Internet Explorer 9 - Hardware & Software

Well XP is two OS's behind, no reason to support it forever.

Remember kids. Internet Explorer 9 is just Internet Explorer 6, upside down.

Probably because it uses WPF.

[QUOTE=BmB;24973697]Probably because it uses WPF.[/QUOTE] Where does it use WPF?

Can somebody take their IE9 beta and run it through [URL="http://tools.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html"]this test[/URL]? Just copypasta this: [QUOTE]From the 41 selectors 41 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 574 out of 574 tests)[/QUOTE] though it'll be slightly different depending on how well IE9 supports css3.

From the 41 selectors 41 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 574 out of 574 tests)

[QUOTE=id3z;24974977]From the 41 selectors 41 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 574 out of 574 tests)[/QUOTE] What?! No way. Brb I'm installing a virtual win7 just to test that shit myself. IE with standards? Hell no.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;24971412]Well XP is two OS's behind, no reason to support it forever.[/QUOTE] I agree %100. I run Windows 2000 on my network harddrive and I dont expect to get IE9 xD

[QUOTE=Panda X;24974489]Where does it use WPF?[/QUOTE] I thought I read somewhere it was a WPF app?

[QUOTE=Sumtoxx;24975067]What?! No way. Brb I'm installing a virtual win7 just to test that shit myself. IE with standards? Hell no.[/QUOTE] IE9 has more CSS3 support than Firefox. Still doesn't support Text-Shadow though.

[QUOTE=BmB;24975932]I thought I read somewhere it was a WPF app?[/QUOTE] No. Would be interesting though. Although WPF/.NET isn't as optimized as it can be. I can conclude this based on 2 things. .NET isn't a prerequisite. The UI is built from DirectUI not BAML/XAML.

[QUOTE=CarlBooth;24979624]IE9 has more CSS3 support than Firefox. Still doesn't support Text-Shadow though.[/QUOTE] Great. How is it's html5 support? I keep googling around trying to find out but the googles is clogged with a shitton of blogs just saying "OMGZ!!1 IE9 is going to support html5/css3!" It'd be wonderful to find a support graph somewhere lol.

[QUOTE=Sumtoxx;24990410]Great. How is it's html5 support? I keep googling around trying to find out but the googles is clogged with a shitton of blogs just saying "OMGZ!!1 IE9 is going to support html5/css3!" It'd be wonderful to find a support graph somewhere lol.[/QUOTE] It has a great deal of HTML5 support and uses Direct2D to run it through the GPU which firefox and chrome can never fully support no matter how much they lie. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML5[/url])

[QUOTE=CarlBooth;25000481]It has a great deal of HTML5 support and uses Direct2D to run it through the GPU which firefox and chrome can never fully support no matter how much they lie. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML5[/url])[/QUOTE] And why can't they?

[QUOTE=Panda X;25002976]And why can't they?[/QUOTE] It's my understanding that whatever they do will have to sit on top of some sort of an abstraction layer to maintain support in OS X / Linux so you will never get native performance. I could be wrong though.

[QUOTE=CarlBooth;25003054]It's my understanding that whatever they do will have to sit on top of some sort of an abstraction layer to maintain support in OS X / Linux so you will never get native performance. I could be wrong though.[/QUOTE] They have native implementations for Windows, Linux and Mac OS. What you read is a claim by the IE team I believe, and has been debunked by Mozilla developers [URL="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/09/full_hardware_a.html"]here[/URL]. Basically it would be a performance hit if they did something silly like translate D3D into OpenGL. [QUOTE=Bletotum;24971412]Well XP is two OS's behind, no reason to support it forever.[/QUOTE] Yeah but there's no reason to [B]drop[/B] support in the first place except for cost/marketing reasons (Get 7! It has IE9! XP doesn't!) The only thing XP wouldn't support is the hardware acceleration stuff (which can be done, as proven above), but they obviously already have non-accelerated code for it anyway, which they can use. [QUOTE=BmB;24973697]Probably because it uses WPF.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure WPF works on XP too.