This is not a troll post!

I'd like to point your attention to the following article from 2011:

It outlines 5 invalid reasons as to why IE9 should not be taken up.

1) Hmm cool, Windows 7 has dominated the user share for a long time. XP has too many security vulnerabilities anyway, so there's no point in releasing IE9 for it. Besides, who even uses IE8, XP users are probably using Firefox (shudder) or Chrome.

2) Chrome just feels faster hey? Well since we've moved from cold hard facts to opinion, IE9 FEELS faster than chrome for me. Not that we've accounted for different hardware or anything... not to mention GPU accelerated canvas and all the rest... and the ton of system configuration variables...

3) Bad 64-bit IE hey? How is this one of the big five reasons not to use IE9 anyway; who cares about the 64-bit version. Firefox and Chrome users certainly don't. lol at least IE has one. Have fun with your 64-bit Chrome oh wait.

4) Lack of security...meh I'll give you that one, but its certainly not terrible. There's no major vulnerabilities... but suggesting Firefox or Chrome is more secure is misleading. I usually point these statistics out in a web browser argument:

Granted those are rather old versions of Chrome and Firefox, but 99% for IE9? You can't top that. Malware isn't the only security issue in a browser of course, but it's certainly a damn important one.

5) Okay, you've mentioned Microsoft's noise about HTML5 video support in IE9. Then you say IE has bad HTML5 support in general? But I thought your argument was based on the connotations derived from your use of the word "noise" in this context? Basic english, relate your argument to the topic sentence and don't go off on a tangent. Getting back to the issue of HTML5 video, it's something IE does pretty well, which Firefox failed to pull off for about 8735385792 rapid releases. Bad HTML5 support isn't an issue. It really isn't. It's not even standardised!

During my coding experience, forcing non-emulation mode on IE9 makes pages behave identically to Firefox. Chrome is the browser that gave me issues. In any case, is there something wrong with Microsoft maintaining compatibility modes for older pages? No other browsers do that. It's all about modern social crap.

So you recommend Chrome 10 hey? Chrome 11 came out just as you typed that. Oh and now Chrome 12 is out. I wonder how far these releases will go HOLY SHIT CHROME 23? FIREFOX 17? I give up.

IE9 is a drastic improvement from IE8, all things considered. Microsoft isn't going to come up with the perfect browser in one go. Besides, it can take longer than three years to improve a browser a shitload. IE6 to IE7 took five years and they certainly cleaned that mess up pretty damn well (however I still maintain that IE6 is the best web browser ever made, due to its RAM usage). IE10 is a further improvement in every aspect of an internet browser once again. Maybe by IE11 people will finally see that IE is just as competitive as Fireshit or Groan.

To conclude, if you don't really care, there's nothing wrong with Chrome. Plus its the least taxing on system resources, good for netbooks. The only reason Firefox is so popular because of the damn add-ons. Firefox's standards conformance is far from perfect, javascript benchmarks are average, and its startup time has been disappointing since the dawn of the dinosaurs. If you just want to use a web browser to browse the web (funny that) comfortably, use IE9 or 10, or Chrome.

End transmission.


so um is firefox's put-shit-in-here-bar aka "omnibar" going to make up its mind about what it wants to be yet?


It's what controls people's spending habits these days.


hey bro i put windows 8 on mah vcr





Windows 8 has more snappy stuff than ever before. This makes it the best operating system :)