixmastamyk 13y ago
      What do web services have to do with XP?
      - mgkimsal 13y ago
        If I reword that as "services on the web", does that make it any clearer?
        phaemon 13y ago
        No, it still sounds equally daft. You are aware that the latest version of Firefox runs on XP, right? So what "services on the web" do you think are affected by running XP?
        300bps 13y ago
        That doesn't help at all. I think you mean applications on the web that aren't compatible with Internet Explorer 8 which is the latest version of Internet Explorer that Windows XP can install. But that is negated by the fact that the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox work fine on Windows XP so that is not an issue.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  For a computer-buyer? It's 6 years old, not 12. If you bought a computer in January 2007, it ran Windows XP. That computer could've been a 2 Ghz dual-core 64-bit machine that should still run fine today, but the operating-system bundled with it is end-of-life. We all know computer sales are in a slump because quite frankly a computer from 2007 is fine at most of today's computing tasks. So are you really shocked that users of such machines are bothered by the fact that their OS is now unsupported with no free-upgrade path?
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  people who use Windows XP are mostly from third world countries We're still being migrated from XP to Win7, if they keep doing the upgrades as people's computers come off lease (so they avoid extra downtime) I think the projected finish date was mid/early next year. At least 3 of my coworkers (~20 person team inside IT) are still on XP, this is a largish US corporation.
bskap 13y ago
Because one of those browsers is a core component of the operating system, used in a ton of places and embeddable by other programs which means a major update can potentially break a lot of things. And the others are just standalone programs that only have to worry about their own performance.
- Tobani 13y ago
  I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way. They could keep the core os component running the old version and have the newer standalone version of the browser running next to it. There may be some minor technical hurdles with all the shared libraries. Sure. But there's no reason it couldn't be done.
- laumars 13y ago
  Microsoft could still build a standalone version of IE if they really wanted. The reason they cut off support is laziness, greed (pushes people to buy new windows licences), and there's likely some legal issues due to the old anti-trusts cases where MS argued that IE couldn't be separated from the OS.
  - pionar 13y ago
    So, not wanting to maintain two separate codebases is laziness? How about the ROI on such a solution is hideously low.
    - laumars 13y ago
      What about the code base we all have to maintain supporting those shit browsers? Plus I doubt it's that fundamental a change to the code base. Just point IE to a few newer DLLs and write a different deployment package. If MS are able to update .NET, DirectX and all their other libraries and maintain backwards compatibility then I'm sure they could with IE as well. There's no real technical reason hampering them, just a lack of incentive and plenty of excuses. And the ROI point is moot because it's already been pointed out that all of the other big browsers still support XP. Every 3 years its the same bullshit, MS release a new version of Windows and suddenly all their new software cannot run on their older versions of Windows - as if this new OS magically changes the way how Trident works. As someone who's hacked his way around some of Windows internals, I don't buy MSs marketing, it's just a ploy to sell more copies of their latest OS.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Seems to me that most people still on XP are stuck on XP due to ingrained resistance to updates. Who says they will be allowed to update IE even if they could?

by Tobani 13y ago

usaphp 13y ago

Maybe because Windows XP is 12 years old now, and people who use Windows XP are mostly from third world countries who don't really care wether they have IE6 or IE11 installed.

300bps 13y ago
There are, sadly, a ton of Enterprise clients still using Windows XP as well as a ton of home users in first world countries. Windows XP still works "good enough" for most computing tasks. Having said that, since I'm used to more modern operating systems I find I'm lost on XP now but for people that never left it, it generally works "good enough".
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  "Windows XP still works "good enough" for most computing tasks." Well... when those computing tasks increasingly involve using web services, then no, Windows XP doesn't still work "good enough".
  - mixmastamyk 13y ago
    What do web services have to do with XP?
    - mgkimsal 13y ago
      If I reword that as "services on the web", does that make it any clearer?
      - phaemon 13y ago
        No, it still sounds equally daft. You are aware that the latest version of Firefox runs on XP, right? So what "services on the web" do you think are affected by running XP?
      - 300bps 13y ago
        That doesn't help at all. I think you mean applications on the web that aren't compatible with Internet Explorer 8 which is the latest version of Internet Explorer that Windows XP can install. But that is negated by the fact that the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox work fine on Windows XP so that is not an issue.
Pxtl 13y ago
For a computer-buyer? It's 6 years old, not 12. If you bought a computer in January 2007, it ran Windows XP. That computer could've been a 2 Ghz dual-core 64-bit machine that should still run fine today, but the operating-system bundled with it is end-of-life. We all know computer sales are in a slump because quite frankly a computer from 2007 is fine at most of today's computing tasks. So are you really shocked that users of such machines are bothered by the fact that their OS is now unsupported with no free-upgrade path?
tbrownaw 13y ago
people who use Windows XP are mostly from third world countries We're still being migrated from XP to Win7, if they keep doing the upgrades as people's computers come off lease (so they avoid extra downtime) I think the projected finish date was mid/early next year. At least 3 of my coworkers (~20 person team inside IT) are still on XP, this is a largish US corporation.

bskap 13y ago

Because one of those browsers is a core component of the operating system, used in a ton of places and embeddable by other programs which means a major update can potentially break a lot of things. And the others are just standalone programs that only have to worry about their own performance.

Tobani 13y ago
I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way. They could keep the core os component running the old version and have the newer standalone version of the browser running next to it. There may be some minor technical hurdles with all the shared libraries. Sure. But there's no reason it couldn't be done.
laumars 13y ago
Microsoft could still build a standalone version of IE if they really wanted. The reason they cut off support is laziness, greed (pushes people to buy new windows licences), and there's likely some legal issues due to the old anti-trusts cases where MS argued that IE couldn't be separated from the OS.
- pionar 13y ago
  So, not wanting to maintain two separate codebases is laziness? How about the ROI on such a solution is hideously low.
  - laumars 13y ago
    What about the code base we all have to maintain supporting those shit browsers? Plus I doubt it's that fundamental a change to the code base. Just point IE to a few newer DLLs and write a different deployment package. If MS are able to update .NET, DirectX and all their other libraries and maintain backwards compatibility then I'm sure they could with IE as well. There's no real technical reason hampering them, just a lack of incentive and plenty of excuses. And the ROI point is moot because it's already been pointed out that all of the other big browsers still support XP. Every 3 years its the same bullshit, MS release a new version of Windows and suddenly all their new software cannot run on their older versions of Windows - as if this new OS magically changes the way how Trident works. As someone who's hacked his way around some of Windows internals, I don't buy MSs marketing, it's just a ploy to sell more copies of their latest OS.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Seems to me that most people still on XP are stuck on XP due to ingrained resistance to updates. Who says they will be allowed to update IE even if they could?