Does anyone like ie9

The market share of those old versions would be much smaller. Also the point of the article is that nowadays you can only run those old versions on old, insecure version of Windows. For people who do there are probably many more things not working as should, plus they are much more vulnerable to hacks and exploits. I am not using any version of IE, I only used chrome and that is better than others.

Internet Explorer should be destroyed. In an ideal world I would only ever support Google Chrome but that ain't gonna happen. Also when doing development for large businesses like banks, all their office computers often run old versions of windows due to bespoke software therefore they have very old version of IE that has to be supported.

I think maybe for public facing websites this kind of view could be taken although I can understand it would be sensitive eg. But for internal web applications that you have to support old version of IE, I can't see this changing anytime soon.

IE8, believe it or not is still in usage and espacially depending on which audience your site targets for example a medical company you will most certanly see that IE8 is used alot more than most think. This is because Windows XP do not support upgrades higher than that and users that still are on IE8 are users that does not understand why they should upgrade. The only analytics that matter are your own.

If IE8 vanishes from your stats, then by all means ignore it. A quick solution would be to charge additionally for everything that goes beyond modern browsers. The financial argument is usually the only one that works. If you're going to support these browsers without additional cost, then it nevers ends - even if, let's say, YouTube stops supporting a certain browser and puts a banner on top of the site.

Supporting IE8 and up is an accessibility requirement here, and with good reason; users with assistive technology may not be able to upgrade. You put your wishes as developer first if you must, but you'll be exposing your clients to possible lawsuits and your company deserves to go out of business.

David Your lawsuit argument would also work for the security requirement. So in reality, the client could be sued twice. First for not adhering to accessibility requirements and then for not adhering to basic security practices. I would think, and I really hope, security always comes first when it comes to devices connected to the internet. And that's what this article is all about. Dere friend, David Dylan is correct not only for businesses and average customers, but any sort of mass outlet.

As a technician, i am always implementing stable software, that som mindless auto-update fetischist will perceive as "outdated" and thus "insecure". If an outlet verbosely excludes my software, i will tweak it to look newer. And if the content then turns out to be backward incompatible, i will curse at them and take my business elsewhere. You don't get to tell me how to manage security on my systems.

Can you not see how such totalitarian attitude causes resentment? Jul 22, Lubos Kmetko Inside Xfive. Jun 30, Lubos Kmetko Web Development. Social media buttons are blamed for their poor performance and privacy offending nature.

Get in touch Let us know your requirements and we'll get back to you as soon as possible. Drop files here or click to upload. Thank you,! Thank you very much for submitting your inquiry to Xfive! We'll be in touch with you soon. About the author. More from Lubos. Comments 29 Write a comment. Alberto Mendoza I see the point form the Tech perspective, however, it would be great to have a business perspective. Lubos Kmetko alberto that's certainly a valid point, but one business perspective could be that of social responsibility.

Spencer That's fine advice, except for an e-commerce site that cannot afford to refuse service to a significant portion of the population who knows nothing about how to find and install a new browser, and in some cases, don't know what a browser is! Matthias We shouldn't make the decision for the users as to what browser they should use. Jack Matthias, it's not about making a decision for them it's just not wasting time and resources supporting people using 15 year old tech, it halts progress and causes developers to have to hold back on new features.

Because IE9 runs only on Windows Vista SP2 and Windows 7, it can be tuned to offload some rendering tasks to modern graphics hardware, which often has more raw processing power than the rest of the PC. It's clear from daily use, though, that hardware acceleration really does make a difference in rendering text, images, and graphics. As a result, Microsoft finds itself in an unaccustomed position, out in front of other browsers, which are furiously trying to play catch-up.

I tested the IE9 beta alongside Firefox 4 beta 5, which was released in September and is the first Mozilla offering to support hardware acceleration. I also tested it against the most recent beta of Google Chrome 6, which doesn't use the GPU for rendering. Google has reportedly placed that feature on its roadmap for Chrome 7. The biggest performance differences, not surprisingly, were apparent on Microsoft's own graphics-oriented tests at its IE Test Drive site.

IE9's frame rates stayed high as I kicked up the number of animated fish in the virtual tank. Performance remained smooth and glitch-free even when I moved the window across multiple monitors and docked it to the side of the display using Aero Snap. Firefox 4, by contrast, was able maintain high frame rates for short bursts, but moving the browser frame caused performance to plummet and even froze the display for long periods.

Using Firefox, frame rates plummeted dramatically when I selected the most demanding settings and fish. Chrome, of course, was at unfair disadvantage because of its lack of hardware support. Its frame rates were well below either competitor, although it moved smoothly around the screen without any negative impact on other programs or Windows itself. For a more independent performance test, I enabled all three browsers for YouTube's HTML5 channel and tried playing a handful of high-definition videos at p and p resolution.

All three browsers performed admirably within a window and at full-screen resolution. IE9 and Chrome 6 were able to maintain full-fidelity playback even when tearing a tab out of the browser pane and dragging it to its own window.

Firefox 4, on the other hand, failed this test, stopping the playback and starting the clip over when it landed in a new window. The other new performance-enhancing component in IE9 is the new Chakra JavaScript engine, which uses multiple processor cores and has already been extensively benchmarked via the platform preview releases.

Microsoft has handed out several charts showing its impressive improvements; most of those charts include its dismal IE8 score, which is almost an order of magnitude slower than IE9 and grossly distorts the scale of the charts. Here's what the results looked like:. The difference between each browser is only about one-tenth of a second, and that composite result includes dozens of complex operations.

The conclusion? JavaScript performance isn't a significant differentiator between modern browsers, and IE9 can hold its own with any Webkit-based browser on this score. Yesterday, in anticipation of this first wave of reviews, the IE Blog published an interesting discussion of what JavaScript benchmarks really measure.

In previous IE versions, browser add-ons have been a frequent source of slowdowns. IE8 introduced an add-on manager that was effective but hard to find and too daunting for mere mortals. It's still available in IE9, but it's been supplemented with a cleaner tune-up kit. After you run IE9 for a while, you'll see a notification along the bottom of the screen. If you choose to follow it, you're taken to this simple list, where you can identify and if necessary disable a troublesome add-on.

Based on my experience, I predict that Google Chrome will continue to win many performance tests. But IE9 has closed the gap impressively. It's faster than Firefox across the board and faster than Chrome on tasks where hardware acceleration is involved. Even when those rivals catch up or pass IE9 as they probably will , it's unlikely that performance differences will be significant. That's the theory.

The reality is a bit more complex. Despite Microsoft's genuinely impressive efforts to build a standards-compliant browser, they're saddled with the legacy of thousands and probably millions of web pages that will break or display improperly in IE9. I ran into these issues repeatedly during my testing with the IE9 beta. Here, for example, is a snippet of a page from Time. Those Facebook and Twitter icons are supposed to be on the same row as the widgets above them, but whoever designed that page coded it using a handful of tiny tweaks designed to fix layout bugs in older IE versions, and they didn't take into account the possibility that a future version of IE wouldn't need those fixes.

At ZDNet. I even ran into multiple pages at Microsoft-managed sites that rendered incorrectly or complained that I needed to be using a supported version of Internet Explorer. Like this one:. Fortunately, IE9 has the same Compatibility View options as its predecessors, so it's relatively easy to click the "broken page" icon in the address bar to fix problems like these. Designers can also code a page so that it always displays in IE7 compatibility mode, but that strategy cheats IE9 users, who should be able to see the page without those hacks.

Of course, there are still bugs in IE9—that's why it's a beta, after all. Some popular JavaScript libraries will need to be tweaked to work properly with the new browser. And there are different interpretations of the still-evolving CSS3 and HTML5 standards that will cause minor headaches for web developers until they're sorted out. Check out these separate code blocks from IE9 and Firefox and Chrome.

Those moz- prefixes webkit- in Safari aren't exactly the stuff interoperability is made of. Those changes will happen, over time. The wide availability of this beta represents a big push in the right direction; the final release of IE9 will mean an even bigger push. Microsoft will fix a lot of bugs between now and then, and some, but surely not all, web developers will update their code to accommodate IE9.

The fixes, thankfully are minor—as simple as a line of code to tell the browser to render the page in standards mode.

Thankfully, they don't involve the sorts of godawful hacks that were necessary for IE6 and IE7. Those days are gone, although developers can be excused for thinking "Once burned, twice shy. So, should you install the IE9 beta? As with all beta software, I recommend caution. It's an amazingly polished release, in my opinion, but it's still a beta.

I don't recommend installing it unless you're comfortable with beta software and understand the consequences. And like all Internet Explorer updates, it's a one-way street. If you install this beta on Windows 7, you can't go back to your old version of Internet Explorer unless you restore a backup. Ironically, the very best candidates for this beta are those who use Windows 7 but gave up on Internet Explorer in favor of another browser.

You can even create pinned site shortcuts to run some sites in IE9 without affecting your default browser choice. It's an ideal testing scenario. Personally, I find the performance and usability improvements in IE9 nearly irresistible. They easily outweigh the minor rendering issues and incompatibilities with some sites. Update: the beta code is now available for download in 29 languages, plus a few additional display languages from Microsoft's website.

As technology skills demand grows, so does attention to low-code and no-code solutions. RHEL 8. Freshworks expands into IT operations management running its familiar playbook. AI is learning to talk back. How that's changing the customer and employee experience. Xero posts half-year net loss as investment in product development grows. Exchange Server bug: Patch now, but multi-factor authentication might not stop these attacks, warns Microsoft. Workday adds scheduling, labor optimization tools for frontline workers.

Coursera introduces LevelSets proficiency tests. Michael Laffargue Michael Laffargue 9, 6 6 gold badges 39 39 silver badges 74 74 bronze badges. Using UA sniffing is a very slippery slope.

You should be using feature detection instead. UA Sniffing is bad, but IEs conditional comments are a relatively clean feature that can be safely used to target IE versions , and that's what is shown here.

Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog. Does ES6 make JavaScript frameworks obsolete? Podcast Do polyglots have an edge when it comes to mastering programming Featured on Meta. Now live: A fully responsive profile.