Internet Explorer 9 Release Candidate Now Available

Dave85 · 17 Feb 2011 at 21:44

Loving Ie9 RC so much so I find myself hardly using chrome most of the time now

Deleted member 77746 · 18 Feb 2011 at 09:21

Khaaan! said:
Absolutely not, I buy my MS software and OSes for example.
I just don't like IE9 especially the way it's being marketed (and followed by users) as the best and top standards compliant browser when it isn't! - All because it's passing tests created by MS during IE9's development.

The way it's marketed? What? Why? :confused:

mrk · 18 Feb 2011 at 09:46

Going by your sig, I don't think you'd really notice, or want to anyway but it's pretty obvious!

Frapple · 18 Feb 2011 at 13:00

No 64bit jump lists

Deleted member 77746 · 18 Feb 2011 at 13:23

Khaaan! said:
Going by your sig, I don't think you'd really notice, or want to anyway but it's pretty obvious!

What?

Clarkey · 18 Feb 2011 at 23:08

The text rendering in this is horrendous, it's hard to read and hurts my eyes. Isn't there a way to turn this BlurType bullcrap off?

Macro · 19 Feb 2011 at 13:01

Khaaan! said:
Absolutely not, I buy my MS software and OSes for example.
I just don't like IE9 especially the way it's being marketed (and followed by users) as the best and top standards compliant browser when it isn't! - All because it's passing tests created by MS during IE9's development.

You mean the testing carried out by the WC3? Don't seem to be "Microsoft tests". According to the site they are "results obtained when using the approved HTML5 tests that have been agreed upon by the HTML WG as valid per the HTML5 specification." They look pretty healthy for IE9 to me. W3 HTML5 Tests. Are you sure you're not just a little bit anti MS?

Cosimo · 19 Feb 2011 at 13:17

Back on again after the beta, SP1 and it's flying.

mrk · 19 Feb 2011 at 15:15

Athanor said:
You mean the testing carried out by the WC3? Don't seem to be "Microsoft tests". According to the site they are "results obtained when using the approved HTML5 tests that have been agreed upon by the HTML WG as valid per the HTML5 specification." They look pretty healthy for IE9 to me. W3 HTML5 Tests. Are you sure you're not just a little bit anti MS?

No, I am pro MS for software and is but anti ie9 only, unti they fix the bugs and clains. And I suggest you read the link I posted earlier related to the tests.

Deleted member 77746 · 19 Feb 2011 at 15:37

Khaaan! said:
No, I am pro MS for software and is but anti ie9 only, unti they fix the bugs and clains. And I suggest you read the link I posted earlier related to the tests.

Anti IE9 when it's still in beta, man you rock! Atleast let it get out of Beta before you make such comments. They will fix the bugs.

Macro · 19 Feb 2011 at 16:24

Khaaan! said:
No, I am pro MS for software and is but anti ie9 only, unti they fix the bugs and clains. And I suggest you read the link I posted earlier related to the tests.

I suggest you read the tests I linked to - the ratified W3C ones, not some strange "Microsoft" ones. I took a look at the link you posted, and I have to be honest, I'm not impressed. It seems to be written by a Mozilla dev, so is about as impartial as asking Steve Jobs which phone he'd chose.

Having said that even in that post it refers to the "MS tests" and "W3C standards tests" as separate things, calling them "useful", and then tries to fudge things by suggesting other "tests" might be better (for Mozilla presumably). All things considered I think I'll stick with the official compliance tests ratified by W3C for HTML5 proposed standards rather than the rather bitter sounding posts of a Mozilla spokesperson.