Internet Explorer 9 Will Have Windows 7 SP1 Bits

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Vladislaus: because that's what the patches previous IE9 releases (platform previews) installed along with itself did.

Yes, I do read hotfix descriptions.

Also, DirectX in XP required an update until SP2, in which DirectX 9.0c was embedded: so, in XP ever since 2004, updating DirectX meant adding a few libraries with precompiled shaders.

Here, we're talking about changing a part of Windows 7's video and GUI system, as Direct2D is a primary component of these: changing it requires a reboot.
 
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]In this day and age a reboot should not be required for the majority of updates. It certainly shouldn't be forced on you at any rate, which Windows does (less so than it did in XP, but it still does).[/citation]

Anything done to system files, will require a reboot because you can't alter files while they're in use. Same with kernel updates.
 
[citation][nom]rpmrush[/nom]Pirated version is why you wouldn't update.[/citation]
This might be touching on a good point. I wonder if SP1 will include the little phone home service that was released as KB971033. I certainly wouldn't that even on a legit copy. I can't see any reason not to include it in the SP.

[citation][nom]gogogadgetliver[/nom]This is a pretty common misconception.[/citation]

Righto, thanks for the clarification.

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Anything done to system files, will require a reboot because you can't alter files while they're in use. Same with kernel updates.[/citation]

Amazing that only Windows seems to have this problem (and maybe OSX, I don't use it to know). Perhaps it should remove its lock on system files once they're in memory. I've never had to reboot to install an update on Linux, even a kernel update. In the case of the kernel updates I only need to reboot if I want to use the new kernel. I can even delete the running kernel from the disk if I so choose. I've certainly never been bugged over and over that I need to reboot. Maybe Windows has a short memory span and that's why it only lets you postpone a reboot for 4 hours at a time. That's a step up from XP which gave you 30 seconds to save your work before it killed your session.
 
Yawn
Just another stupid booring WinBloat product that will never be used.

Nothing to see here move along.

 
@randomizer:
For DOS/Win32 compatibility reasons, the NT kernel keeps a link between all files running in the Win32/Win64 subsystem(s) and makes said files read only. In the UNIX case, though, the system makes a link not to the file, but to the inode: so, if the file is modified, in fact a new file is created and the older inode is deleted only when the last process linking to it is killed.

This allows updating pretty much any system component without having to reboot, but you at least need to restart the process for the update to be taken into account. Thing is, UNIX is supposed to be modular: so, you can stop, say, the GUI without having to restart all non-GUI apps.

You'll still need to reboot if you update a non-modular part of the kernel, and if you update the main C library and/or INIT, you end up restarting most processes anyway - in which cases a reboot is cleaner.

As far as I know, this is valid for Solaris, GNU/Linux, all BSDs, MINIX - and Mac OS X.
 
Wow guys, serious MS hate here. IE9 is great! Fast, minimalist, but with equal functionality. I like how the address bar is the same as the search bar and it is how you type things that routes it as an address or search. Real inovation Microsoft. Now if only they would sell Windows 7 for $40 and I would be fine being legal. Hope Google Chrome OS becomes the standard some day.
 
So now Microsoft wants you to upgrade from XP because of the browser?
And it won't have all features in Vista?
And if you have 7 it might require a reboot?

How can anyone want to use this browser?
 
On a side note, most of windows problems when it has problems is due to third parties or there software mucking it up. IE Malware, Bloat ware, Toolbars, and terrible programming. If you are smart with windows careful what you click on, and don’t install software you really don’t need you will be happy with Windows for a long time. But I would take the functionality, customization, and economy of a windows machine over the ubber reliability, functionality lock down, and exuberant price of a MAC.
 
Anyone notice now that Windows 7 32-bit is faster on the same machine then xp sp3 with all the updates. Very sad how they mucked up XP.
 
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Amazing that only Windows seems to have this problem (and maybe OSX, I don't use it to know). Perhaps it should remove its lock on system files once they're in memory.[/citation]

You can't remove a lock once it's in memory. Here is why: With data (heap) the virtual memory manager backs data in memory with pagefile.sys. In the case of executable code the data will never change. With that in mind it makes little sense to copy it up into memory then in the case of a shortage copy it back out to pagefile.sys. Instead just designate those pages as backed by the actual file on disk. So in essence the executable on disk becomes it's own miniature pagefile.sys.

While a little clumsy during upgrades it's actually quite elegant during runtime.

 
[citation][nom]djhg2000[/nom]So now Microsoft wants you to upgrade from XP because of the browser?And it won't have all features in Vista?And if you have 7 it might require a reboot?How can anyone want to use this browser?[/citation]

OOOOhh the lamenting of our women. The wails of misery we all endure from Microsoft, oh sorry, Micro$oft. Every time your PC reboots a kitten gets cancer. Settle down dude. You're giving haters a bad name with that weaksauce whining.
 
[citation][nom]allankhouri[/nom]Anyone notice now that Windows 7 32-bit is faster on the same machine then xp sp3 with all the updates. Very sad how they mucked up XP.[/citation]

Yeah they went and took the ability for XP to offload graphics processing to a dedicated GPU away so now it runs slower than Windows 7 on modern hardware. Oh wait, no they didn't it could never do that at all.

I know I know.. they completely rewrote the TCP/IP stack in XP to make it slower.. no wait. They rewrote the Win7 one to be faster. That can't be it.

They took away SSD trim support from XP! No wait...it never had that either. Just a sec it's coming to me..

They took away all the automatically scheduled defrag and other maintenance that was running in the middle of the night.. no, that's Windows 7 too. Crap this is hard.

I know..they took away the optimizations in the memory manager and set it back to 256mb "optimum" settings! No, that's how XP shipped. Still working man bear with me..

OOH OOH I got it. The got rid of superfetch and went back to raw unmanaged buildup in the prefetch folder. No that's backwards again.

I give up. I can't figure out why XP from circa 2003 doesn't run as well on 2010 hardware. I just can't figure it out.
 
While I love your wit and indepth knowledge of Windows 7. I believe your not trully understanding my comment possibly due to my less then discriptive explanation. What I am saying is on an older machine that when XP SP3 is first installed it is equal to or faster then Windows 7. By the time you install all of microsoft updates. It's performance plummets.
 
I'll admit ignorance of the problem. I put XP out to pasture a long time ago.

If I were charged with analyzing/troubleshooting the issue the first thing I would ask: What aspect of performance? Boot time, UI response?, app performance? I'd really need baseline perf metrics to even begin. The second question would be: what else changed during that update time? The common scenario would be patching while putting a new rig together. Did your prefetch become populated during that time? Did you load adobe, antivirus, or other apps during that time? Did you defrag after swapping nearly every .dll, driver, and executable?
If it's bad then call MSFT. They offer FREE support on issues that arise from updates/service packs. YMMV with XP though 🙁
 
It was just the windows updates that I did, before installing any other applications. I am not familiar with the prefetch files. As far as performance goes, Load up times, and application start up both slowed dramatically as well as network performance. Probably due to the UAC that was implemented in one of the patches. But one thing is for sure. Win7 32 is the better choice even on older machines especially if they have good 3d video cards. Even with 512MB it still runs faster in my personal test. Also noticed XP drivers work 90% of the time even if there is no Win 7 drivers, chances are the device will still install with the older drivers. I am a freelance computer tech and an employee of HP so I get lots of practice and experience with these things. On a side note, I am looking forward to Android possibly being the source of a free Google OS from X64 machines. Wouldn’t that be great?!? Gogo, have you tried IE9? What are your thoughts? I only wish the little icons on the side were drop downs and not stay on windows if you know what I mean, but I love its look and its speed.
 
I tried it but hit a bug (to be fixed before RTM) and had to uninstall after a bit. I don't notice the speed but that's just my rig. One of the overlooked slowdowns in all browsers is the fact they cache. Yes this is good for networking but once you swap your drive for an SSD it will blow your hair back. The HTML5 performance is really looking awesome and I think that will be a differentiator in the next few years. Favorite feature though: The "snap" features that integrate with Win7. Know that "snap left, snap right" thing you can do with multiple apps on your screen? IE9 lets you tear off tabs and snap them the same way. Cheesy I know but I've been wanting that for a while. The "make a webpage an app" feature is also pretty slick.

I'm not one with a strong browser opinion though. You can really only tell differences in speed if you are benchmarking. The naked eye doesn't usually distinguish...even with javascript. Interface asthetics are very subjective. I do like the cleaner UI but I'll end up turning the status bar back on the bottom. Really IE8 doesn't suck...in fact you can't really find a "bad" browser anymore as long as you're running the latest.
 
[citation][nom]gogogadgetliver[/nom]OOOOhh the lamenting of our women. The wails of misery we all endure from Microsoft, oh sorry, Micro$oft. Every time your PC reboots a kitten gets cancer. Settle down dude. You're giving haters a bad name with that weaksauce whining.[/citation]

I find it amusing how insults are your only defense.

You also completely missed my point.

It's a BROWSER!
It's supposed to nicely render a web page.
How hard can it be to make it XP compatible or full featured in Vista?

I noticed how your browser seem to have cut away all newlines in my quoted post, probably because you use Windows and possibly even IE which doesn't understand the UNIX standard linefeed because they both refuse to comply with a standard they didn't make...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom