Shared publicly  - 
Good move: Microsoft turns on automatic, silent update for Internet Explorer -
Dec. 15, 2011 - Good news, everyone! Microsoft has decided that the time has come to make sure that all users of Internet Explorer are using the most current version
Daniel Woydig's profile photoSergio Acosta's profile photoemmanuel rodrigues's profile photoPaul Underwood's profile photo
Internet Destroyer needs to wake up.
Better Move: People stop using Internet Explorer.
+Brendan Foley IE9 is very capable. I was pleasantly surprised and I now use it more than FF and pretty soon I may completely switch from Chrome..especially when IE10 gets here.
But if you want to keep living in the past, that's all on you.
+Karel Jack past of what? Because it's caught up (capable) doesn't make it good or better. Still, it has terrible support for HTML5. IE10 might do better than IE9... maybe, who knows really. Microsoft has already decided that things like WebGL are "dangerous" because of theoretical threat risks (which are far lower then risks than simply having IE installed on a system), so it's doubtful that'll get good support. It is still behind Firefox and Chrome, and even this latest move is just a catch up move as Chrome and Firefox already do this if you want them to (Firefox much more recently than Chrome, granted).

I've had to use IE9 as part of my job as a software tester. There is nothing about it that makes me want to use it over Firefox 8 or Chrome. At home it would be especially ridiculous to use IE as it would require too much work for a crappy application when I could just use the default Firefox that comes with my OS, or grab Chromium from the software center.
+Brendan Foley "Because it's caught up (capable) doesn't make it good or better."
And it also doesn't make it the shitstorm that some of you are making it out to be.
+Karel Jack it wouldn't, except that it has a long history of being behind everything else and getting up to speed late, like in this case, of being one of the worst security risks you can have on a Windows OS (still is, by the way, even if it were "capable"), of being the least standards compliant browser (still is, makes extra work for those making websites) and so on.

Interestingly, you decided to address the point that was a gimme to you with you comment, rather than addressing the other points that would be more relevant to your comment, such as IE9 still having the least HTML5 compatibility, Microsoft already looking like it will refuse to support WebGL (likely because that's dangerous competition for some of its own graphical products), and that in actual use testing, it IS crap.

I could go on to say it's not really compatible with my OS of choice either (GNU/Linux) and thus is a pain to install and run even at what level it otherwise would, while most other browsers are to a large extent cross-platform. But, it doesn't bother me that much as I wouldn't want to use it, so maybe that was a smart move on Microsoft's part. I could go on about it's problems as well which are not problems for other Browsers.
Add a comment...