*** Internet Explorer 9 Final Released ***

ic1male said:
I think it's supposed to copy the Apple anti-aliasing look for "easy on the eyes" appeal. But I think MS have got it wrong. :D
Click to expand...

Agreed, ever since windows xp , microsoft have blurred all fonts, really hate it.

You put xp back on and text on menus ,web pages are perfectly sharp, vista ,windows 7, even with clear type off ,its semi blury. :(
 
Google releases WebM video plug-in for IE9

In an effort to bring its Web video technology to a browser that doesn't support it, Google has released an IE9 plug-in to play WebM video.

The move won't bring an end to the industry scuffle over the best way to build video into the Web, but it will mean that allies behind Google's preferred mechanism will be able to reach beyond the three browsers that support WebM today, Google's Chrome, Opera Software's Opera, and Mozilla's Firefox. Apple's Safari and Microsoft's brand-new IE9 support the rival H.264 video codec (though IE9 requires Windows 7 or an updated version of Windows Vista).;)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20043284-264.html?tag=cnetRiver
 
Mattus said:
The bad:

JS still slow compared to competitors (Chrome, Firefox much faster in V8).
HTML5 support patchy compared to competitors.
Click to expand...
Not sure that's entirely accurate. Some early reviews benchmarked IE9 against other browsers but used the x64 build that doesn't have the new improved JS engine. This has since been pointed out and pretty much all reviews agree IE9 x86 is faster than the other browsers for JS:

002_sunspider.png



For example: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/internet-explorer-9-is-released-should-you-switch/3058?


For HTML5 the W3C own test suite puts IE9 (RC) as equal or more compliant for HTML5 than the other browsers. http://test.w3.org/html/tests/reporting/report.htm


I'll agree that there are fewer extensions but with TPL and Adblocking support i'm pretty happy to go with quick and light, much like the minimalistic UI although granted that comes down to personal taste.
 
Last edited:
I quite like it. What's all this talk of blurred text? I dont see any

It doesn't render the advanced search boxes of these forums very well (perhaps an issue with VB in general).
 
Last edited:
No blurry text here either. I did hear somewhere it might be linked to when people force AA on in their graphics drivers rather than leaving in "application controled".

As IE9 uses GPU hardware acceleration it would surprise me if using that option forced AA on in the browser as well.
 
Tute said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Apparently something to do with it requiring significant effort to redo the 64bit version and not enough people actually needing/using it as primary browser for the forseeable future (a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy there really).

Supposedly it will be updated but they chose to ship now as is rather than wait for the x64 JS engine update.
 
Well that's not cool at all. It took ages for Adobe to get flash x64 out there and what happens? Microsoft slack on development. :rolleyes:

I just feel that if this carries on, how are people expected to switch away from 32 to 64 bit browsers?

Plus I never knew this, have been running with x64 as my primary browser, and wondering why it was so sluggish... :p
 
Tute said:
Well that's not cool at all. It took ages for Adobe to get flash x64 out there and what happens? Microsoft slack on development. :rolleyes:

I just feel that if this carries on, how are people expected to switch away from 32 to 64 bit browsers?

Plus I never knew this, have been running with x64 as my primary browser, and wondering why it was so sluggish... :p
Click to expand...
To be fair i don't think 64bit browsers bring anything to the party you don't get from a x86 one which I guess is why development all round has been slow.

I'm sure someone like NathanE could actually give more detail around the technical merits.

There's a bit more background about the differences and the update to speed results once benchmarked with x86 build here http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/chrome-10-vs-internet-explorer-9-reconsidered/792??

The reasoning behind the decision seems to be:

Sure enough, when I asked, Tim Sneath, Microsoft’s Senior Director of Windows and Web Evangelist, “The 64-bit IE 9 RC doesn’t use the Chakra JIT does it? It uses the older, far less efficient one, right?” Sneath replied, “That’s correct–we put all our JIT compiler investment in this release of Chakra into the 32-bit compiler, since that’s the one that is near-universally used today. The 32-bit browser is the default even on 64-bit systems, since almost all add-ons are 32-bit only at this time. The 64-bit version provides no real advantage, since no browser scenario requires access to >2GB of user memory in a single process.”
 
sunlitsix said:
So its best to use the 32-bit IE9 for now?
Click to expand...

The download is not architecture specific though (per se). If you use Windows 7 x86 you obviously don't download the x64 version, but if you are windows 7 x64, download IE9 for windows 7 x64. This contains both 32b and 64b versions of the browser and uses the 32b version by default.
 
Using the x64 version. Can't see any reason not to to be honest. Flash seems to work fine and everything is very smooth (for me anyhow).

I quite like it - when I first tried it a while back I wasn't overly impressed but since realease it seems to have all come together - some of the features are really nice (and I can see the hardware acceleration coming in useful as well! after all you've paid for the hardware it would be nice to see more software using it).

Very impressed I have to say.


M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom