Re: New IE 9 will not work in Windows XP - another fuc job by theexpert MSFT Geeks!

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 <> 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 3/18/2010 11:35 AM, +Bob+ wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:05:16 -0400, John McGaw<> 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.