Hacker News Reader

Somehow the Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera teams manage to provide a modern browser on Windows XP.

This isn't about "finding something to complain about". I want a modern web, and I want Microsoft to get out of the way of that happening.

I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. IE9 relies on parts of Windows that just don't exist in XP. Windows XP is ancient by software standards. Sure, Chrome et al. work in all operating systems, but you're upset at Microsoft because they don't want to support an operating system that they want people off of already. It's their decision and I'm glad they want people to upgrade. People got mad because users didn't want to get off of Windows 98 because of how dated it had become but fewer people are upset at the "Windows XP is good for a lifetime" crowd.

IE9 is coming and it's much better. When the people holding back on upgrading finally upgrade then you'll have your better Web.

That's exactly the point- since they're holding off on upgrading their OS, potentially for a much longer time, they won't even have the option of updating their web browser. An OS upgrade is a much more monumental decision than a browser upgrade, and the inertia is much greater.

At any rate, the fact that IE9 can't backport parts of its OS dependencies is kind of an implementation detail. We're saying Webkit has no problems providing a self-contained modern browsing experience, so IE9 doesn't have to be any different.

So the problem is actually users refusing to upgrade their OS, not Microsoft not supporting XP after 10 years. It seems like we jump on people for not upgrading anything -- except when it comes to their OS.

I agree that people need to upgrade from XP and into something better than all but I understand texel's point. Upgrading to Windows 7 or a Mac involves money, upgrading to Linux is an option that most aren't ready to take. Switching those XP users to Chrome/Firefox is the most likely chance we have to get them to a level where they can use all the new web technologies we want to throw at them. And I have a personal bias too, IE9 doesn't support WebGL which the software I'm developing depends on thus IE is not an option for my users.

Webkit has no problems providing an experience that the IE team thinks is subpar (in particular, lacks full 2d graphics acceleration).

Similar for Gecko: it's doing compositing acceleration on WinXP, but not 2d acceleration.

Now maybe the argument is that IE9 should support such a mode of operation. But by the same argument, Firefox should still have a supported PPC version of Firefox 4 (even though it's JIT can't generate PPC code, so JS would be interpreted and hence very slow). Some people _are_ making that argument, by the way, but the general consensus is that this sort of decision about what sort of quality they're willing to put their name on is up to the Mozilla project. Why does the IE team not get the same courtesy?

I realize that you may disagree with their quality metrics (e.g. you may think that a modern JS JIT is a must-have requirement for a modern web browser but 2d graphics acceleration is not). But it's not clear to me that this is obvious, or that this will even be true in a year.

You are a Microsoft astroturfer, right? (Before downvoting, people, read up on this. Microsoft does it. "coderdude"'s "website" is a vaguely Microsoftian coming-soon page...)

What? I'm almost flattered that you went through so much trouble to peg me as a Microsoft astroturfer. :)

I hate Internet Explorer. Do not get me wrong on this point. I hate it with a passion. I just know that IE8 > IE6 and that MS isn't going to link to Firefox or Chrome. If everyone was on IE8 (not even IE9) I would still be a happy camper.

Also, what part of my coming soon page is Microsoftian? Now you've got me curious. (Obviously so that I can fix that so that others can't figure out my true motives.)

Edit: Aw bummer. I was kind of flattered until I realized you created that account 15 minutes ago to troll. Your other contributions to HN:

"Shut. Up."

"You ignored everything parent actually meant. Nice strawman"

This is an interesting thing for a guy who's been registered for a half hour to say.

I'm a web standards astroturfer, myself.

He has only so far made like 5 comments and all were responses to me. Including "Shut. Up."

I'm pretty sure someone is just really uncomfortable with the things I'm saying so they created this account to help combat my lies.

Now I'm wondering whether it's an alt or a random passerby. Got any interesting enemies?

Nah, but there are some seriously peeved guys in here that do not want to hear what some people are saying.

I find it amazing that people seem to be more concerned about upgrading the browser than upgrading the OS. The delta between XP and Win7 is so much larger than IE8 and IE9 that having this discussion is almost embarrassing.

While I get that this may make the life of the HTML5 dev easier -- its just dwarfed by the importance of getting people off of a dangerous OS.

While in theory it would be nice to see MS support XP with IE9, I much prefer they use any means to get people off this OS. I'd even love to see them offer Ubuntu or Win7 as upgrade path. There's just no reason to be on XP. And everything we do to make their lives seemingly easier, really keeps this in this precarious situation.

They should make a free Windows 7 Basic basic (basically XP but newer ;p) upgrade. That way people would have a option but that IF they have a PC capable of running a basic version of Windows 7.

Really I think it's surprising that MS hasn't done this rather than continuing to spend money on XP security patches.

Companies don't usually put off upgrading for lack of money, rather all the outdated internal software that will have to be fixed.

Yea, it is pretty stupid this time they made Home Basic available only in developing countries.

Thing is: I don't care if you run XP or Win7 (or Mac OS X or Ubuntu for that matter) because my software does not run on top of the OS but on top of a modern browsers. So the IE8/9 difference matters to me, the OS difference does not. Don't forget that most (or at least a lot of) people here on HN develop or run web apps.

Within the scope of this discussion, that's somewhat facetious. The main reason cited for wanting people to move off IE6 is security concerns rather than HTML5 support, and for good reason - I don't care whether people can use the latest-greatest version of gmail, I care whether they're unduly liable to become part of a botnet that can bring down gmail for everyone.

That's not my reason, and I've never once mentioned it. I don't care a bit about other people's security. It's an important issue, but life is short, and I've got other stuff to worry about.

My applications have to run in people's browsers...if there are a significant number of people using crappy old browsers (of which IE8 is one), it affects my life and my use of time.

Alright, well I'm in security and I want people off Windows XP. What now? Do we fight over who has the more self-serving agenda?

Please. Since when did Hacker News become about pandering to software development subfields?

The difference is that XP can be coerced into a reasonable semblance of security, whereas IE6 is unfixable.

XP is also unfixable. You just know more about web development than you do about permissions security.

So, are you saying that Windows 7 is significantly more secure than XP can ever be?

Yes. A number of security augmentations in Windows 7 required significant modifications to the operating system kernel and user space environment (almost to the point of a rewrite in some cases). These modifications cannot happen in Windows XP without turning Windows XP into Windows 7.

Not enabled by default making them less effective than they should be.

What are you talking about? This is prima facie untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Execution_Prevention#Windo... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomizat...

Backward compatibility prevents most of these from being utilized fully, a shame.

ASLR is mostly enabled, especially in 64-bit binaries. W^X protection is always enabled on 64-bit binaries. Service hardening and privilege separation are enabled by default always.

Not true. First of all, I wouldn't use Windows at all on a machine I depended on for security. The fact is my XP box has never had a bug on it. It's fully patched, services off, behind a nat, with firefox and noscript. Acl's can be improved but I've never bothered. I admit it takes a lot of upfront prep to get XP safe to use, but it can be done if one has the knowledge.

Who said I know anything about web development? Greybeard here that learned on the Vic-20.

So then you know about things like ASLR, service hardening, and default permissions separation right?

"Since when did Hacker News become about pandering to software development subfields?"

Since always.

But, that's not the point. This whole conversation is about Microsoft referring people to a site that will help them upgrade their browser...the majority of people seeing the message and following those steps, will be upgrading to a browser that just isn't up to snuff.

The page it links to does not show people how to upgrade their OS. You're the one taking this conversation in an entirely unrelated direction, and bringing OS security into the discussion. I'm complaining because the whole IE countdown thing is a nuisance rather than a help.

And, again, the OS people run is not my concern. The browser with which they use my applications, however, is my concern. Getting people to upgrade their OS is Microsoft's problem, not mine. But, by recommending an old browser for their users that haven't upgraded from XP, they're making their problem into my problem. I'm tired of dealing with Microsoft's problems, and I don't think it's fair that they use their market clout to keep putting their problems on my plate.

But, that's not the point. This whole conversation is about Microsoft referring people to a site that will help them upgrade their browser...the majority of people seeing the message and following those steps, will be upgrading to a browser that just isn't up to snuff.

Expecting Microsoft to advocate people moving to a non-Microsoft product is idiotic.

I'm tired of dealing with Microsoft's problems, and I don't think it's fair that they use their market clout to keep putting their problems on my plate.

Let me get this straight -- your main complaint is that it's not fair?!

Yeah, I like it when people I work with, directly or indirectly, play fair. When they don't, I feel I have every right to criticize them for it, which is what I've been doing.

I believe Microsoft is doing the web (and me, as a developer for the web) a disservice, and I'd like them to stop damaging the web (and me).

Uh,

Actually, the need to upgrade anything and everything is a bit overdone. What, in particular, is your problem with XP?

The MS monopoly thrives on the need for a regular update, needed or not. Windows XP is a great OS IMHO - it's a shame MS found it convenient to ditch support for it.

OSes aren't new. We've been doing them a long time. MS may say there are things missing from XP but it satisfies a lot of needs - for example, it runs Firefox quite well.

Now browsers, in particular, are still in a state of flux. With browser, in particular, upgrading matters. That also might not continue forever but its true now.

The browser you use impact me because I care about what you see. The OS you use does NOT impact me because only you see it.

Uh, and Win7 doesn't run on a lot of hardware and MS probably isn't going offer Ubuntu anytime in the next supereon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(geology)#Terminology).

IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera.

It'd be like making a trip to a gas station and filling up to half a tank. Because half a tank is better than an empty tank, right? But... while you're going to all that trouble, why not top it off?

Of course this strategy is good for Microsoft, but web designers should be doing what's good for the web.

>IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera.

As I said in an earlier comment, it's not in Microsoft's best interest to move people off Microsoft browsers but it is in developers' best interest to have them move to at least IE8. It's a much better browser that requires very little hackery to get layouts working on. When people finally stop dragging their feet and upgrade their decade old OS then we will have a better Web experience. Don't get on Microsoft about this, blame the people who refuse to upgrade their software.

But it's in the developers' even BETTER interest to move them to Chrome or Firefox.

Why wouldn't they just install this? http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/

Microsoft is obviously doing this to keep IE relevant.

I know it's in developers' even better interest to have all users using Chrome or Firefox. I've said this numerous times and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But there isn't going to be a link on Microsoft's site to Firefox. I can't figure out why people keep bringing this up. It's not like it hasn't occurred to me -- I'm a designer too. I know how much it sucks fixing IE problems in layouts. What I also know is that there are waaay fewer problems with IE8 than with IE6 and since this is the best we can hope for that's what I'm trying to convey here.

If IE wasn't relevant, this wouldn't be a discussion here.

>In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right

Yes, but that is today. As the web moves forward and these users are stuck on IE8 we have the same problem again.

> IE8 is leaps and bounds better than IE6

A brick is leaps and bounds better than IE6

I learned not to attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence, but, sadly, incompetence alone cannot explain a company the size of Microsoft being unable to offer a modern standards-compliant browser.

>A brick is leaps and bounds better than IE6

That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8. They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well.

We all know how you feel about Microsoft. Your comment being down-voted into oblivion at the bottom of this page is a good show of how you're approaching my comment. Microsoft is making good progress here.

> That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8.

Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days.

> They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well.

After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one.

>Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days.

This isn't some utopia where we can all get what we want. If I had my way there would be no IEs. I hate Internet Explorer. The reality of the situation though is that IE8 is the best option available [for people who don't know any better] in the world we live in. IE9 will soon be the best option for people who have an up-to-date operating system. Then we can all whine about XP users refusing to upgrade their old software so that we can also have more up-to-date browsers surfing the Web.

>After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one.

Most users have IE8 already. The move to IE9 won't take as long as you think. I'd like to know where you got the impression that Microsoft failed to move huge swathes of people over to IE8. IE is installed via automatic updates.

I can't believe you're claiming it's better for ANYONE for Microsoft to recommend the worst current browser to the 50% of their client base (XP users) when Opera, Chrome, Safari, and Firefox run on that system!

My claim is that it's best for Microsoft to keep their users on their software, which it is. Given that this is what will happen (Microsoft isn't going to suddenly start suggesting people download Firefox) then the next best thing is for them to suggest people upgrade to IE8 and eventually IE9. I hate IE just as much as the next guy but in this reality this is the best option available to us.

Sure, it's best for humanity that people use Chrome or Firefox but I'm not arguing ideals here. I'm looking at the facts of the situation and rolling with them.

“My claim is that it's best for Microsoft to keep their users on their software, which it is.”

Pardon me, but you posted 20 comments to this discussion and your only “claim” is backed up by you saying “which it is”? Then what is your point? Not to be rude, but why say anything at all?

How does anyone know it’s “best to keep them on their [old] software”? If no one used IE8, would not Microsoft also be free to use newer web standards to create better, faster-loading web apps with less development time? What benefit to Microsoft is there having IE8 users?

Edit: Your reply still doesn’t show how you figure it’s better for Microsoft to have people on IE8 than on (say) Chrome, despite my possible counter-argument. You say market share for market share’s sake is good? Why?

>Pardon me, but you posted 20 comments to this discussion and your only “claim” is backed up by you saying “which it is”?

Ok then, it's not in Microsoft's best interest to keep users on IE? If you don't think the logic is plain enough to stand on its own please tell me why. How is it good for Microsoft to lose market share? That was my claim. It isn't good from their point of view for themselves to lose users. I don't think I need a citation there.

>How does anyone know it’s “best to keep them on their [old] software”?

IE8 isn't their old software. It's their current software. IE9 is the new software which hasn't been released to their users.

>If no one used IE8, would not Microsoft also be free to use newer web standards to create better, faster-loading web apps with less development time?

Their plan is to migrate to IE9 which is a good browser. This is their plan for being able to create better, faster-loading Web apps with less development time. The best part is we all benefit from this.

>What benefit to Microsoft is there having IE8 users?

Migration path to IE9. In the mean time it's better for the entire world that IE6 users become IE8 users and eventually upgrade to IE9. Literally it would be best if they were Chrome or Firefox users but let's don't get silly -- most users don't care and it's not Microsoft's job to sell those users on other people's software.

You ignored everything parent actually meant. Nice strawman.

Not to mention that you suggest migrating XP users to IE8 instead of e.g. firefox provides a "migration path" to IE9? Which you just defended as OK for Microsoft to not provide to XP users.

> > Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days. > This isn't some utopia where we can all get what we want.

Now you are just completely missing the point.

Microsoft is asking YOU, to waste your time, your bandwidth, and your visitor time to download IE8 if they are using IE6.

now i could argue "This isn't some utopia, MICROSOFT, where we can all get what we want." see what i did there?

now, it's your time. your site. you can very well show a banner telling IE6 users to download firefox or chrome or opera. Hell, it's my dam site. on some of my online games that i wrote for fun i even ridiculize people that show up with IE6.

With a bunch of webdevelopers we tried to give IE9 some complicated stuff and I have to tell you, it is really buggy.

It is just an other buggy browser in the series and it is way behind on the standards side of things. They are doing things other browsersmakers did in their release more then a year ago.

You're supposed to use SilverLight, not the web

-Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome.

I really don't understand the benefit of IE having its own rendering engine. While I can't imagine MS abandoning IE, I can't see any business reason (other than hubris) for them maintaining a worst-of-breed rendering and JS engine at great cost to themselves.

(And just for the record, basically agree with you on all points.)

Because a lot of companies rely on IE's rendering engine. There are a lot of sites (mostly internal but external as well) that use technologies like ActiveX which only work on IE's engine. For example, almost every site served up by an ip camera uses an activex plugin to view video.

I don't see any reason why ActiveX couldn't be bolted on to Webkit. As for backward compatibility they update their engine all of the time; perhaps quirks mode could be left as the old engine.

I guess you missed the articles here about about Microsoft's massive commitment to backward compatibility and why they do it?

From just the other day :http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281045 and http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

Ditching the current rendering engine would break a ton of apps.

Those “web” apps are then already broken, by definition.

They are broken from the _user's_ perspective, yes.

They are not necessarily broken from the app developer's perspective.

Changing IE so as to break them would cause MS a good bit of grief (and depending on the contracts they have with people might cost them money directly).

They're not 'web' apps, they're apps built to a specific platform.

Many of those are internal intranet apps, and some are not even networked - they're actual apps that use the IE rendering engine for UI.

You may not like that they're not built to your "web" standard (or whatever that standard was 10 years ago), but other people just care if their apps still work.

These apps are built to a Windows platform, and not a web standard. A platform that the current IE rendering engine is a component of. MSFT has a commitment to backward compatibility for some very strong business reasons.

And people build to MSFT's platforms and buy their operating systems, in part, because of this commitment to compatibility.

> In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right.

You're kidding, right?

> Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome.

I've heard (I don't own or use Windows) that they were legally forced to enable choice in Windows (like shown on screenshots at http://www.freeemailtutorials.com/microsoftWindows/defaultWe...)

You know Safari DOES support XP?

No one uses OS 9 anymore. Loads use XP. Get it? It's Microsoft's mess to clean up, and browser-wise, three separate efforts can do it! If Microsoft can't, they should pass the ball to someone who can.

Anything else hurts the web.

You may have posted the most one-sided, thick-skulled, baseless comment I've ever seen on HN.