Is it true that it won't work on Windows XP? I know XP is like a decade old, and I really don't wanna start an upgrade-your-browser-you-noob flamefest, but it seems kinda lame to exclude the people still on XP from having a modern browser and I can't figure out what the rationale might be for that.
There's never been a good reason publicly stated, but I imagine they don't want to be seeing as supporting their decade-old OS.
Chrome, Firefox and Safari have no problem doing it, so it's very likely a political decision.
I think Microsoft has some responsibility to update IE6 on XP, given that they left it out on the market so long and caused an incalculable amount of time to be lost developing for it while the rest of the worst was trying to move on.
Actually, no. The good reason that IE9 does not run on Windows XP has been publicly stated for at least an year, if not actually longer. The FAQ on ietestdrive.com [1] answers this question. The short answer is that the Graphics stack that IE9 uses is not available on Windows XP.
If Microsoft wanted to support GPU acceleration through an alternate rendering path like two other browsers are doing on XP, they would have done so.
I find it more likely to conclude that they just didn't want to support XP and developed a browser GPU acceleration engine that wouldn't support it as a result of this high-level decision.
I suspect that it is two reasons they don't have IE9 on XP:
1) They don't want people using XP. If other browser vendors want to take it on, I think MS has decided that they're fine with that. But they don't want to enable XP anymore.
2) The test matrix is a huge test cost. Doing XP means cutting something else. I think they decided that the cost of supporting XP wasn't worth it when they looked at how it effected their roadmap.
That's a fascinating conspiracy theory, but having looked at the code myself, I'd have to say someone must be nuts to have gone to extra efforts to create a new engine that specifically won't run on XP.
Huh? I never said they wrote the graphics stack not to support XP. I said that there's no technical reason why you can't have a fallback rendering path to work on XP. Chrome and Firefox show that this is possible.
You can point at the FAQ all day, but you can't deny that there is a way to do GPU acceleration of web content on XP.
Actually, chrome and firefox demonstrate that there is a technical reason, since they both only implement accelerated compositing on XP, not accelerated content layout.
I personally wish for a crippled version of IE9 that doesn't use GPU acceleration but reliably backports to XP. But I can also see how that could be a nightmare to develop and maintain.
Comments
Is it true that it won't work on Windows XP? I know XP is like a decade old, and I really don't wanna start an upgrade-your-browser-you-noob flamefest, but it seems kinda lame to exclude the people still on XP from having a modern browser and I can't figure out what the rationale might be for that.
There's never been a good reason publicly stated, but I imagine they don't want to be seeing as supporting their decade-old OS.
Chrome, Firefox and Safari have no problem doing it, so it's very likely a political decision.
I think Microsoft has some responsibility to update IE6 on XP, given that they left it out on the market so long and caused an incalculable amount of time to be lost developing for it while the rest of the worst was trying to move on.
Actually, no. The good reason that IE9 does not run on Windows XP has been publicly stated for at least an year, if not actually longer. The FAQ on ietestdrive.com [1] answers this question. The short answer is that the Graphics stack that IE9 uses is not available on Windows XP.
[1] http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/FrequentlyAskedQuesti...
It's a bogus technical reason. Chrome and Firefox show that GPU acceleration can work on XP:
http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/09/hardware-acceleration/
http://blog.chromium.org/2010/09/unleashing-gpu-acceleration...
If Microsoft wanted to support GPU acceleration through an alternate rendering path like two other browsers are doing on XP, they would have done so.
I find it more likely to conclude that they just didn't want to support XP and developed a browser GPU acceleration engine that wouldn't support it as a result of this high-level decision.
I suspect that it is two reasons they don't have IE9 on XP:
1) They don't want people using XP. If other browser vendors want to take it on, I think MS has decided that they're fine with that. But they don't want to enable XP anymore.
2) The test matrix is a huge test cost. Doing XP means cutting something else. I think they decided that the cost of supporting XP wasn't worth it when they looked at how it effected their roadmap.
That's a fascinating conspiracy theory, but having looked at the code myself, I'd have to say someone must be nuts to have gone to extra efforts to create a new engine that specifically won't run on XP.
Huh? I never said they wrote the graphics stack not to support XP. I said that there's no technical reason why you can't have a fallback rendering path to work on XP. Chrome and Firefox show that this is possible.
You can point at the FAQ all day, but you can't deny that there is a way to do GPU acceleration of web content on XP.
Actually, chrome and firefox demonstrate that there is a technical reason, since they both only implement accelerated compositing on XP, not accelerated content layout.
I personally wish for a crippled version of IE9 that doesn't use GPU acceleration but reliably backports to XP. But I can also see how that could be a nightmare to develop and maintain.
Well IE7 and IE8 work on XP. Or are you just saying they should try to force the upgrade to IE8?
That will make it harder for large companies in web development. Still using XP...
Yes, it's true.
I hope Mozilla and Google take advantage of this opportunity.