Hacker News Reader

Comment by SwellJoe | 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.

View on HN

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.

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?

"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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'm a web standards astroturfer, myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com