The newest version of Microsoft's (Nasdaq: MSFT) Internet Explorer
will feature full hardware acceleration and a new Javascript engine
that engages multiple processor cores for faster rendering, the
company has announced. The new version aso reverses the software
giant's reluctance to adapt to HTML 5.

The company released a developer preview of Internet Explorer 9 at the
MIX10 developer conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday.


Rough Draft
The preview is not a fully functioning browser, lacking crucial
tidbits such as an address bar, for instance.

It's designed to give developers a feel for the core capabilities of
what will eventually be released.

Microsoft isn't saying when it will come out. In a statement
Wednesday, the company said it expects to release new preview versions
every eight weeks until the release goes to beta, but it did not say
when that might occur.

The new version will feature full hardware acceleration of graphics
and text, support for HTML 5, CSS3 and a new Javascript engine that
takes advantage of multicore processors.

The advances are meant to reduce limitations on Web design and
development imposed by current implementations, Microsoft said.
Consequently, the new browser will not work on Windows XP.
from:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/M...wlc=1268863123

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:03:01 -0700 (PDT), long time windows user
<anewton611@newsgroup> wrote:

>The advances are meant to reduce limitations on Web design and
>development imposed by current implementations, Microsoft said.
>Consequently, the new browser will not work on Windows XP.

Non sequitur. Whether or not the browser works on XP has no
relationship to supporting current and future web standards. MS simply
doesn't want to invest the money in developing for XP anymore.

Meanwhile, if they just built browsers that ran ON the OS, and not IN
the OS, it wouldn't be an issue at all. But, they still don't get it.
There's a reason the MS's share of the browser market is down below
50% now:

http://www.w3counter.com/trends

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:27:47 -0700, "Drew"
<Aylen1957@newsgroup> wrote:

>Just because you are a relatively soon to be minority xp user, You refuse to
>move on to newer technology and yet you expect Microsoft to keep supporting
>your antique operating system. Does this really make sense or dollars for
>that fact? Should Ford keep building its edsel just because somebody liked
>it? Black & white television worked just fine but technology evolved and now
>we have High definition 1" thick flat screens. Where is the logic in your
>post. Xp was not a very good operating system and if you say it was then you
>really do not have much experience with it. When xp came out it had all
>kinds of problems and has had to be stuffed full of patches to the point of
>ridiculous yet it still has flaws. When does Microsoft say enough is enough
>and it is time to move forward? Oh wait they already did and maybe you
>should as well !

You're sadly misinformed. XP is not antique. First, MS is committed to
supporting it with security updates through 2014. Second, while it had
some initial holes, the service packs fixed most of those. The result
was a fairly stable and efficient OS. Vista, OTOH, was a loser. In
fact, it was such a loser that MS named SP3 for Vista "Win 7" just to
get rid of the association. Win7 is finally a moderately good platform
(as SP3 usually is), although it too needs some refinement.

Meanwhile the large majority of business users have stuck with XP.
While you and your home computer can run most any OS with little
impact on anyone's bottom line, most corporations are very cautious
about OS upgrades that will cause their business to fail. For that
reason, Vista has been adopted by almost no one... and Win7 is too new
to be of significance yet.

The last survey I saw (six months old now) showed Windows XP with over
70% of the market. Until Win7 gains acceptance (and after Vista, IT is
gun shy) XP will continue to be a significant player.

You should try looking outside your little world of home desktop use
and live in the real world.

You people need some real world experience and get off your geek asses
to get it. Windows XP is alive and well. As a matter of fact I know
if one very large Airline company that will not upgrade to Vista or
any other new MS product until the product has a proven 5 year tract
record.
They still use XP as do many others. I run XP in two machines and
Vista in two. My next machine will come with XP installed even if I
have to pay extra.

This is a Vista newsgroup remember not bloody old XP. If you want some
sympathy post to a XP newsgroup.

Camper

On 3/17/2010 6:03 PM, long time windows user wrote:

> The newest version of Microsoft's (Nasdaq: MSFT) Internet Explorer
> will feature full hardware acceleration and a new Javascript engine
> that engages multiple processor cores for faster rendering, the
> company has announced. The new version aso reverses the software
> giant's reluctance to adapt to HTML 5.
>
> The company released a developer preview of Internet Explorer 9 at the
> MIX10 developer conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday.
>
>
> Rough Draft
> The preview is not a fully functioning browser, lacking crucial
> tidbits such as an address bar, for instance.
>
> It's designed to give developers a feel for the core capabilities of
> what will eventually be released.
>
> Microsoft isn't saying when it will come out. In a statement
> Wednesday, the company said it expects to release new preview versions
> every eight weeks until the release goes to beta, but it did not say
> when that might occur.
>
> The new version will feature full hardware acceleration of graphics
> and text, support for HTML 5, CSS3 and a new Javascript engine that
> takes advantage of multicore processors.
>
> The advances are meant to reduce limitations on Web design and
> development imposed by current implementations, Microsoft said.
> Consequently, the new browser will not work on Windows XP.
> from:
> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/M...wlc=1268863123

It also won't work with 1) MS-DOS 2) Windows 1 3) Windows 2 4) Windows 3.n
5) Windows 95 6) Windows NT 7) Windows 98 or 8) Windows ME (or CP/M or Unix
or Linux or BSD or OS/2 for that matter). Somewhere in the world one can
probably find users of any of even the most obscure OS and that is fine if
that is what makes them happy. But these users cannot expect support for
every version of every operating system ever conceived of just because they
happen to be using it.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:05:16 -0400, John McGaw <nowhere@newsgroup> wrote:

>It also won't work with 1) MS-DOS 2) Windows 1 3) Windows 2 4) Windows 3.n
>5) Windows 95 6) Windows NT 7) Windows 98 or 8) Windows ME (or CP/M or Unix
>or Linux or BSD or OS/2 for that matter). Somewhere in the world one can
>probably find users of any of even the most obscure OS and that is fine if
>that is what makes them happy. But these users cannot expect support for
>every version of every operating system ever conceived of just because they
>happen to be using it.

So your suggestion is that an OS that 70% of Windows users are using
is an "obscure OS" ?

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:02:41 +1000, "Camper" <bruce@newsgroup> wrote:

>
>
>You people need some real world experience and get off your geek asses
>to get it. Windows XP is alive and well. As a matter of fact I know
>if one very large Airline company that will not upgrade to Vista or
>any other new MS product until the product has a proven 5 year tract
>record.
>They still use XP as do many others. I run XP in two machines and
>Vista in two. My next machine will come with XP installed even if I
>have to pay extra.
>
>This is a Vista newsgroup remember not bloody old XP. If you want some
>sympathy post to a XP newsgroup.
>
>Camper

You should learn how to quote on the usenet.

On 3/18/2010 11:35 AM, +Bob+ wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:05:16 -0400, John McGaw<nowhere@newsgroup> wrote:
>

>> It also won't work with 1) MS-DOS 2) Windows 1 3) Windows 2 4) Windows 3.n
>> 5) Windows 95 6) Windows NT 7) Windows 98 or 8) Windows ME (or CP/M or Unix
>> or Linux or BSD or OS/2 for that matter). Somewhere in the world one can
>> probably find users of any of even the most obscure OS and that is fine if
>> that is what makes them happy. But these users cannot expect support for
>> every version of every operating system ever conceived of just because they
>> happen to be using it.

>
> So your suggestion is that an OS that 70% of Windows users are using
> is an "obscure OS" ?

I can't find anything in my posting that called XP "obscure". I even still
have a few machines running it but these are machines that I would _never_
consider using for web browsing or email or anything else requiring
reliable security. XP, if it is not "obscure" right now, will quickly
become so since life support has been withdrawn. I had a wonderful 1969
Fiat Spyder and drove the hell out of it but I wouldn't expect to go down
to my neighborhood auto parts store and buy parts to fix it in 2010.

> I can't find anything in my posting that called XP

> "obscure". I even still have a few machines running it but
> these are machines that I would _never_ consider using for
> web browsing or email or anything else requiring reliable
> security. XP, if it is not "obscure" right now, will
> quickly become so since life support has been withdrawn. I
> had a wonderful 1969 Fiat Spyder and drove the hell out of
> it but I wouldn't expect to go down to my neighborhood auto
> parts store and buy parts to fix it in 2010.

That's because is a Fiat, which can be considered obscure to
begin with, not because it's 2010.

"Zaphod Beeblebrox" <Zaphod.Arisztid.Beeblebrox@newsgroup>
wrote in news:hntsb6$a86$1@newsgroup-september.org:

>
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:OVMxkGsxKHA.5480@newsgroup

>> >Consequently, the new browser will not work on Windows
>> >XP.
>>>from:
>>>http://www.technewsworld.com/story/M...Gives-Devs-a-G
>>>limpse-of-HTML-5-Friendly-IE9-69565.html?>wlc=1268863123

>>
>> Not true at all. Take it from me IE 9 Alpha works on XP

>
>
> The alpha might, but according to Mary Jo Farley at
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=...col1;post-5572
> "[Microsoft's] Hachamovitch said in a Q&A with press and
> analysts following the keynote that IE 9 will not support
> XP. (No big surprise there.) "

Which doesn't necessarily mean it won't work.

There are lots of things that aren't 'supported', yet work
nonetheless.