Five Reasons not to “Upgrade” to Windows’ Internet Explorer 9

I personally use Internet Explorer 9; I've found it more stable than the latest release of Firefox; of course I am running the RTM version and not a beta version. It does everything I need it to adequately. I think Microsoft has really outdone themselves on this one; IE8 was a mistake and is what forced me to switch to Firefox.

seekermeister said:

alphanumeric said:

seekermeister said:

It appears that I'm out of luck, there is nothing listed in Programs And Features, no restore point, except one made today, and there is no uninstaller in the program's directories. Since I rarely use it anyway, I'm not going to get too concerned about it, and will probably just leave it as is.

EDIT: I probably would have uninstalled the beta also, before installing the RTM, but if I recall, there was no uninstaller for it either. When I was told that it wouldn't matter, I went ahead.

Did you click the "View Installed Updates" option in the menu on the left? Thats a seperate screen once you're in programs and features.

You are right, it was there. Sometimes I just need a draft to clear away the fog in my mind. I guess that uninstalling the RTM also uninstalled the beta, since now all I find are the 32 and 64 bit versions of IE 8.

When you said that I would need to apply the update to both the 32 and 64 bit versions separately, how is that done? I don't recall any option for that during the installation.

Download and install the version of IE 9 listed for Windows 7 64 bit. That installer installs both the 32 and 64 bit versions of IE 9, updating your current IE 8 install. You can't update them separately, its all or none. The 32 bit installer won't run on a 64 bit OS, it will just prompt you to get the 64 bit version.

EchoX860 said:

I upgraded to IE9 because even though I hate IE, I like to have the latest crap.

LOL.

Before installing IE9, check with ALL of the sites/businesses/your company sys admins to be SURE that your mission-critical tasks that require IE will actually work 100% with IE9.

Beware of ActiveX requirements - you may be in for a rebuild if you can't roll back IE on your workstation.

Regards,
GEWB

I tend to use my browser to, you know, browse sites, not for running benchmarks. As such, the one available on the machine I'm using is enough to me. Luckly I don't need to access any random w4r3z sites, even lynx is fine. And I'm from the old NCSA Mosaic/Netscape Communicator times, I do have used a lot of different browsers since then...

another reason for me.... blurriness

I had IE8 both 32 & 64 bit versions installed on my machine. I upgraded to IE9, both installations were updated without issue.

I have not upgraded my RC yet, waiting for the final release to appear on the Windows update. I don't see any blurriness or any other issues that people are complaining about. Some sites do require compatibility view though, but I guess that's because the browser is brand new.

As far as those articles, I can only one thing to say - as a Windows 7 user, what do I care about which browsers are available on Linux? After all, there is so little difference in all browsers (apart from add-ons which I personally don't use anyways) that do I really care if the browser I use is called IE or Ice Weasel (that's the browser on my university computer, firefox-based I believe)? Konquerer does not exist outside of Linux, but that does not bother anyone somehow.

severedsolo said:

After a couple of weeks on tinkering with the newly released Internet Explorer (IE) 9, and a host of other Web browsers, I have to say that while 32-bit IE 9 is much better than any other version of IE to date, it’s still not my first pick for a Web browser. Here’s why.

1. Operating system incompatibilities
When it comes to desktop operating systems, IE 9 works only with Windows 7 and Vista. That’s it. XP users? You’re out of luck. There’s no IE 9 for XP. Yes, according to NetMarketShare, the majority of Windows users are still running XP, 55%, to 23% running Windows 7 and 11% with Vista, but there’s still no IE 9 for you.

Of course, Microsoft also doesn’t support IE 9 on Mac OS X or Linux either. Indeed, Dean Hachamovitch, the head of Microsoft’s IE’s engineering group boasted of it at the SXSW (South by Southwest Conferences and Festivals). Hachamovitch is reported as saying, “Other browsers dilute their engineering investments across systems. Because we focus exclusively on one, IE can make the most of the Windows experience and the hardware.”

Funny, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all seem to manage it pretty well. And, even if Microsoft wants to ignore Mac OS X and Linux, why not at least a version for XP anyway?
The answer, of course, is that Microsoft wants to sell you Windows 7, even if you don’t need or want it.

2. Performance
Yes, IE 9 actually is the winner at the SunSpider JavaScript 0.91 benchmark, but a fuller suite of tests reveals that IE 9 actually loses to Chrome and even to the Firefox 4 release candidate on other benchmarks.

Fair warning here, the author clearly has an Anti Microsoft agenda. This becomes obvious within the first 2 paragraphs, so the "information" may or may not be accurate. Still, it is in an interesting article.


More at: Five Reasons not to “Upgrade” to Windows’ Internet Explorer 9 | ZDNet

This thread is just a joke!
What will be the next one => ?Ten reasons not to post the obvious proof of having very few and very lonely brain cells