HTML5 vs XP IE8 ???

There is no need for fixing IE8 if you can install IE9 Tech Preview on XP with only CPU rendering, which is basically equivelent to FF and Chrome.

And IE9/10 really need to change their Quirks Mode setting. Sites doesn't work on IE10 because they default to Quirks mode, like Citi bank and SkyDrive. I have to manually set it to IE9 mode, and it doesn't work on places when target=_blank.

54 minutes ago, steve01 wrote

As Microsoft did sell XP until 2-3 years ago and IE8 was released 2011 iirc?

Microsoft didn't sell XP then. OEMs did. If you have a problem with that, apply for a refund.

And IE8 was released in 2009. The fact that you are quoting this is precisely why Microsoft aren't pushing IE10 to XP. Because then you'll make stupid claims that XP should be supported for longer because Microsoft are releasing new programs for it.

XP / IE8 are old - and IE8 on XP has lots of features disabled because XP can't handle it (like low integrity processes and hardware acceleration).

You want to use shiny new bits of the web? Get a new OS, or get a different browser.

Let's not bother debating whether it's the correct decision - it's what the decision is. It's not going to change.

@cbae

Why? I only have to look on the pictures to "get the picture" !

Your compare a car made 30 years ago vs a New car with some boring text.

And IE8 was released 2009 (how time flys by) and there was a major IE8 update

May 27,2010 (8.0.6001.18702IC SP2)

Hence , wtf are you meaning with this comparacy?

FACT : Ordinary ppl dont change computers that often as you in here do.

1 example:

I have one customer that have a brand new Volvo and the Second car is a 5 year old BMW. He is using Windows XP Home Edition with a P4 3GHZ i sold 5 years ago. He has no plan to upgrade his computer (as he think its rather new) but he call me all the time on IE8 bugs. I will guide him in here to continue this meaningless thread.

@evildictaitor:

I think that's irresponsible. XP is still a large platform. It is as if you are saying SQL Server, Office, PhotoShop, Call of Duty shouldn't support XP anymore. And evidentally IE is losing relevence in Web because of this. You cannot expect IE to display a website properly because you CANNOT update it on """MAJOR!!!"" OS.

And this is definitly not a good way to motivate others to switch to other OS. Well, yeeah, it kind of is. They switch to FF/Chrome and realize they can do the same on iOS. So, there is less reasons to keep them in Windows world.

5 minutes ago, steve01 wrote

@cbae

Why? I only have to look on the pictures to "get the picture" !

No, you didn't get it. You said you can continue getting parts for old cars. So what? Getting parts recycled from totaled vehicles is not quite the same thing as buying genuine parts from the original manufacturer.

Neither is buying parts from third-party manufacturers. Sure, you might be able to get parts made by third parties at some surplus auto parts store for a 1955 300SL, but that's the equivalent of installing FireFox, Chrome, Opera, etc. on XP. What you're doing is the equivalent of asking Daimler to start producing parts again for that 300SL.

MS is pushing cloud so religiously, SBS, SkyDrive, Azure, Office Live, etc. And yet, all the end users who try to enjoy those cloud services get this messaeg from MS.

"I hate you XP users. I am not going to let you enjoy the next gen Web. I am not your friend. Google is your friend."

Such message is hurtful. Sigh, talking about hurtful, I think of my own life problem. Should have stay off this place. Tears....

@magicalclick

Google is ur friend or worst enemy!

I should also had stayed away from here. But since Microsoft support did asked me to post this here, they can only blame themself for the many hits this thread will get in the future.

Its "TOP 10" on a google search now with keywords "XP HTML5" ... ohoh..

Maybe microsoft should add this metatag on channel9 forums.

<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow, noarchive" />

Good i did use Tor-ip on all my postings.. 

57 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

@evildictaitor:

I think that's irresponsible. XP is still a large platform. It is as if you are saying SQL Server, Office, PhotoShop, Call of Duty shouldn't support XP anymore. And evidentally IE is losing relevence in Web because of this. You cannot expect IE to display a website properly because you CANNOT update it on """MAJOR!!!"" OS.

Modern games already don't run on old hardware and old OSes, and Photoshop isn't Microsoft's concern. Microsoft's official policy is to not push new software like Office and IE to old OSes.

And this is definitly not a good way to motivate others to switch to other OS. Well, yeeah, it kind of is. They switch to FF/Chrome and realize they can do the same on iOS. So, there is less reasons to keep them in Windows world.

They're not in the Windows world if they're not giving Microsoft money by upgrading. Microsoft has long since stopped caring about customers on XP.

@Geoffreyk

10-4 , Confirmed in my *old* IE8.  Well done Geoff.

/ Stoneage-Steve | I will go down with this ship (XP FTW)

48 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

Okay..... thank you for sharing stone cold MS company policy. It certainly is very insightful.

25 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

Okay..... thank you for sharing stone cold MS company policy. It certainly is very insightful.

Developing a new IE for XP brings in absolutely zero cash (in fact, it probably takes some away from people who might upgrade otherwise) and yet costs real money. People who bought XP have recieved a stonking 10+ years of free upgrades and fixes - that's pretty much unprecedented in the world of computing (especially when you consider that SP2 was pretty much a totally new OS release).

Sooner or later it becomes necessary for those consumers to pay back into the ecosystem by purchasing a new version, rather than just continually expecting something for nothing. The developers of websites, in this particular case, have decided that it is uneconomic for them to produce IE8 compatible websites and thus they, not Microsoft, are the ones who have determined that the segment of the market unprepared to upgrade their browser are not economically viable to support.

@AndyC:

True. I don't even see the value of IE at all, except Win98 desktop, Vista Gadget, and Win8 Metro. It makes more sense to use Netscape/FF/Chrome, they are free anyway. If not for  having easy browser inside WinForm, WPF, and WinRT, there is really no point to allocate resources to compete with other free browsers.

@magicalclick: One word: Enterprise.

Big companies (and governments) that pay millions of dollars for contractors to build internal web-sites get really pissed off when the website breaks because Google or Mozilla pushed out an update that had a minor but breaking change in the graphics engine.

These websites might be relying on ActiveX controls and pixel-perfect positioning based on entirely broken HTML that was made six years ago, but you'll be damned if you can find a CEO that understands that and agrees that the website needs a $100,000 makeover just to make the website look the same as it does now with no feature improvements.

This is why all big companies use Internet Explorer. IE does not change how it renders pages except at major version changes. And as an IT-administrator you get to test it across your enterprise and choose when to deploy that major change.

@steve01: Is that hardware device a new acquisition or is it an older component that somebody installed a new firmware on? Why did they buy a new one? Why not find somebody who still stocks the old model? If it's a firmware thing, why did they install the latest firmware? Why not stay on the old one? Why not see if the old firmware is still compatible with the newer device? Will my point be missed?

8 hours ago, Geoffreyk wrote

FWIW, the bug that was mentioned many pages ago has been fixed.

Yes, confirmed that this bug is gone.

Not for me it hasn't... just morphed into a different bug.

Now the edit box simply expands as the text overflows, instead of implementing scrollbars as required.

10 hours ago, evildictaitor wrote

@magicalclick: One word: Enterprise.

Big companies (and governments) that pay millions of dollars for contractors to build internal web-sites get really pissed off when the website breaks because Google or Mozilla pushed out an update that had a minor but breaking change in the graphics engine.

These websites might be relying on ActiveX controls and pixel-perfect positioning based on entirely broken HTML that was made six years ago, but you'll be damned if you can find a CEO that understands that and agrees that the website needs a $100,000 makeover just to make the website look the same as it does now with no feature improvements.

This is why all big companies use Internet Explorer. IE does not change how it renders pages except at major version changes. And as an IT-administrator you get to test it across your enterprise and choose when to deploy that major change.

This has been hashed so many times before. 

A thing like that is not a website and should not be called a website! And these developers/managers are holding it wrong (actually held, since I don't believe there are people like that today).

EDIT: So, we agree basically, but my take is that the rug should be pulled from under them, their projects are not websites.

@kettch:

The device is completely new product, there is no new firmware yet. But i did buy it for quite a lot of $. So i will live with the problems as you cant do own template html-files. I see little meaning in your post, 99.999999% of buyers of such product (me aswell) know all the things you mention. It was a surprised that i couldnt make own html templates though. I should have RTFM , but never the less i would had bought it. XP/IE8 user need to go away anyway, right?