Here we go again. Just another microsoft excuse to push us to always use the latest operating system for them to make more money and to push us ever closer to the cloud concept,which I hate the idea of thinking about it.
Think about transition from Nahelem to Sandy Bridge. It's the same thing and people are still buying them! So there you have it. If you are not happy, stick with Nahelem or go AMD. Same case here. Not happy? Stick to IE9 or take up FF/Chrome or whatever you like.
Who cares? It's not like Internet Explorer is better than any other browser. IE9 should be good enough for those stuck with Vista, and if it isn't (and it isn't) they ought to use something else, like, say, Firefox or Chrome. No web browser has an ad-blocking solution like Firefox does, for example: which is why I run it on old, old computers (like ones from 2004 and older) because it blocks the ads that suck so much processor time from the actual loading of the page.
It's not a mistake to not support obsolete platforms such as Windows XP. Windows 2000 wasn't supported with as many upgrades as XP was (it's still stuck in IE6 + OE6). Was it a mistake not to give Windows 2000 IE7? No.
There are those who just won't let go of XP/Windows Server 2003 for some reason, and those people need to let go of the OS or get left behind. Besides- you will in 3 years anyways, and there's still room for VM's to take up the slack for slackers who won't re-write their programs for NT 6.x.
So let old OS's die already.
And the cloud is eventually going to be a reality though that won't happen for a while now since always-on mobile internet access isn't reasonably priced enough- so get used to it: though I hate the concept as well (I want a hard disk copy of my files so that when Microsoft screws them up, which WILL happen- remember Sidekick?- I won't lose anything).
[citation][nom]jackfrost860[/nom]I can't blame them for that, but to exclude XP and Win Svr 2003/8 is a mistake.[/citation]
Not having support for a supported OS thats going to have ongoing support for many years into the future no i can blame them. Not supporting XP and not to far behind it 2003 i cant blame them. XP at least should have stopped its suppose long ago. 2003 well I'm not sure their support cycles for server OS's. Supporting XP anymore is a mistake. Supporting XP is almost like supporting win98 anymore. Sure people still use both and so does business but thats the penalty to holding onto decade old tech.
Vista on the other hand still pretty much brand new OS. It should be updated with the new tech :/ I see no reason for this other then the people who cry about vista having tons of issues that it at least as far as i can tell doesn't even have.
Honestly, a smart business move on Microsoft's part. Supporting an older product just simply costs more money and requires the software engineers to "dumb down" the browser.
Most of us were spoiled in the sense that we were able to use Windows XP (and Windows 2000) when they were WAY past their prime. Windows 2000 was supported for 10 years, and Windows XP will be "supported" for even longer. For a piece of software, that is an extremely long amount of time.
Having said that, Microsoft needs to provide clearer upgrade paths/options for their server operating systems, or perhaps more incentives. Client/consumer machines are typically quicker at adopting new versions. But for servers, the cost to benefit to hassle ratio doesn't make upgrading servers to new versions beneficial for most.
Bad luck that we can not ignor windows 7,but we could if they upgraded the browsers for windows XP. Also statcounter may say that windows 7 has out done XP in the US,but if you check out other places they still say XP dominates...
No, I believe in choice. You have a choice don't you? MS has a choice of making it compatible with Vista but they choose not to. You have a browser of your choice. All I'm saying is, if you don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that.
Microsoft need to call a line where it comes to Legacy support!
If you do not cut ties to legacy OS, and build backward compatability for old code, you gimp your modern product.
Windows needs to be streamlined to run on current modern systems, fast, smaller in size, clever, and good looking!, there is plenty of choice out there for Legacy XP and Vista is a Failure, Microsoft recognised that in the end, let it die peacefully, not through ten years of forward updates, It will last the life of your PC (5 years) just fine without ie10/11/12.
I fully support this new way of thinking Microsoft are doing, It will speed up the advances they make and ultimately create a better OS fr us all to use!
lastly, Microsoft is not forcing anyone to go out and buy the latest and greatest product from them , Its totally your choice!
Every single manufacturer comes out with new products, Cars, TV's, Clothes, hell even lightbulbs! Its your choice to buy something, not theirs,!
[citation][nom]safgr[/nom]XP still is very popular and a lot of users are sticking with it.[/citation]
Add up how many of those users are actually office machines where the person who uses it has no control over it and all upgrades are locked down.
Millions, tens if not hundreds of millions.
Machines where the end user is at home and has full carte blanche on what they install or upgrade to there will always be a number of people who do nothing more than check emails and XP is fine for them.
But the vast majority have decided that in 10 years paying $100 to upgrade to a modern OS with all the associated beneifits, bells & whistles is well worth it.
XP isn't popular, they just have no choice in getting rid of it.
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]This is the right thing to do!Microsoft need to call a line where it comes to Legacy support![/citation]
Vista isn't a legacy product yet. Would you like it if AMD dropped driver support for HD5000 cards because there was something newer now?
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]lastly, Microsoft is not forcing anyone to go out and buy the latest and greatest product from them[/citation]
Force? Not exactly. But they are placing substantial pressure on users to do so. They are, in essence, saying "you can't have this product unless you first buy this other product that you don't want". Considering IE10 would almost certainly run on Vista if it was allowed to (despite the fact that IE is horribly embedded into whatever Windows it is 'designed for'), it's a pretty dodgy, yet effective tactic to push people to spend money unnecessarily.
Some countries have laws about tying multiple products together for the sole purpose of selling an unwanted product. It's a good thing that IE10 is gratis or Microsoft would definitely have broken some of those laws. Even now they should be careful. The EC is always watching them.
[citation][nom]cyb34[/nom]Lame strategy Microsoft... Afraid of the competition at last?[/citation]
You realize that the browsers will all run on Windows 7 right? So they will still compete against all others there, just getting rid of support for older OSes allows them to make more streamlined code by getting rid of the unnecessary bits.
Since Vista did so poorly and was not well adopted by consumers, the IE10 requirements won't pose much of an issue for the vast majority of users. For those affected, there are many (better) options. Regardless, good for MS to move on.
and MS wonders why they are loosing the browser war.
Also, what experience is the spokeswoman talking about? FF, Chrome, Opera, Safari surpass IE in all benchmarks and also support extension and other features.
IE 10 's new slogan: "IE is really fast, it downloads Chrome and FF faster than previous browsers"