IE 9 to go public tomorrow

[TrainableMan]

No comment on messenger. I use hotmail and live mail but have not had such an imposition.

Do you have messenger intalled? Some people have it start on boot but I rarely open mine. I noticed every time I logged in to hotmail it automatically started running messenger. Doesn't yours do that?

 

[andsome]

You are all doing a grand job testing it while I wait patiently for you all to iron out the problems. Thanks folks.

 

[Mychael]

Do you have messenger intalled? Some people have it start on boot but I rarely open mine. I noticed every time I logged in to hotmail it automatically started running messenger. Doesn't yours do that?

I have messenger but load it before Hotmail, it will then tell me if I have any mail waiting (which is not often as hotmail is my fallback email client). Messenger does not start on bootup for me, it's a setting you can change.

 

[TrainableMan]

ic, so yours is already open. Try it once where you don't have messenger running and visit your hotmail account. By the time you log out, like magic, in the background messenger will be running and logged on even though you never turned it on. That means a browser application somehow has the power to run executables on my computer. To me that is scary.

 

[catilley1092]

At last, a real 64 bit browser! The 32 bit wouldn't even install on here. It's high time that this has happened, we've had 64 bit computers for how long, since 2002, 2003, somewhere in that time frame.

And fast, too.

Now if only every other software developer can fix it where 32 bit software won't work (or install) on 64 bit computers, we'll really be moving forward. Making everything backwards compatible is the wrong way to go, and hopefully IE9 will set an example for all other software writers to go.

PS: I just noticed that both versions were installed, even though I chose to install only the 64 bit one. What crap!

Cat

 

[davehc]

Whoops. See my much earlier post Cat.

 

[catilley1092]

Yes, I seen it, after found out that I had two of the IE9 Beta. I thought that we were being freed from 32 bit software at last. Last night, when I installed, I clicked to install the 32 bit version, but since it wouldn't download, I figured that finally MS has done the right thing.

Honestly, I don't see the point in having both. Or is this just like the previous IE's, you need the flash for 64 bit? I just can't figure this out, all this backward compatibility. Why not just let XP users have it too, since they're not totally committed to 64 bit? At some point, this issue will need to be addressed, to stop allowing 32 bit programs download to 64 bit platforms. Only then, will we be seriously be moving forward, and burying the past.

Cat

 

[TrainableMan]

If the didn't support 32 bit then more than half of the programs you use wouldn't work. Moving to 64-bit is the first time they said 16-bit would not be supported. And when 128-bit comes out they will do away with 32.

There is next to nothing for Microsoft to gain by not supporting 32-bit under a 64-bit OS and the outcry would be worse than when they tried to push Vista. There is nothing forcing you to use 32-bit software, except that you probably won't find it for everything you want to do, it is just that software optimized for 64-bit will work a little better/faster. If you look in Program Files and in Program Files (x86) I bet you find x86 is larger. How many program listed there do you need? You will find IE and WMP in both folders - you can use whichever suits you but up till yesterday IE64 w/o flash wasn't very useful.

Finally there is a beta version of flash called flash square for the 64-bit IE (works in 8 or 9), I am using it in IE8 and others mentioned they are trying it in IE9, so yes Cat, flash is needed and finally available for 64 though only in a beta. Even so, if your anti-virus is only 32-bit then you take a chance browsing in a 64-bit browser.

The other thread mentions CCleaner 3.0 will be available in a 64-bit flavor soon, which should make you happy. But following your logic you could not have used CCleaner for the last year to 18 mos because there was no 64-bit version for you.

I have been complaining all along about Microsoft yanking out backward-compatibility for menus and windows explorer and you want ... argghhh ... you better get better soon so I can come up and whup some sense into ya

 

[Mychael]

ic, so yours is already open. Try it once where you don't have messenger running and visit your hotmail account. By the time you log out, like magic, in the background messenger will be running and logged on even though you never turned it on. That means a browser application somehow has the power to run executables on my computer. To me that is scary.

Tried it, opened a new browser window,typed in www.hotmail.com, logged in, logged out. Did not get messenger loading of it's own accord.

 

[catilley1092]

If the didn't support 32 bit then more than half of the programs you use wouldn't work. Moving to 64-bit is the first time they said 16-bit would not be supported. And when 128-bit comes out they will do away with 32.

There is next to nothing for Microsoft to gain by not supporting 32-bit under a 64-bit OS and the outcry would be worse than when they tried to push Vista. There is nothing forcing you to use 32-bit software, except that you probably won't find it for everything you want to do, it is just that software optimized for 64-bit will work a little better/faster. If you look in Program Files and in Program Files (x86) I bet you find x86 is larger. How many program listed there do you need? You will find IE and WMP in both folders - you can use whichever suits you but up till yesterday IE64 w/o flash wasn't very useful.

Finally there is a beta version of flash called flash square for the 64-bit IE (works in 8 or 9), I am using it in IE8 and others mentioned they are trying it in IE9, so yes Cat, flash is needed and finally available for 64 though only in a beta. Even so, if your anti-virus is only 32-bit then you take a chance browsing in a 64-bit browser.

The other thread mentions CCleaner 3.0 will be available in a 64-bit flavor soon, which should make you happy. But following your logic you could not have used CCleaner for the last year to 18 mos because there was no 64-bit version for you.

I have been complaining all along about Microsoft yanking out backward-compatibility for menus and windows explorer and you want ... argghhh ... you better get better soon so I can come up and whup some sense into ya

You're right, there's many more 32 bit programs on here than 64 bit ones. I suppose it will be that way for some time, most likely until support for XP ends. Where it not for the Vista flop, XP would be gone next year, but MS allowing all of those downgrades put them between a rock and a hard place. What's worse, XP netbooks are still available, even though there's no mainstream support for them, except through the OEM's of the products.

That's why I don't really look for 128 bit computers to be mass produced until 2015 or so, if even then. And I won't even consider building a computer until the 128 bit platform is available, and 32 bit is buried forever. Hopefully, with the upgraded parts that I've placed on here, it'll last that long. The average lifespan of a new computer is five to seven years, so I should be good.

I really don't mean to beat up on 32 bit computing, but the developers seem to be dragging their feet, not allowing us to reach our potential with what we have, with our 64 bit computers. There is really a lot of room for moving forward, just as it was when 32 bit was released, there were still many 16 bit apps, and it took years for the 32 bit computer to be a truly 32 bit one. The same is happening here (with 64 bit), in years to come, you'll see what I mean.

Cat

 

[Mychael]

For all the users that only web browse , email and add the occasional photo into their computer I wonder would they even see any gain in 64bit. If there is no noticable gain in everyday use then I could see why they would be asking what's the point in a change.

 

[TrainableMan]

They have a name for those people - Webbies, because all they ever need from a computer can be provided by WebTV. I personally think webbies were created so AOL users would finally have someone THEY could laugh at

 

[catilley1092]

If there were supposed to be no noticeable differences in 64 bit computing, I could see the point of remaining 32 bit. But there are noticeable differences, computers of today can multi task with ease, have fewer crashes, thanks to today's standard of multi core processors, combined with 64 bit technology.

64 bit technology is by no means some new, weird, mysterious thing, that just arrived on the scene. It's been with us for at least eight years, and that's just from what I've seen. The timeframe may go back further than that. Even when you install Win 2K, you see some 64 bit files go by during the beginning of the install process.

Our current president (in the US) has proposed 100mbps to be our new standard of (ISP) speed that's going to propel the future of internet even further than it already is. Already, there's routers on the market that can deliver 300mbps, if only that signal could be obtained. While the details still must be worked out, the new standards are expected to be written into law, within the next couple of years. 64 bit computing is going to play some part into that, as we're going to need fast computers to handle the speed. Multi tasking is the standard of today, not tomorrow. Even dual core processors at some point will become outdated, as our lifestyle will revolve around the internet.

With everything that's taking place today, and the way the future is shaping, 32 bit simply won't fit the bill anymore. Those who has made the successful transition knows where I'm coming from. While it's obvious that for the time being that 32 bit isn't going to be kicked to the curb, it would be a fantasy to think that it will last forever. Once XP falls, the next generation of computing will arrive, 128 bit, there's no way that once that happens, 32 bit computing as it is today will survive. Many enthusiasts, including myself, will be ready for this day. I'm already stashing cash myself for this cause.

Not to kick 32 bit in the least, I still have such a computer myself, but enjoy these days while you still can. It's not included in the plans of the future, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Cat

 

[Mychael]

If there were supposed to be no noticeable differences in 64 bit computing, I could see the point of remaining 32 bit. But there are noticeable differences, computers of today can multi task with ease, have fewer crashes, thanks to today's standard of multi core processors, combined with 64 bit technology.

With everything that's taking place today, and the way the future is shaping, 32 bit simply won't fit the bill anymore. Those who has made the successful transition knows where I'm coming from. While it's obvious that for the time being that 32 bit isn't going to be kicked to the curb, it would be a fantasy to think that it will last forever. Once XP falls, the next generation of computing will arrive,

Not to kick 32 bit in the least, I still have such a computer myself, but enjoy these days while you still can. It's not included in the plans of the future, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Cat

I was going to start a new posting in general discussions but Cat's posting leads me into it nicely.
WHY should we bother to get Win 7?
I ask not for myself 'cos I just play with computers as a hobby and try anything new but for all my friends with Computers running XP.

These are ppl long term users of stable XP systems, they'll either have full installation Cd's or recovery disk. Most have not installed any new software for ages, in some cases years as what they have does what they want.

I'm looking for positive aspects here, not to start a debate.

Some points to note.
It wont work just to say "because it's newer and better" as my friends will ask "in what way" .
No good saying "to run latest software" as they have the working software they need.
Don't say "it's faster" as they'll reply they already get the speed they want.
Don't try "stability" as they are long term XP users with stable systems.
Don't try "security" as they are aware enough to keep safe.
Don't try "end of support" (for XP) as again they say "what of it" they've not needed support for years. If they one day get a browser update that wont work in XP they'll just go back to an older browser.

I've run out of points to make to them so I throw it open to you guys but it has to be clear arguments as to the worth of doing it, I'm out of ideas and have to say all the arguements they make seem valid to me. They are computer savvy but NOT computer hobbyists like most of us here are.

 

[TrainableMan]

I asked Why Win 7 when I got here Mychael when I was bitter and frustrated with the issues I was having with my upgrade and I got very few responses. Most actually said unless you have a need for something in W7 or wanted the bells and whistles like Aero then you may as well stay at XP, especially now that it's support is extended beyond the end of the world (or at least the end of the Mayan calendar )

I don't think Cat would ever say why W7, he just says Why W7x86 :aetsch:

 

[Mychael]

I asked Why Win 7 when I got here Mychael when I was bitter and frustrated with the issues I was having with my upgrade and I got very few responses. Most actually said unless you have a need for something in W7 or wanted the bells and whistles like Aero then you may as well stay at XP, especially now that it's support is extended beyond the end of the world (or at least the end of the Mayan calendar )

I don't think Cat would ever say why W7, he just says Why W7x86 :aetsch:

The only valid argument I can think of is when/if the need to buy newer hardware to replace failed stuff and XP cannot support it but I think that would be a long long way down the track (if ever) . The only time I ever personally encountered that scenario was with W95 which could not cope with the higher clock speeds of the new chips around then.

 

[TrainableMan]

The only valid argument I can think of is when/if the need to buy newer hardware to replace failed stuff and XP cannot support it but I think that would be a long long way down the track (if ever) .

Actually the buyers of new computers (which is hardware) right now today would probably have difficulty finding XP drivers to support all of their components; if you have new computer I would definitely say W7 because it comes with it. I suspect you mean more like a printer or blue-ray player and I was not able to find any of those (doesn't mean they don't exist, just means I didn't find any in my search).

But there is definitely software that won't run in XP or even W7x86 ... so if you NEED that software then you have to go where they are supported.

 

[Mychael]

Actually the buyers of new computers (which is hardware) right now today would probably have difficulty finding XP drivers to support all of their components; if you have new computer I would definitely say W7 because it comes with it. I suspect you mean more like a printer or blue-ray player and I was not able to find any of those (doesn't mean they don't exist, just means I didn't find any in my search).

But there is definitely software that won't run in XP or even W7x86 ... so if you NEED that software then you have to go where they are supported.

I was thinking more MoBo and stuff like that. The fact the a few retailers still market new machines with XP leads me to think hardware support will be around for a while yet.
Printers possibly but USB connectivity is pretty good however wireless printing could be an issue. However the sort of people I was alluding to in my post would not be bothered with wireless connectivity anyway.
Again I am thinking of my friends who have Cd's for most of the software they have installed and don't go shopping for anything new as what they have does the taks they need to do.
Antivirus protection MAY become an issue in the future as updates tune it more and more to Win7 but M/S clearly see the market in XP by making Windows Live and MSE compatible with XP.

 

[Jeffreyobrien]

Nibiru,
was wondering about a credential I found after installing IE9 Beta.I re booted and was trying to signin to windows Live ID.I found all this fine until I was requested by update to download and install windows Live ID signin assistant,after that I checked my credentials & found one in there which was not FAIR DINKUM.

IT LOOKED LIKE THIS
user name fyxSissw334vcx*aioqas
password *********32**64***
persistance Keep Alive

I went into administrator account & also found all my user accounts password set to be changed in 3 days I noticed that MSBA 2.2 found three shared user accounts all admins ? can you see anything wrong here as I deleted that credential.

On my laptops I am the only user.I have one administrator account & Guest account set to closed I can find only two user profiles using w7 RTM Ultimate x64.Strange to find this after installing IE9 Beta.I did also notice that IE9 preview is still installed however IE 8 is gone.I was thinking that the Beta has upgreaded from IE 8 or am I totally in Dark Literally speaking any help would be appreciated,my AV is doing weird actions.
regards
jeffreyobrien

 

[TrainableMan]

Hi Jeffrey,
How much have you been using the new browser, as I am wondering if you found an new exploit of ie9 while surfing? I doubt Microsoft installed all that when you updated but if somebody used a new weakness they may be trying to compromise your system. Anything show up on virus or malware scans?

Nibs posted another thread about the virus "Anti-virus 2010" that messes up the ie9 install but it didn't say anything about creating admin accounts like you mention.

I did also notice that IE9 preview is still installed however IE 8 is gone.I was thinking that the Beta has upgraded from IE 8

Yes, when I installed 9 Beta it actually seemed to overwrite 8 and if you delete the beta to roll back to ie8 it makes ie8 start up fresh with the "welcome to ie 8", do you want to make it the default browser, set up search engines, "do you want to import favorites from firefox", etc as if it is a fresh install. This scared me and I told it to import my favorites from firefox but someone else said they will still be in there. I sort or expected this but it surprised Cat, if you are 64-bit and install that it overwrites both the 64 and 32 bit browsers.