Windows Vista: No IE10 for you

[still1]

Vista is a dying OS... its not sold as mainstream OS and the share is coming down.

by 2012 very few people will use vista so not a big deal

[BajiRav]

Seems a bit silly when it comes down to two operating systems that are nearly identical to each other.

I think MS has made it clear that they consider IE as part of OS and shipping any updates to OS beyond their mainstream support date, doesn't make sense. I guess besides Ubuntu, they have the longest support lifecycle in consumer OS.

It's no different than iOS 4 not supporting iPhone 2G (identical to iPhone 3G) or 4.3 not supporting iPhone 3G (identical to iPhone 3GS) or restricting voice commands to 3GS upwards.

Well, considering that Windows 7 (at retail) was only released 1.5 years ago, there are probably lots of people with fairly recent computers who have it. Even if it is another year before IE10 is released, that still leaves some 2.5 year old computers without it. Contrary to popular belief (around here at least), most consumers only ever upgrade their OS when buying a new computer, and especially in this economy they aren't likely to be buying new computers every 2 years.

yeah, I was just thinking about folks on Neowin (not general public) who always whine about "XP sucks, I will stay with Win2k" or "how dare MS don't support IE9 on XP" and so on. Wasn't meant to be for regular people in real world. After so many people writing off vista on Neowin, it'd be funny to watch someone go "M$ should support IE10 on vista !!!!11!!"

[jason13524]

NT 4 had IE 2, 4 and 4

Windows 2000 had IE 5, 5.5 and 6

XP had IE 6, 7 and 8

Vista had IE 7, 8 and 9

Windows 7 Had 8, 9 and 10

[Growled Member]

I understand Microsoft's reasoning but all they are doing is adding numbers to Firefox.

[lalalawawawa]

NT 4 had IE 2, 4 and 4

Windows 2000 had IE 5, 5.5 and 6

XP had IE 6, 7 and 8

Vista had IE 7, 8 and 9

Windows 7 Had 8, 9 and 10

This!

[Ci7]

Well, considering that Windows 7 (at retail) was only released 1.5 years ago, there are probably lots of people with fairly recent computers who have it. Even if it is another year before IE10 is released, that still leaves some 2.5 year old computers without it. Contrary to popular belief (around here at least), most consumers only ever upgrade their OS when buying a new computer, and especially in this economy they aren't likely to be buying new computers every 2 years.

what about those who got it at '07 lanch

that would be almost 5 years

they da surely upgrade by then?!!

Windows 7 Had 8, 9 and 10

may as well add 11 and 12

[Jen Smith]

may as well add 11 and 12

If Microsoft is going to use support life cycles to drop support with IE builds, I would think that Win7 will be in the "ancient history" column by then.

As for "having" to upgrade the hardware, says who? Some of my older, lesser used systems have been running from Windows 2000 through Windows 7. State of the art, not hardly. But it works. A new Windows version doesn't automatically push your hardware into the garbage pile. (Assuming the various hardware is still supported of course.. dropping x86 down the road for example would be an exception.) And if I absolutely positively refused to upgrade the OS? Fine. Use a different browser. I seriously doubt they'd bend over backwards for a free product.

[remixedcat]

well when you gotta choose between a new computer or food for the next 4 months..... it's pretty easy to see why....Ci7. I was there before.

also people may be putting money into other things as well. I recently bought a new place, I am putting more money into it becuase it's an investment as well.

[Ci7]

If Microsoft is going to use support life cycles to drop support with IE builds, I would think that Win7 will be in the "ancient history" column by then.

As for "having" to upgrade the hardware, says who? Some of my older, lesser used systems have been running from Windows 2000 through Windows 7. State of the art, not hardly. But it works. A new Windows version doesn't automatically push your hardware into the garbage pile. (Assuming the various hardware is still supported of course.. dropping x86 down the road for example would be an exception.) And if I absolutely positively refused to upgrade the OS? Fine. Use a different browser. I seriously doubt they'd bend over backwards for a free product.

if mainsteam support was there excuse , win7 has it till 2015

plenty of IE releases

and that is why IE7 didn't see the light of day for Win2k

don't get me wrong , but

IE devlopment cost get passed into windows

why do they have too give free upgrade to OS they no longer sell or support fully again?

PS:

H/W the rig in sig is fastest rig , the rest is like 3/4+ year old Core 2

or else we da file bankurpcy :|

well when you gotta choose between a new computer or food for the next 4 months..... it's pretty easy to see why....Ci7. I was there before.

also people may be putting money into other things as well. I recently bought a new place, I am putting more money into it becuase it's an investment as well.

sure life is first then gadgets

meant average people not poor palz in the first place

[Southern Patriot]

what about those who got it at '07 lanch

that would be almost 5 years

they da surely upgrade by then?!!

Probably so, but my point was that people focus too much on when an OS was released, when they should be looking at when it was last commonly sold at retail. Windows Vista was being actively sold until roughly 1.5 years ago, so it is a little soon to withdraw support for it.

[George P Global Moderator]

We're all looking at it from todays market, IE10 isn't coming till 2012, and at that time we'll be talking about Win8 and Vista will be where? Remember MS sold free updates from Vista to win7 with pc's sold in the year up to (or maybe it was 6 months or so?) the RTM of Win7. When I made this new box I had Vista on it originally but got a free update to win7 so I moved up. Vista won't be around much longer at this rate and lots of those older XP systems are getting swapped out for newer Win7 and soon Win8 systems.

Win7 should see IE11 as well, maybe not IE12 though, but who knows.

[Southern Patriot]

Remember MS sold free updates from Vista to win7 with pc's sold in the year up to (or maybe it was 6 months or so?) the RTM of Win7.

Actually, it was about 4 months: July 1st till the release of Windows 7 (late October).

http://www.mydigitallife.info/free-upgrade-to-windows-7-program-for-windows-vista-pc-from-july-1/

[George P Global Moderator]

Either way with deals like the Win7 family pack going for $150 iirc which they've done twice now, I see little reason not to have upgraded a Vista PC from 1-3 years ago.

[Southern Patriot]

Either way with deals like the Win7 family pack going for $150 iirc which they've done twice now, I see little reason not to have upgraded a Vista PC from 1-3 years ago.

Again: most normal (average) consumers do not upgrade their OS. They get a new OS when they buy a new computer. And with the economy in the toilet for the past few years, many people simply don't have to money to upgade their computer or OS. Many, if not most, of the computers I work on for people are running Vista still.

[George P Global Moderator]

Again: most normal (average) consumers do not upgrade their OS. They get a new OS when they buy a new computer. And with the economy in the toilet for the past few years, many people simply don't have to money to upgade their computer or OS. Many, if not most, of the computers I work on for people are running Vista still.

And when IE10 goes final it'll be a year from now, things can be and probably will be different. If you want to just talk about normal "average" consumers they don't upgrade their software either. Many will be fine with IE9 and won't care about going to IE10, so the same logic you're using applies.

[Growled Member]

Microsoft can do whatever they want. It's their product after all. I personally wish they would make IE OS independent so it could run on anything, the way other browsers do.

[MS Bob 11]

There was no need to deliberately cut off Vista support without giving any technical reason as right now Vista is in mainstream support. Even IE8 RTMed in March 2009, and XP mainstream support ended just a month later in April 2009. They could have done the same for Vista and release IE10 in March 2012 because Vista mainstream support ends in April 2012. Web developers have to do the added work of supporting IE7,8 on XP/Vista, IE9 on Vista and IE10 on Windows 7 and so on. With other browsers, multiple versions is not a problem because the rendering does not break with newer versions or doesn't require compatibility view meta tags or version specific hacks.

[Ci7]

There was no need to deliberately cut off Vista support without giving any technical reason as right now Vista is in mainstream support. Even IE8 RTMed in March 2009, and XP mainstream support ended just a month later in April 2009. They could have done the same for Vista and release IE10 in March 2012 because Vista mainstream support ends in April 2012. Web developers have to do the added work of supporting IE7,8 on XP/Vista, IE9 on Vista and IE10 on Windows 7 and so on. With other browsers, multiple versions is not a problem because the rendering does not break with newer versions or doesn't require compatibility view meta tags or version specific hacks.

my bet it would have some kind of depandcy with Windows 8

which they will backport to 7

they don't went to bother themself backporting two verison back , then they would be obligated to lengh supported

more support = money drain

[DukeEsquire]

There was no need to deliberately cut off Vista support without giving any technical reason as right now Vista is in mainstream support. Even IE8 RTMed in March 2009, and XP mainstream support ended just a month later in April 2009. They could have done the same for Vista and release IE10 in March 2012 because Vista mainstream support ends in April 2012. Web developers have to do the added work of supporting IE7,8 on XP/Vista, IE9 on Vista and IE10 on Windows 7 and so on. With other browsers, multiple versions is not a problem because the rendering does not break with newer versions or doesn't require compatibility view meta tags or version specific hacks.

The need was they don't want to support Vista. I'm sure it was a business decision first and technical decision second.