5 ms·

> No more tying the OS version to the browser version, which was always a terrible idea (looking at you Microsoft!). I mean, this hasn't really been the case e

> No more tying the OS version to the browser version, which was always a terrible idea (looking at you Microsoft!). I mean, this hasn't really been the case ever. IE versions did historically only come out with new OSes, but once out, could be downloaded on the previous few OS versions. So I wouldn't call that tying the versions together. Starting with IE2, which was included with Windows 95 OSR 1 and Windows NT 4.0 but compatible with 3.1 and stock 95, and going all the way to the latest version, IE11, which was released with 8.1 and Server 2012 R2, but can be installed on 7 and Server 2008 R2.

Someone1234 12y ago
> I mean, this hasn't really been the case ever. IE versions did historically only come out with new OSes, but once out, could be downloaded on the previous few OS versions. So I wouldn't call that tying the versions together. People on Windows XP cannot install Internet Explorer 9, 10, 11, or 12. People on Vista cannot install IE 8. People on Windows 8 cannot install IE 9. Explain to me how this isn't tying one thing to another thing? If IE was stone alone it likely would be backwards compatible with XP. > Starting with IE2, which was included with Windows 95 OSR 1 and Windows NT 4.0 but compatible with 3.1 and stock 95, and going all the way to the latest version, IE11, which was released with 8.1 and Server 2012 R2, but can be installed on 7 and Server 2008 R2. They implement a single OS version backward compatibility, good for them. It doesn't disprove that the two are tied together. The fact you cannot install IE 9 on XP but can install Chrome or Firefox, kind of hurts your case.
- mynameisvlad 12y ago
  Just like how Firefox doesn't support XP and XPSP1. At some point, old OSes won't be supported, that's just how software works, it takes extra time to support older OSes. Microsoft only supporting one or two previous OSes doesn't suddenly tie the OS version to the browser version. If Microsoft only supported ONE OS per browser, then sure, but if you can update (even if it's limited to a few versions), then the two are not directly tied.
  - RobertKerans 12y ago
    This, I feel, is an apposite article: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

Someone1234 12y ago

> I mean, this hasn't really been the case ever. IE versions did historically only come out with new OSes, but once out, could be downloaded on the previous few OS versions. So I wouldn't call that tying the versions together. People on Windows XP cannot install Internet Explorer 9, 10, 11, or 12. People on Vista cannot install IE 8. People on Windows 8 cannot install IE 9. Explain to me how this isn't tying one thing to another thing? If IE was stone alone it likely would be backwards compatible with XP. > Starting with IE2, which was included with Windows 95 OSR 1 and Windows NT 4.0 but compatible with 3.1 and stock 95, and going all the way to the latest version, IE11, which was released with 8.1 and Server 2012 R2, but can be installed on 7 and Server 2008 R2. They implement a single OS version backward compatibility, good for them. It doesn't disprove that the two are tied together. The fact you cannot install IE 9 on XP but can install Chrome or Firefox, kind of hurts your case.

mynameisvlad 12y ago
Just like how Firefox doesn't support XP and XPSP1. At some point, old OSes won't be supported, that's just how software works, it takes extra time to support older OSes. Microsoft only supporting one or two previous OSes doesn't suddenly tie the OS version to the browser version. If Microsoft only supported ONE OS per browser, then sure, but if you can update (even if it's limited to a few versions), then the two are not directly tied.
- RobertKerans 12y ago
  This, I feel, is an apposite article: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html