It’s time to move up to Internet Explorer 9

Topic

New Reply

	TOP STORY[/size][/font] It’s time to move up to Internet Explorer 9[/size]
	By Susan Bradley With the exception of Internet Explorer, updating to your browser’s latest version is usually a given. For Vista and Win7 users, upgrading to IE 9 requires a bit more consideration and planning than updating Firefox or Chrome — but the time has come. [/size]

---

The full text of this column is posted at WindowsSecrets.com/top-story/its-time-to-move-up-to-internet-explorer-9 (opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

[/tr][/tbl]

Reply | Quote

Replies

I’ve used online banking since it was invented. But IE9 will not allow me to log on to my bank. IE8 was no problem. I have spent hours with bank internet techs, uninstalled, reinstalled, etc etc and gave up. I use Firefox for banking with no problems. My son cannot watch Netflix in IE9 because SilverLight refuses to install to IE9. He had no problem with IE8. Like me, he uses Firefox to watch netflix movies with no problems.

Ergo: IE9 has flaws.

Reply | Quote

The online Banking issue is not just with IE9, it also is a problem with Firefox 4 and Safari 5. In some cases it is in concert with Adobe Flash Player 10.3. It is such an issue for so many of my e-zine subscribers that I created a how-to video on how to shut off graphic acceleration in IE9. Unfortuantely, because it is generally unnecessary to number crunching. Most financial institutions are still running Windows XP or, older version of Windows.

For those having this issue or similar, let your bank’s branch manager know that even if their customers using Windows Vista or, Windows 7 continued to use IE8, there will not be a choice to opt out of updating to IE9 in fairly short order. And rightly so … IE8 has more vulnerabilities than Microsoft wants to patch. IE9 is faster, easier, and just better than IE 8. For Windows Vista and Windows 7 users, updating to IE9 is the best choice for security reasons.

It’s easy to blame Microsoft when such issues as these arise. But these issues are mandated industry changes caused by cell phone users and computer users who want to marry the two machines and operate their daily lives in “THE CLOUD“. Keep in mind, all these instruments of progress are going to require the fundamental basics to change with the times. Some of those changes will be good, but many will be rubbish (at least until they are sorted out and fixed). And not only the technologies will be required to change, but how people use an interact with those technologies will have to change as well. It’s going to be the same sort of impact, not unlike the first effects of commercial aviation in the 1930’s. You wouldn’t think a simple browser issue would have that effect, now would you?

I’ve used online banking since it was invented. But IE9 will not allow me to log on to my bank. IE8 was no problem. I have spent hours with bank internet techs, uninstalled, reinstalled, etc etc and gave up. I use Firefox for banking with no problems. My son cannot watch Netflix in IE9 because SilverLight refuses to install to IE9. He had no problem with IE8. Like me, he uses Firefox to watch netflix movies with no problems.

Ergo: IE9 has flaws.

Reply | Quote

After I installed IE9 32 Bit, W7, sidebar.exe developed a memory leak. Initially some gadgets stopped responding after the laptop was on for 8+ hours. At that point, sidebar.exe would be consuming more than 1gb of memory. One could watch the memory being consumed in task manager. A first I disabled various gadgets one at a time trying to find one causing the leak but nothing changed.

An internet search pointed me to IE9. I uninstalled IE9 and went back to IE8, sidebar.exe memory leak fixed.

Reply | Quote

The heck with “the cloud.” Keep MY stuff on someobody’s servers “somewhere”? Forget it. “The cloud” – a PR person’s dream name – sounds so fluffy and picturesque. No “demand” here!

If MS wants to be Apple so badly with all the copycat moves they’ve made in recent years, why don’t they just sell themselves.

Reply | Quote

Hi there,
I have WinXP on my main pc, with Windows 7 on the laptop.
IE8 has started to play up onthe PC, and I have gone over to Google Chrome on both machines to keep life simple. The pity is that Chrome does not seem to be as good as IE, so both I and Microsoft have lost out.
Reg

Reply | Quote

IE9 is still problematic.

1) Issues with using Facebook
2) Issues with printing
3) Issues with losing Favorites after installation
4) Issues with certificate management / handling
5) Issues with compatibility mode
6) Issues with the display, which requires adjusting the setting to overcome the GPU setting.

There are likely others but the above are the most common. While a couple of the above have work arounds, IE9 is in my opinion problematic and experimental.

Reply | Quote

While I think the increased security of IE9 seems to be useful, as a whole, for web surfing, I still have a problem with it.

I am running Vista Ultimate on my desktop, and Vista HP on my laptop. (Don’t ask how I got Ultimate. I only wanted Business, and got Ultimate instead. Oh well!). I have installed IE9 on my desktop already. What I hate, is the fact that it totally changes the feel of Windows Mail, at the same time. My main gripe refers to how attachments are now handled. Previously, from within the Mail window, I could open, delete, or with a right click, scan, etc. It would be obvious, an attachment was present, without much thought. Now, your only hint there is an attachment, is the paperclip in the “From” section. Then you need to open that file, into another window, in order to show all your options. A useless extra step. It is very easy to miss an attachment this way. ASK ME – I KNOW!! There has been more than once, that I’ve missed an attachment, because I didn’t notice the little paperclip.

I contacted MS about this issue, and they tell me the changes is Windows Mail are an integral part of the IE9 update. Because of this, I won’t update the laptop, since others also use it. It would only add to the confusion.

Reply | Quote

Your message tells me that MS is bound and determined to wreck the mail program, whether people use Windows 7 Live Mail or not. Now they are reaching backward trying to wreck it for the earlier operating system as well.

Reply | Quote

I was with you, right up until you suggested that people buy a new videocard if they didn’t know the manufacturer.

There are a ton of tools out there that will identify all of the hardware in your machine.

One that I use all the time is System Information for Windows (SIW), which can be found here:

http://www.gtopala.com/

It’s free, and a lot less hassle than ripping out a videocard.

Reply | Quote

We live so far off the beaten track that Win XPpro could last us forever. Don’t play games, only email and try to avoid sites requiring Adobe to view, we even still use pencils and paper.

So what is the real gain to installing and hasseling with Win7? Just to upgrade Internet Explorer.

Applied for the next moon base, but must be woefully behind the technology curve.

H

Reply | Quote

The latest version of McAfee (which I get as part of my ISP contract) crashes with certain parts of McAfee. A tech at McAfee says the program does not work with IE9.

Reply | Quote

Hello–I too have a Win 7 64 bit notebook. Shortly after the upgrade to IE 9 I started having the banking problem. I was also unable to view video on Hulu & PBS. No installation of Adobe Flash Player was recognized on either version of IE 9. Nor was Adobe Reader 9.1 MUI. I even tried the beta of the flash player. No joy. I reverted to IE 8 with the same result. I installed Foxit Reader and can now print bank statements with IE 8 32 bit. Still no progress on the flash player.

Reply | Quote

I rarely print articles from Windows Secrets, but this one was so good and so full of important info that I have. Thank you Susan. I’ve been experimenting with IE9 for a couple of weeks and have come across the odd website that doesn’t like it. One in particular gives a grey screen when any user tries to enter text in text boxes designed to be used for navigation to related pages. I take this to mean that web page designers have to be alert and check compatibility.

Reply | Quote

I have tried IE9 several times on my Win7 x64 desktop and each time, most recent last week, I have reverted to IE8 because 9 regularly stops working and goes through the process of checking, reporting and re-starting, which is an awful pain in the butt and time-waster. I don’t have a clue why this is happening and don’t much care, as long as IE8 does the job. Correction, I do care as in all the years I have been working with computers I have accepted the necessity of keeping one’s software up to date, but equally life is too short to have to do so much housekeeping and investigation. Do you remember the old days of motoring, when you spent more time under the car, or the bonnet (hood?), than in it? Computing is like that and has a long way to go to catch up on the motor industry. (Head up, Bill Gates). I know I should check the levels and tyre pressures regularly – and do – but seldom find anything needing attention. With my computers there is a new problem every day.

Added 2011-06-30. Persuaded by Susan’s article and continual nagging by Microsoft I thought I’d give IE9 another chance and reinstalled. A week later and I have again uninstalled because IE9 keeps stopping. I know not what is wrong, but it is certainly not a viable proposition for me yet.

Reply | Quote

I have tried IE9 several times on my Win7 x64 desktop and each time, most recent last week, I have reverted to IE8 because 9 regularly stops working…. [snip] .

That was my problem and my sons problem. I do not pretend to be any kind of computer guru, but I trust the IE people at my bank. When I mentioned using IE9, they said, “Ah, well, yeah, that might be the problem.” They had be dig into the registry and delete all kinds of strings, install more bank security stuff, but I could never log onto my bank account. With Firefox, it takes 10 seconds.

Same with my son. He must have installed MS Silverlight 10 times but it never worked in IE9. Firefox: bang, done the first time.

Oh, and one other. I love radio on the comuter, and IE8 never burped once. With IE9, it cannot seem to spool or buffer or whatever it’s called, and it will play for five minutes, then go dead for two minutes. Then come back on.

I now use Firefox and can listen to radion news all day long without a single glitch.

Reply | Quote

Are you using IE9 32 Bit or IE9 64Bit? If you upgraded to the 64 Bit version it actually installs both the 64 Bit version and the 32 Bit version of IE. The 64 Bit version does have problems. Many add ons (including Silverlight and Adobe) do not have a 64 Bit version yet. Under the Gear icon select About Internet Explorer to check which version you are using.

You can find both versions listed under Start Orb, All Programs. Create a shortcut to the 32 Bit version where you normally have you IE shortcut and delete the 64 Bit version shortcut.

My banking site works very well with IE9 32 Bit. So does my credit card sites, Paypal site, mortgage site, etc. Have not found a site that does not work with the 32 Bit version.

Reply | Quote

Susan, I do not think that IE 9 is ready yet. I have a 64bit laptop. I now know that a purchase of a 32 bit laptop would have been the better choice. I have used IE since it was a pup. The latest upgrade to IE 9 still has many problems for me. I tried to use it when it was in beta, to run on my 64 bit machine, no fun. After your new letter post, I tried again. The beta was gone, but now when I try to run IE 9 as my default, there is a note on the options page that tells me that the 64 bit IE 9 version will not be my default.
So I put IE 9 back on the shelf, went back to Chrome and FireFox. They seem to work pretty well.

Reply | Quote

Susan, I do not think that IE 9 is ready yet. I have a 64bit laptop. I now know that a purchase of a 32 bit laptop would have been the better choice. I have used IE since it was a pup. The latest upgrade to IE 9 still has many problems for me. I tried to use it when it was in beta, to run on my 64 bit machine, no fun. After your new letter post, I tried again. The beta was gone, but now when I try to run IE 9 as my default, there is a note on the options page that tells me that the 64 bit IE 9 version will not be my default.
So I put IE 9 back on the shelf, went back to Chrome and FireFox. They seem to work pretty well.

See my above post!

Reply | Quote

your post while I am sure is well intended, is to me kinda like getting a new car that will run faster, but having to put the old car tires on it to get the new car to roll.

Reply | Quote

Susan, I do not think that IE 9 is ready yet. I have a 64bit laptop. I now know that a purchase of a 32 bit laptop would have been the better choice. I have used IE since it was a pup. The latest upgrade to IE 9 still has many problems for me. I tried to use it when it was in beta, to run on my 64 bit machine, no fun. After your new letter post, I tried again. The beta was gone, but now when I try to run IE 9 as my default, there is a note on the options page that tells me that the 64 bit IE 9 version will not be my default.
So I put IE 9 back on the shelf, went back to Chrome and FireFox. They seem to work pretty well.

Are you using IE 32 bit or 64bit?
Use 32bit IE, IE64bit is like Office 64bit, the ecosystem isn’t there yet.

Reply | Quote

First of all, I would like to welcome any and all first time posters to the Lounge!

As Ted said, the 64 bit version of IE9 is much more problematic than the 32 bit version. I have installed IE9 on at least 6 Windows 7 and Vista machines in the past four weeks using the IE9 Standalone offline download rather than through Windows Update. When you go to the linked page, click the ‘More Languages’ tag beneath the drop down selector in the fast is now beautiful graphic, find your language, select the Windows version you have installed (for example, if you have a Windows 7 64 bit edition installed, select Windows 7 64 bit and click Download. This installs both the 32 bit and 64 bit IE9, so you have to be careful which version your run as Ted noted. If you just select your OS in the fast is now beautiful drop down list, you will be downloading the installer package for IE9, which is much smaller but is used to go to the MS server to download the rest of the installation files for the IE9 install. I had fewer problems with the standalone offline install than with the installer package download.

Once you download the standalone offline package, drop offline to run the executable. If any software is running that can negatively affect the installation, a dialog box will open to inform you of the programs the installer will now close. Allow it to do so. I have seen the installation process hang after a few moments, which required a cancel and another double click of the executable file to restart the installation, but had fewer instances of that by killing my internet connection before installing. If you leave your Internet connection active, the installer appears to go to MS in an attempt download the installation files, when you already have those on your hard drive. That is why it is called an ‘offline’ package. You do not need an Internet connection in order to install it.

The only issue I have seen thus far after installing IE9 is that one Windows 7 laptop displayed flaky video when using Adobe Flash on a web page. A quick download and install of the latest graphic driver cured that problem. There have been no other negative issues reported on any of the other PCs, and none on my machines. However, IE 9 icons have been confirmed on the Taskbar to start up the IE9 32 bit version, which is what the installer should default to. In any case, Ted has already advised as to how to confirm which version you are currently running.

I do not know how many users have experienced the same issues I have encountered, and certainly, installing IE9 on nine machines (which includes my PCs as well), is not a huge install base to claim all these as universal issues, but I hope this helps someone experience a problem free installation.

For those who are using the 32 bit IE9 having issues on certain sites such as banking, etc., have you tried running IE9 in compatibility mode on such sites?

There will likely be some issues on some machines, but there will be fixes for bugs coming down the pike as bugs are exposed.

Reply | Quote

I was recently offered the opportunity to install the important IE 9 update and had the unfortunate discovery that it did not play well with My Linksys WRT54GS.

I could not access all of my router pages, and most that I could were not formed correctly. I tried compatability view with the routers web pages and found it would report that the “website” was no longer accessable (Vista 32 bit system). I jumped on my trusty XP machine and instantly connected to the routers IP with no issues. After updating the firmware, I tried to access again on my Vista/IE9 system. I had the same issues as before, but now I knew it was not the router.

Since I had no problems accessing the router with IE8, I decided to uninstall IE9.
I went to the recently installed updates to Uninstall, and there was no entry for IE9. Using the how to article on the MS website provided no anser to uninstalling without the entry in said folder. After contacting MS Support, and letting MS support plow through the machine for an hour or so, the recommendation was to rollback to the checkpoint before the update… seemed like a bit of a sledgehammer approach, but it worked.

It was a nice browser except for the fact I could not access my router. But, I won’t be purchasing a new router to use it on only one machine, and unless anyone has had better results with different Cisco/Linksys routers, that may be a warning you would like to add to your recommendations.

Reply | Quote

I was recently offered the opportunity to install the important IE 9 update and had the unfortunate discovery that it did not play well with My Linksys WRT54GS.

I could not access all of my router pages, and most that I could were not formed correctly. I tried compatability view with the routers web pages and found it would report that the “website” was no longer accessable (Vista 32 bit system). I jumped on my trusty XP machine and instantly connected to the routers IP with no issues. After updating the firmware, I tried to access again on my Vista/IE9 system. I had the same issues as before, but now I knew it was not the router.

Since I had no problems accessing the router with IE8, I decided to uninstall IE9.
I went to the recently installed updates to Uninstall, and there was no entry for IE9. Using the how to article on the MS website provided no anser to uninstalling without the entry in said folder. After contacting MS Support, and letting MS support plow through the machine for an hour or so, the recommendation was to rollback to the checkpoint before the update… seemed like a bit of a sledgehammer approach, but it worked.

It was a nice browser except for the fact I could not access my router. But, I won’t be purchasing a new router to use it on only one machine, and unless anyone has had better results with different Cisco/Linksys routers, that may be a warning you would like to add to your recommendations.

I have no problems accessing all WRT54G router web pages from IE9 on Windows 7. Perhaps your issues are Vista related?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

I have no problems accessing all WRT54G router web pages from IE9 on Windows 7. Perhaps your issues are Vista related?

Bruce

Thanks Bruce, while it may work with 7 it does not with my Vista, so I could either buy a new router, or OS?

Like I posted there are no issues with IE8, so it could well be anoter Vista issue… but since it started and ended with IE9, and you have no problem accessing with 7, it may well be how they decided to update the Vista machines (like I said no record of the update so it couldnt be uninstalled the usual way).

Reply | Quote

Thanks Bruce, while it may work with 7 it does not with my Vista, so I could either buy a new router, or OS?

Like I posted there are no issues with IE8, so it could well be anoter Vista issue… but since it started and ended with IE9, and you have no problem accessing with 7, it may well be how they decided to update the Vista machines (like I said no record of the update so it couldnt be uninstalled the usual way).

You might get better results posting in either the Vista forum.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

You might get better results posting in either the Vista forum.

Joe

Thanks Joe, but I’m not looking for results, I already got them.

The “Important Update” when download was buggy for me. IE9 did not allow me to access my router, Compatibility View did not work when used and led to a connection error screen. Uninstalling it from the uninstall update pannel as directed in thier instructions was impossible.
And while it may be that my router is dated, my cable modem and 60 meg connection may be dated also.

If dated technology is the culpret which I have my doubts about that since Bruce can access his with 7, maybe its not time to migrate for everyone without further considerations to take into account. It may have been the installation method since I installed it from the Windows Update prompt rather than save to disc, boot to safe mode, install, and re-boot. But, if that was the issue it shouldn’t be offered through that method.

Reply | Quote

You are using a pretty antiquated router. A good one, just old. I have the WRT610N and it does not appear to have any issues with IE9.

FYI, I installed IE64 + 32, but only use 32 for all the obvious reasons. I do have issues on some sites, MOST issues overcome with compatibility view.

I was recently offered the opportunity to install the important IE 9 update and had the unfortunate discovery that it did not play well with My Linksys WRT54GS.

I could not access all of my router pages, and most that I could were not formed correctly. I tried compatability view with the routers web pages and found it would report that the “website” was no longer accessable (Vista 32 bit system). I jumped on my trusty XP machine and instantly connected to the routers IP with no issues. After updating the firmware, I tried to access again on my Vista/IE9 system. I had the same issues as before, but now I knew it was not the router.

Since I had no problems accessing the router with IE8, I decided to uninstall IE9.
I went to the recently installed updates to Uninstall, and there was no entry for IE9. Using the how to article on the MS website provided no anser to uninstalling without the entry in said folder. After contacting MS Support, and letting MS support plow through the machine for an hour or so, the recommendation was to rollback to the checkpoint before the update… seemed like a bit of a sledgehammer approach, but it worked.

It was a nice browser except for the fact I could not access my router. But, I won’t be purchasing a new router to use it on only one machine, and unless anyone has had better results with different Cisco/Linksys routers, that may be a warning you would like to add to your recommendations.

Reply | Quote

There is a disconnect here. While I understand the premise that we all benefit from moving forward, 60% of the world is still using XP. There may be a reason for the reticence to march lockstep like lemmings off the Microsoft cliff of poor code. Contrary to the hype, Vista was a disaster and no amount of Redmond sycophancy will put lipstick on that pig. Most of us won’t forget that fact anytime soon and now are seriously skeptical of alleged “progress”. Vista with bug fixes = Windows 7. IE: essentially eye candy with redesigned basic functions claiming better security when in fact Windows remains a sieve for any bored script kiddie.

Similarly, Internet Explorer has been in decline for years. Microsoft has repeatably attempted to impose their “standards” on the browser world. Both Firefox and now Chrome have surpassed Explorer yet Microsoft insists users must install and run their buggy code. As is seen by multiple posts, Explorer 9 fails in many rudimentary tasks. Rather than calling Microsoft out on these flaws, you encourage users to drink the Kool Aid. Really, how many decades does it require for people to learn Microsoft rarely gets it right the first time and sometimes never succeeds; instead simply abandoning the failed project and users who were dumb enough to swallow the Redmond line?

Explorer 9 exhibits all the worst traits of Vista and anyone who refuses to admit or report it is doing a disservice to computers users world wide.

Reply | Quote

I agree 100% with you, Bob. My home PC is now on XP because it had Vista when I bought it. Vista … ACK! – horrid through and through. It didn’t take long for me to blow and reload the machine with XP. I am happy to read this article about IE9, but am equally pleased to read the comments from real people. All I had to do, Bob, is read this part of your comment:

“Explorer 9 exhibits all the worst traits of Vista and anyone who refuses to admit or report it is doing a disservice to computers users world wide.”

In and of itself, that right there is enough to make me back off.

My original thought was to post a question to this forum based on something that Susan said towards the beginning of the article … that XP users are out of luck. It would have been helpful to know exactly what she meant by that. Did she mean that IE9 will not run on XP, or was she saying the XP users will not enjoy many of the new “features” of IE9? I put “features” in quotes because now after reading these comments, I am not so sure that “features” is a good thing when it comes to IE9. 🙂

Reply | Quote

The format on this forum is kinda weird. I wanted to post a reply to Bob Hedin’s comment and thought my reply would show up UNDER his original post … not.

Reply | Quote

I had the same question about XP with IE9, and joined so I could ask the question–about what Susan meant by her comment XP users are out of luck. Now, having read the previous comments, and seeing your question, I, too may hold off on IE9, but still would like to see Susan’s answer as to what she meant by the comment.

Reply | Quote

I agree 100% with you, Bob. My home PC is now on XP because it had Vista when I bought it. Vista … ACK! – horrid through and through. It didn’t take long for me to blow and reload the machine with XP. I am happy to read this article about IE9, but am equally pleased to read the comments from real people. All I had to do, Bob, is read this part of your comment:

“Explorer 9 exhibits all the worst traits of Vista and anyone who refuses to admit or report it is doing a disservice to computers users world wide.”

In and of itself, that right there is enough to make me back off.

My original thought was to post a question to this forum based on something that Susan said towards the beginning of the article … that XP users are out of luck. It would have been helpful to know exactly what she meant by that. Did she mean that IE9 will not run on XP, or was she saying the XP users will not enjoy many of the new “features” of IE9? I put “features” in quotes because now after reading these comments, I am not so sure that “features” is a good thing when it comes to IE9. 🙂

IE9 will NOT run on XP.

You must remember that in response to an article such as this the vast majority of posts will be negative. To me, the person to whom you replied obviously has some beef with Microsoft. The two biggest problems with Vista were beyond Microsoft’s control. One, the large OEMs insistence on selling under powered machines with Vista. Two, the peripheral OEMs did not produce drivers for enough devices let alone quality drivers. Lest anyone forget, XP was widely and roundly denounced when it was first released for its hardware requirements. From the start, Vista was more stable than XP at the point in the release cycle. XP was also very insecure until SP2 was released. BTW, SP2 was some much different and with so much new code it probably should have been a different product. If you tried to adapt by using Vista for any period of time I think you would have grown to like it. Many people spent so much time complaining about it and trying to get it to look like XP they did not learn it.

I had Vista on two PCs at home and more at work without anyone complaining. Vista was rock solid and performed more than just adequately.

IE9 is a big advance over any prior browser that Microsoft has released. It is much more standards compliant and that is W3C standards not the embrace and extend variety of the last century. It is faster, more secure, and more reliable. If you choose to use a different browser that is fine.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Joe…your statement, “The two biggest problems with Vista were beyond Microsoft’s control” is flat nonsense.

1. If a machine is/was underpowered, Vista should have refused to be installed (Microsoft has NEVER learned that lesson);
2. Vista should have never been offered with the antiquated approach to drivers, in the first place. We’ve all known this for years.

Your affirmation, “Vista was rock solid and performed more than just adequately” is absolutely amazing, and I challenge you to prove it. I can provide about a thousand highly qualified and professional witnesses to the contrary, and that is a very, very small fraction of those who can put the lie to your astounding recommendation of Vista.

Reply | Quote

Joe…your statement, “The two biggest problems with Vista were beyond Microsoft’s control” is flat nonsense.

1. If a machine is/was underpowered, Vista should have refused to be installed (Microsoft has NEVER learned that lesson);
2. Vista should have never been offered with the antiquated approach to drivers, in the first place. We’ve all known this for years.

Your affirmation, “Vista was rock solid and performed more than just adequately” is absolutely amazing, and I challenge you to prove it. I can provide about a thousand highly qualified and professional witnesses to the contrary, and that is a very, very small fraction of those who can put the lie to your astounding recommendation of Vista.

1.) Microsoft does not have control over what the machine specs are beyond the SKU installed on the very basic low end machine. OEMs persisted in installing Vista and then loading the PC with all kinds of extra software on a machine that only met the basic requirements for Vista. This is NOT like Apple. Apple controls everything related to the initial machine configuration. OEMs have wide latitiude to change settings, replace components, and add all manner of programs in the Windows world. There is no going back on that now.

2.) All I can say is from my own experience. On all the Vista machines that I’ve seen I observed only one BSOD. That was when I installed the wrong version of a video driver. Reverting the driver took care of that issue immediately. Yes, there was and still is an issue with copying files over a network with Vista. But on a Vista machine that is properly configured on adequate hardware it has performed well. I’m not recommending Vista now. I would strongly recommend Windows 7 over any Microsoft desktop operating system.

You can believe what you wish. That is fine. Once again, I can only relate my observations.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I am running Windows 7 Home Premium (64 bit) with legal case management software (PCLaw). My software is a few versions behind, in need of an upgrade, but given how little I use it, it is not worth the investment at this time. My version of PCLaw does not work with IE9. It does work with IE8. Given that I use IE only when I have to, I do not see the need to upgrade to IE9. I would like to have more legal business to justify the upgrade of PCLaw, then I would not have such issues. (By the way, it took me a while to figure out that IE9 was the culprit when I had issues with PCLaw. I read posts about other software conflicts, leading me to my solution to unistall IE9.)

Reply | Quote

I am very disappointed in you that you’d recommend IE 9 – which obviously, just from reading your article, is not ready yet. Shame on you for suggesting users install software that requires them to do all of the things you suggested – have you lost your pride? What struck you??? Readers deserve to know. We trust Windows Secrets – want to continue to do so – but when a writer endorses a product which has all those “but then you must do this” and “then you must do that” after it – I have to say my trust level in WS endorsements dropped a bit. Although I am pleased that you did provide the list of what else you have to do besides click install. In that, you did good. But to tell readers it’s *time* to install??? Sorry, that was not a good endorsement. And furthermore, I sometimes come here for help but rarely to comment on an article, so the fact that I immediately came to comment should tell you I really AM appalled at this endorsement.

This piece of software needs to return to the garage for major work. Maybe it needs to stay in there and let MS come out with IE 10 instead – in a year or two when they get it figured out.

Meantime, I use Chrome most of the time so I don’t update IE on this XP laptop. And on the Win7 laptop, I’ll stick with IE 8, thank you very much.

Reply | Quote

Well this article’s reference to “it’s time” doesn’t factor in the most important thing. What if the user hates IE9? I tried it and I didn’t like it at all. I didn’t like all the changes that were made and more importantly didn’t like not having more options to set it like I wanted it to look and function. IE8 was ok with me but IE9 is a big dud as far as I’m concerned. These comments are not meant to cause a flame war with the ones who love IE9. You love it, great. I just don’t. Firefox has got it down right and knows the user likes options. Microsoft seems to be moving towards a one size fits all approach and a “we know better than you what you want” mentality. Just my two cents.

Reply | Quote

Well this article’s reference to “it’s time” doesn’t factor in the most important thing. What if the user hates IE9? I tried it and I didn’t like it at all. I didn’t like all the changes that were made and more importantly didn’t like not having more options to set it like I wanted it to look and function. IE8 was ok with me but IE9 is a big dud as far as I’m concerned. These comments are not meant to cause a flame war with the ones who love IE9. You love it, great. I just don’t. Firefox has got it down right and knows the user likes options. Microsoft seems to be moving towards a one size fits all approach and a “we know better than you what you want” mentality. Just my two cents.

If you have a question about options please post it in the IE forum. That way more people will benefit from the exchange.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

If you have a question about options please post it in the IE forum. That way more people will benefit from the exchange.

Joe

I don’t have any questions about options. I was simply commenting on the “it’s time” reference and why it’s wasn’t time for me.

Reply | Quote

After many many issues with IE9 I have given up and use Chrome which is MUCH faster and has not given me one time of not going into any program I have asked it too. Not so with IE9. Cannot get into any bank account with it. Just not worth the time and trouble to me.

BBaker

Reply | Quote

It’s funny; until recently I wouldn’t touch Chrome. On the one PC I had it on with XP Pro, it frequently BSOD’d the system – even if I wasn’t using it. I had to uninstall it to stop the crashes. Now, I don’t regularly use Chrome (I would like to have more control over it then it allows), I do use it some and I don’t worry about it at all. With IE9, when it works, great, but it is too much about MS knowing better then we do about how we want it to look (like where the tabs bar is), and about them releasing it to production long before it’s ready (IMHO) for its first beta release.

After many many issues with IE9 I have given up and use Chrome which is MUCH faster and has not given me one time of not going into any program I have asked it too. Not so with IE9. Cannot get into any bank account with it. Just not worth the time and trouble to me.

BBaker

Reply | Quote

Hogwash…and irresponsible, too. This recommendation is an over-the-top capitulation to insanity. It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels. I am amazed this article made the editorial cut and can flatly state I do not pay for Windows Secrets to offer such tripe. It is no secret that IE9 is NOT secure and is demonstrably inadequate and incompatible.

Reply | Quote

Hogwash…and irresponsible, too. This recommendation is an over-the-top capitulation to insanity. It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels. I am amazed this article made the editorial cut and can flatly state I do not pay for Windows Secrets to offer such tripe. It is no secret that IE9 is NOT secure and is demonstrably inadequate and incompatible.

Would you care to share any reviews or other expert opinion which have found that IE9 is insecure, inadequate or incompatible?

What type of disasters do you envision being caused by IE9?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Hello, Bruce…

Actually, databaseben presented a pretty complete list of issues with IE9 (each is well-documented), but several others have posited issues with everything from banking issues (probably related to security compatibilities) to just plain ol’ “it don’t work” (bad grammar intended).

Your question is an interesting question, especially in light of my post. Here’s what I posted:

“It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels.”

Notice my two statements, to wit, “…to any but the most sophisticated user…” and “For the ‘normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation…” That you or I–as sophisticated, and probably even “technical” (being savvy users)–can shoehorn IE9 and make it work quite well, is not surprising. Again, we are sophisticated; we are technical; we are savvy; we are tinkerers and tweakers, and we can (and here is the key phrase) “make it work.”

To make a general recommendation, as did Susan (her several caveats and disclaimers to the contrary), is in my view absolutely irresponsible and insane. For “any but the most sophisticated user,” it is irresponsible to recommend IE9. Again, I say, “For the ‘normal’ non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster.”

Just one more observation: Your reply asked for “reviews or other expert opinion” (sic) and this states what is (I believe) at the very heart of this issue: Those who are savvy enough to write reviews can make it work and minimize problems. Experts who give opinions know how to make it work and minimize problems. For eggheads (I use the term in an endearing fashion, not to offend) like JoeP517 or me (or you?) to kludge a recalcitrant application or tweak the system is no big deal, but the ~real~ experts are the users, the vulnerable users–and their almost-universal experience is that IE (of every version) just doesn’t cut it, period.

I will reply to Joe’s comments in another post, but I appreciate your questions and fully concur in your search for information.

Reply | Quote

Actually, databaseben presented a pretty complete list of issues with IE9

Who?

(each is well-documented),

Where?

but several others have posited issues with everything from banking issues (probably related to security compatibilities) to just plain ol’ “it don’t work” (bad grammar intended).

Only several others out of 100 million downloads?

Your question is an interesting question, especially in light of my post. Here’s what I posted:

I know what you posted. I read it. That’s why I replied.

”It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels.”

Still no examples of potential disasters though?

Notice my two statements, to wit, “…to any but the most sophisticated user…” and “For the ‘normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation…”

Oh boy! I really didn’t need this tripe a third time. Is it meant to take on greater significance each time you churn it out?

That you or I–as sophisticated, and probably even “technical” (being savvy users)–can shoehorn IE9 and make it work quite well, is not surprising. Again, we are sophisticated; we are technical; we are savvy; we are tinkerers and tweakers, and we can (and here is the key phrase) “make it work.”

Thanks for assuming that I’m sophisticated. Couldn’t you also assume that I can grasp the intent of your comments at the first reading?

I’ve been using IE9 for six months and haven’t had to shoehorn, tinker or tweak anything.

It just works. Securely. (I was confused about the 64 or 32 bit situation for a couple of days; Microsoft should have done a much better job of explaining that.)

What IE9 problems have you needed to overcome with your technical sophistication?

To make a general recommendation, as did Susan (her several caveats and disclaimers to the contrary), is in my view absolutely irresponsible and insane. For “any but the most sophisticated user,” it is irresponsible to recommend IE9. Again, I say, “For the ‘normal’ non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster.”

Wow! A fourth time. And still no explanation or justification. :rolleyes:

Just one more observation: Your reply asked for “reviews or other expert opinion” (sic) and this states what is (I believe) at the very heart of this issue: Those who are savvy enough to write reviews can make it work and minimize problems. Experts who give opinions know how to make it work and minimize problems. For eggheads (I use the term in an endearing fashion, not to offend) like JoeP517 or me (or you?) to kludge a recalcitrant application or tweak the system is no big deal, but the ~real~ experts are the users, the vulnerable users–and their almost-universal experience is that IE (of every version) just doesn’t cut it, period.

NO published reports about how crappy IE9 is then? (I nearly missed the sneakily inserted “of every version” (sic) there just to broaden the scope!)

IE9 is exceedingly non-recalcitrant. No kludging required. Give it a try!

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Bruce…

You just don’t get it.

Tell your sycophant-story to the simple folks who will be badly burned because of Susan’s absurd and premature recommendation. The fact is, you and I (and perhaps many in this forum) run IE9 and other problematic applications without issues, but that is because we are running them on high-end systems with extraordinary amounts of CPU power / RAM / Storage / etc., and we are very security conscious and cautious. The “normal” user is not doing what we do.

Incidentally, I’d bet a dollar against your donut hole that I have about 10 times your experience in resolving the issues with client systems, many of which problems were precipitated by premature adoption of new technology.

Believe what you want to believe.

Reply | Quote

Bruce…

You just don’t get it.

… and you’re certainly not giving it to me, are you?

I’ve described half a dozen aspects of my experiences with IE9, but you haven’t told us a single thing about your experiences with it.

No list of issues. No documentation of problems. No examples of potential disasters. No adverse reviews. No expert opinions on its insecurity. No essential kludges.

Tell your sycophant-story to the simple folks who will be badly burned because of Susan’s absurd and premature recommendation. The fact is, you and I (and perhaps many in this forum) run IE9 and other problematic applications without issues, but that is because we are running them on high-end systems with extraordinary amounts of CPU power / RAM / Storage / etc., and we are very security conscious and cautious. The “normal” user is not doing what we do.

Ah, you do actually run it then. Why?

What exactly are you doing with IE9 that a “normal” simpleton would not do?

Incidentally, I’d bet a dollar against your donut hole that I have about 10 times your experience in resolving the issues with client systems, many of which problems were precipitated by premature adoption of new technology.

I very much doubt that, but what’s the relevance here?

You’ve been telling me that we’re both technical sophisticates and that’s why we can manage to use a browser of which mere mortals should be frightened.

If you now think I have a tenth of your experience and yet I have absolutely no issues with IE9, then you’ve destroyed any possible credibility for your unsubstantiated theory.

Believe what you want to believe.

Thanks for the permission.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Hello, Bruce…

Actually, databaseben presented a pretty complete list of issues with IE9 (each is well-documented), but several others have posited issues with everything from banking issues (probably related to security compatibilities) to just plain ol’ “it don’t work” (bad grammar intended).

Your question is an interesting question, especially in light of my post. Here’s what I posted:

“It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels.”

Notice my two statements, to wit, “…to any but the most sophisticated user…” and “For the ‘normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation…” That you or I–as sophisticated, and probably even “technical” (being savvy users)–can shoehorn IE9 and make it work quite well, is not surprising. Again, we are sophisticated; we are technical; we are savvy; we are tinkerers and tweakers, and we can (and here is the key phrase) “make it work.”

To make a general recommendation, as did Susan (her several caveats and disclaimers to the contrary), is in my view absolutely irresponsible and insane. For “any but the most sophisticated user,” it is irresponsible to recommend IE9. Again, I say, “For the ‘normal’ non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster.”

Just one more observation: Your reply asked for “reviews or other expert opinion” (sic) and this states what is (I believe) at the very heart of this issue: Those who are savvy enough to write reviews can make it work and minimize problems. Experts who give opinions know how to make it work and minimize problems. For eggheads (I use the term in an endearing fashion, not to offend) like JoeP517 or me (or you?) to kludge a recalcitrant application or tweak the system is no big deal, but the ~real~ experts are the users, the vulnerable users–and their almost-universal experience is that IE (of every version) just doesn’t cut it, period.

I will reply to Joe’s comments in another post, but I appreciate your questions and fully concur in your search for information.

I honestly consider the windowssecrets readers to be smarter than the average bear (to use a Yogi Bearism). If compat mode doesn’t work for the sites you need and you don’t feel comfortable running Firefox and Chrome on the same machine, that’s fine. But in this day and age of everything being hacked upside and down the other (see LulzSec news) I really think we need to be on the most secure browser even if it’s a little bit painful and still bumpy. If that means to run both Chrome and IE (because you need ActiveX for some needs like I do) , then that’s what I’d recommend. If a banking site demands older java versions, older IE versions, older….etc etc.. is online banking really safe on that site? Think about the information you are putting on that site. We’re at the 4 months since release date milestone now. Ask these sites how long before they do support it? Browsers are going on a fast release cycle now. Firefox 5 just released and the next one is already on the drawing board.

Also please note that in the article I clearly state “That doesn’t mean IE 9 is 100-percent safe and trouble-free for everyone. It just means that I feel the benefits of a more secure browser outweigh any issues I might face using it. For compatibility or configuration reasons, you may find you still need to hold off for now and deploy it later.” This still has to be a personal decision for you and your computing needs.

Reply | Quote

Most online banking website problems can be fixed with this:

IE9 Tools | Internet Options [B]ALT+T+O[/B] | Advanced | Do not save encrypted pages to disk <=uncheck/disable this option

Reply | Quote

Hogwash…and irresponsible, too. This recommendation is an over-the-top capitulation to insanity. It is patently absurd to make such a recommendation to any but the most sophisticated user. For the “normal” non-technical person to follow this recommendation is to invite disaster at many levels. I am amazed this article made the editorial cut and can flatly state I do not pay for Windows Secrets to offer such tripe. It is no secret that IE9 is NOT secure and is demonstrably inadequate and incompatible.

Can you give exact examples? I am using IE9 here at home and have found it to work just fine, you may need an occasional compatibility view but I’m able to get into all banking websites. Where is it not secure?

Reply | Quote

I’ve been using Windows since 3.11 – and the IE that was around then!
The updates and upgrades that have happened since then ( and I have used 95, 98, Me, 2000, NT, XP, Vista and 7) may have been quicker and safer, but I have not found any of them easier to use than 3.11 and XP.
The others are not ‘me-friendly’.

Reply | Quote

I use IE9 on a few PC’s but keep IE8 on one as a just in case. IE9 does work well on some sites. More sites once you note them in compatibility mode. But some sites have major issues. For instance, the career site of a lot of financial institutions will not upload files like resumes – they pump out error messages saying that it is not allowed. I have to use Firefox (up to date) for those sites. It also still crashes easily, but now crashes MIGHT be limited to the one tab you were in, and the tab might reopen on the site you were on. It still uses massive amounts of RAM, and can still hang, but not as much as before.

In another year or two it might actually be ready for wide release!

Reply | Quote

Just a thought, 32 bit IE is faster than 64 bit

Reply | Quote

Just a thought, 32 bit IE is faster than 64 bit

Since the 32-bit version is the one used by the vast majority Microsoft invested their resources in optimizing the 32-bit version for IE9. The 64-bit version will be brought up to snuff at some point in the future. I have no information as to what that point might be.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Joe – well in that case, they should not have released the 64 bit version yet. Look what they got for doing it. A ton of complaints. That was downright stupid of them. They never learn.

Reply | Quote

Joe – well in that case, they should not have released the 64 bit version yet. Look what they got for doing it. A ton of complaints. That was downright stupid of them. They never learn.

The 64-bit version of IE9 has not been optimized in the same way as the 32-bit version. Also, many addons have not been upgraded to run with 64-bit IE9. If you do not need these addons (i.e. Flash, Silverlight, & others) 64-bit IE9 is usable. Most people who recommend software, recommend using 64-bit IE9 on an experimental basis not for everyday browsing. On a 64-bit OS, the 32-bit version of IE9 is the default browser.

For you and others the “ton of complaints” is in reality a very small percentage of IE users. If you allow you OS to report problems to Microsoft there is a better chance that the issue(s) will be resolved. The data Microsoft collects from usage and error reports significantly influences what gets addressed.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Computer hardware now comes in two versions: 32 bit and 64 bit. Most computers sold in the last two years are 64 bit. If you have an older, 32-bit system and you install IE9, the 32-bit version will be installed automatically.

If you have a newer 64-bit system and install IE9, the system will install both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Under “All Programs” on the Start Menu, you will see both “Internet Explorer (64-bit)” and “Internet Explorer.” The “Internet Explorer” menu item is the 32-bit version (even though it doesn’t explicitly say so). When you run IE9 on a 64-bit system, use the 32-bit version, not the 64-bit version. The 64-bit version has a lot of incompatibilities, and the 32-bit version runs just fine on 64-bit systems.

If you’re not sure whether you have a 32- or 64-bit system, simply go into the Control Panel and select the System option, which will tell you how your system is configured. When I used the 64-bit version, I couldn’t print anything from the browser. I have no problem with the 32-bit version. Be sure also that your Desktop and Quick Launch icons link to the 32-bit version.

Reply | Quote

Hi Susan:

I have a different take on this. I installed IE9 on a new win7-64-bit laptop and a diy win7-64-bit workstation. Everything works okay now that I’ve tuned the UI to my liking (sort of) — BUT it breaks Secunia PSI 2.0. On both systems I get bizarre double graphics in the left panel which prevents any action to be taken short of just exiting. I’ve been in touch with Secunia, who explained that they use IE for graphics rendering, but their “fix” was just to “reset” all the IE9 defaults, or to uninstall back to IE8. They refuse to acknowledge that their non-solution does not work. I am really annoyed at all the lazy M$-loving developers who link to third-party tools instead of being sure to include EVERYTHING NEEDED IN THEIR OWN APPLICATION. This goes all the way back to “DLL-Hell” with shared libraries that others update and break your application. Have these guys not learned their lesson?

Anyhow, as important as Secunia PSI is to system security, this is a MAJOR shortcoming with IE9. Just thought you should know.

Rob

Reply | Quote

Hi Susan:

I have a different take on this. I installed IE9 on a new win7-64-bit laptop and a diy win7-64-bit workstation. Everything works okay now that I’ve tuned the UI to my liking (sort of) — BUT it breaks Secunia PSI 2.0. On both systems I get bizarre double graphics in the left panel which prevents any action to be taken short of just exiting. I’ve been in touch with Secunia, who explained that they use IE for graphics rendering, but their “fix” was just to “reset” all the IE9 defaults, or to uninstall back to IE8. They refuse to acknowledge that their non-solution does not work. I am really annoyed at all the lazy M$-loving developers who link to third-party tools instead of being sure to include EVERYTHING NEEDED IN THEIR OWN APPLICATION. This goes all the way back to “DLL-Hell” with shared libraries that others update and break your application. Have these guys not learned their lesson?

Anyhow, as important as Secunia PSI is to system security, this is a MAJOR shortcoming with IE9. Just thought you should know.

Rob

It is a major shortcoming in PSI. Secunia coded something PSI that probably depended on a non-standard feature of IE. All software vendors that use the IE rendering engine have had over a year to test their product and make any changes required to use the more standards compliant rendering engine of IE9. Microsoft can’t win. They get blasted by developers for years about all the non-standard features in IE. Then they produce a product that is more standards compliant than any previous version and they get blasted for incompatibilities.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Microsoft can’t win. They get blasted by developers for years about all the non-standard features in IE. Then they produce a product that is more standards compliant than any previous version and they get blasted for incompatibilities.

Joe

Joe – no MS can’t win when it keeps doing stupid stuff. MS started the problem, forced everyone to adapt, and now it changes the rules (apparently). And gets blasted again. Not only by developers but by the poor user who is not tech savvy (the VAST MAJORIETY of users out there!!!!). So I have zero sympathy for MS. Further, I see no reason for you to sympathize with them either, given that they caused the problem in the first place according to your analysis!

Reply | Quote

I use PSI 2 on a few PC’s with IE9 with no problems.

Reply | Quote

Although I respect the advise to move to IE9 from the perspective of better security, better performance, etc., the plain inconvenient truth is that very many websites that I need to use representing a wide number of areas on the webe that properly display, interact, and print with IE8 (finally after a while of incompatibilities compared to IE6 and IE7), simply don’t properly display, interact, and/or print with IE9.

I installed IE9 on one of my working systems (running on Windows 7 64-bit) and within a day reverted to IE8 simply because I couldn’t otherwise get any work done with IE9. And no, I wasn’t trying to use the 64-bit version of IE9.

– Dov

Reply | Quote

Although I respect the advise to move to IE9 from the perspective of better security, better performance, etc., the plain inconvenient truth is that very many websites that I need to use representing a wide number of areas on the webe that properly display, interact, and print with IE8 (finally after a while of incompatibilities compared to IE6 and IE7), simply don’t properly display, interact, and/or print with IE9.

I installed IE9 on one of my working systems (running on Windows 7 64-bit) and within a day reverted to IE8 simply because I couldn’t otherwise get any work done with IE9. And no, I wasn’t trying to use the 64-bit version of IE9.

– Dov

Compatibility View, a single click on an icon in the address bar, should take care of that by displaying the page as if you were using an earlier version of Internet Explorer.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Compatibility View, a single click on an icon in the address bar, should take care of that by displaying the page as if you were using an earlier version of Internet Explorer.

Bruce

Nope, The compatibility view feature didn’t work except on a very few of the broken pages. Ironically, those were the same pages that required the compatiblity view setting with IE8.

– Dov

Reply | Quote

There is a disconnect here. While I understand the premise that we all benefit from moving forward, 60% of the world is still using XP. There may be a reason for the reticence to march lockstep like lemmings off the Microsoft cliff of poor code. Contrary to the hype, Vista was a disaster and no amount of Redmond sycophancy will put lipstick on that pig. Most of us won’t forget that fact anytime soon and now are seriously skeptical of alleged “progress”. Vista with bug fixes = Windows 7. IE: essentially eye candy with redesigned basic functions claiming better security when in fact Windows remains a sieve for any bored script kiddie.

Similarly, Internet Explorer has been in decline for years. Microsoft has repeatably attempted to impose their “standards” on the browser world. Both Firefox and now Chrome have surpassed Explorer yet Microsoft insists users must install and run their buggy code. As is seen by multiple posts, Explorer 9 fails in many rudimentary tasks. Rather than calling Microsoft out on these flaws, you encourage users to drink the Kool Aid. Really, how many decades does it require for people to learn Microsoft rarely gets it right the first time and sometimes never succeeds; instead simply abandoning the failed project and users who were dumb enough to swallow the Redmond line?

Explorer 9 exhibits all the worst traits of Vista and anyone who refuses to admit or report it is doing a disservice to computers users world wide.

There was no disconnect … Of that 60% you cite as being Windows XP users, 90% of that group is either in the Business industry, or in a foreign market, The reticence may be in the fact that it is costly to do a comapny-wide upgrade, or that the legacy software a company uses is not yet developed to work with Vista and Windows 7. Vista is only a disaster in terms of IT propaganda scaring people needlessly. Granted, Vista is a resource hog, yet it works quite well and the only disaster that can be attributed to it is in the financial losses it created for Microsoft. The fact is that Vista works well, Windows 7 works better. IE9 did not work well in its initial public offering, but the current versions are so much better. So why would Microsoft release an almost ready version? Because they needed a marker point. As brilliant as some software may be thought to be … Until it is tested in the real world, the reliability of the software can’t be tested.

This may be my second posting in this particular forum, yet I have followed Fred Langa for 14 years. When he threw in with Windows Secrets, I thought it was a big mistake. But I respect him and figured he knew something I didn’t. I apologize to Susan Bradley and my fellow Windows Secrets readers, because this is not a debate forum. But I have watched people attack Microsoft for almost 20 years and it generally is from people loyal to Apple, who have nothing better to do than to haunt Windows forum sites and bash away.

My solution of switching off the graphics acceleration in IE9 helped three of my subscribers. Three out of about 500 total readership is a success. Even if the solution had only helped one of my subscribers, it would have been a success. Why? Because like this forum, constuctive solutions beefit everyone. It might not directly, but somewhere down the road, someone will recall a solution they read here, or somewhere else and relay that to someone else and that, may help that user.

Once people begin to bash the article, or the manufacturer of a piece of software, the forum loses purpose and value as a constructive place to conduct a dialogue. I use IE9 exclusively, because I need to find it’s weaknesses and work-arounds for my readers. Of all the issues mentioned in this forum, there are no consistent remarks except for those relating to legacy software used in business applications.

Again, my apologies to this forum. I doubt if I will be back. I like using Windows and IE9. Because I really haven’t found a problem that I couldn’t resolve. If that makes me a lemming, then over the cliff I shall go. But just because I refuse to whine at Microsoft’s success, doesn’t mean I am causing a disservice to anyone.

Reply | Quote

I tried IE9 and whenever I tried to print a Google map the print spooler would crap out and I would have to reboot. After trying to print and then opening up devices and printers all my printer icons would be gone. I’ve read of others having this same experience. I am using Win 7 64-bit but running the 32-bit version of IE. I went back to IE8 for now.

Reply | Quote

I refuse to use IE9 for a very simple reason: I can’t read it. Installing IE9 forces Cleartype on in IE and in other MS apps like Windows Live Mail, and there is no way to turn it off short of uninstalling. MS says IE9 “makes the web beautiful”; I say it makes the web a godawful blurry mess. Cleartype is an oxymoron and a bad joke.

Reply | Quote

I refuse to use IE9 for a very simple reason: I can’t read it. Installing IE9 forces Cleartype on in IE and in other MS apps like Windows Live Mail, and there is no way to turn it off short of uninstalling. MS says IE9 “makes the web beautiful”; I say it makes the web a godawful blurry mess. Cleartype is an oxymoron and a bad joke.

You can apparently download a free fix which disables IE9 cleartype as an unofficial workaround:

How to turn off the blurry fonts for Internet Explorer 9

(Not saying you should have to, only that you can.)

Bruce

Reply | Quote

I refuse to use IE9 for a very simple reason: I can’t read it. Installing IE9 forces Cleartype on in IE and in other MS apps like Windows Live Mail, and there is no way to turn it off short of uninstalling. MS says IE9 “makes the web beautiful”; I say it makes the web a godawful blurry mess. Cleartype is an oxymoron and a bad joke.

Clear Type needs top be tuned in order to work properly. This is done from the Windows 7 Appearance group of screens (accessed by right-clicking on an empty part of your Windows 7 desktop). Go through the wizard and Clear Type will usually come out looking very sharp and clear indeed.

Update:

Susan Bradley has just posted (June 30, 2011) in the paid edition of Windows secrets Newsletter, that there’s a new patch for IE9 which deals with blurry text.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I have been using IE 9 since Microsoft first recommended it’s installation but have found many instances where it is not compatible with other programs. Fortunately I keep Google Chrome as an alternative so I can resort to it whenever IE 9 balks. I definitely is not compatible with the new Yahoo mail, e-mailing SI opinion pages or trying to enter Google’s administration pages and making changes.

Reply | Quote

In the upper right corder is a compat flag. Click it see if it works. If a router access doesn’t work, use Chrome or Firefox. These days I keep two browsers on all workstations.

But there’s just soooooo much web/browser based attacks these days to not make the cut over to IE9 or at least start downloading and testing.

If you have a business web app that won’t go, that’s okay, I understand. But with soooooo much hacking and attacking going on these days, it’s time to push yourself (and your vendors and web sites) to be compatible.

Reply | Quote

I have been using IE 9 since Microsoft first recommended it’s installation but have found many instances where it is not compatible with other programs. Fortunately I keep Google Chrome as an alternative so I can resort to it whenever IE 9 balks. I definitely is not compatible with the new Yahoo mail, e-mailing SI opinion pages or trying to enter Google’s administration pages and making changes.

I use Yahoo Mail, and IE 9 works just fine for me (Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, but IE 9 32-bit).

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

On a totally different note:

Direct2D or Direct3D issues are also known by Microsoft to result from incompatible Intel Graphics Drivers. These can be for onboard graphics (integrated graphics) chipsets. Consider updating these drivers using the Intel Driver Update Utility . Windows 7 SP1 also requires compatible Intel Graphics Drivers.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I’ve lost count of the number of people who are asking me why IE9 constantly crashes. If it was only a few isolated users, you know – user error – but this is something else entirely. These are people who have been using IE8 with (almost) no problems…Update to IE9 and BAM! crashes, lockups, error reporting endless loops.

I’ve started telling them to run Chrome or Firefox or try uninstalling IE9 (which usually means I’m going to have to do it.) once this is done they start being productive again.

Just who worked on this thing? The Windows ME team? Maybe that’s what we should start calling it “IE ME” or “IE Vista“! :;):

If you are one of the “3” people that IE 9 actually works for, I’m happy for you! :fanfare: Maybe you should send in your systems for analysis…so that M$ can figure out what is the recipe to run IE 9 (mostly) error free.

Telling people to install this thing is BAD ADVICE!

Reply | Quote

Does not work with DVR Viewing software. This software worked under IE8. A new browser should be backwards compatible.

Reply | Quote

Does not work with DVR Viewing software. This software worked under IE8. A new browser should be backwards compatible.

Microsoft has been excoriated in the technical press and by a very large number of web developers for producing a series of browsers that do not conform to web standards. Start with IE8 and no even more so with IE9 Microsoft has decided to produce browsers that are more compliant than any they produced in the past. A consequence of that decision is that some web sites and programs no longer work properly. The software vendor who produces the DVR viewing software had a year to get the software updated. It is quite possible they have a version that will work with IE9. What is the software?

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Microsoft has been excoriated in the technical press and by a very large number of web developers for producing a series of browsers that do not conform to web standards. Start with IE8 and no even more so with IE9 Microsoft has decided to produce browsers that are more compliant than any they produced in the past. A consequence of that decision is that some web sites and programs no longer work properly. The software vendor who produces the DVR viewing software had a year to get the software updated. It is quite possible they have a version that will work with IE9. What is the software?

Joe

http://www.csi-speco.com/software-downloads.aspx
I have communicated with the product manager for this product line. I received firmware updates for two models of DVR’s that this company sells. The older “Top of the line model” the TT series there is not a firmware update available to date. We use a TT model for part of our security system. Until it works with all versions of this viewing software, it simply does not make sense to me. I agree with the post that for the less technical IE9 is a complete disaster. It installs the 64 bit version by default, some of my less technical aquaintences would have absolutely no clue how to switch to the 32 bit version.
For Microsoft to force feed it to everyone via Windows Update was a poor decision in my opinion. IE9 is simply not ready for prime time.

Reply | Quote

I agree with the post that for the less technical IE9 is a complete disaster. It installs the 64 bit version by default, some of my less technical aquaintences would have absolutely no clue how to switch to the 32 bit version.
For Microsoft to force feed it to everyone via Windows Update was a poor decision in my opinion. IE9 is simply not ready for prime time.

There still seems to be some confusion as to the IE9 version installed by default. If your version of Windows is 64 bit, you have to use the 64 bit installer package. The 64 bit installer package has nothing to do with determining which version of IE9 is installed as the default browser. The 64 bit installer package installs both the 64 bit and 32 bit versions of IE9, but the 32 bit version is the one setup by default and is represented by the taskbar and desktop icons. Clicking one of these icons after the installation runs the 32 bit version of IE9.

As to MS forcing IE9 on users through Windows Update, all one has to do to put an end to that is right click the update, select ‘Hide’, and there will be no more notifications of the IE9 update until and unless one chooses to restore hidden updates at some point.

Reply | Quote

Why do other threads get 5 stars when this thread has more views and replies? Is the rating system broken?

Why did Windows Secrets become so pro-Microsoft lately (and anti-vendor against the other product makers)? Won’t this hurt the newsletter advertising?

Reply | Quote

Does not work with DVR Viewing software. This software worked under IE8. A new browser should be backwards compatible.

Have you tried the compatibility tab?

Reply | Quote

You can get IE 9 to behave exactly as IE 8 or IE 7 or even IE 6. You can choose to click either the compatibility view icon or even do better and download and install IE developer tools. Once you have that installed, you can open them simply by pressing F12 and then choose the browser mode or document mode that suits you for compatibility with previous IE versions.

Reply | Quote

If one uses their history in IE9 32-bit, you might have problems with the sites visited may not record in the history properly. I did post in the IE forums but no luck for a resolution. I was hoping someone else would test their history to see if it’s recording properly. Others, altough not many, seem to be experencing the same problem as me. I have not yet found a solution.

Below are some links describing the problem I’m having too.

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread//138835-IE-9-missing-URL-s-in-history

http://superuser.com/questions/294191/cannot-view-browser-history-in-ie9

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/ieitprocurrentver/thread/98bd703a-55be-41a5-b9be-8de7812d8bde/

So, it could be I have a mangled install, unlikely, or there is a problem with IE 9 history that has not been fully exposed.

Thanks,

Geoff

Reply | Quote

I would also be willing to bet that many of those persons with upgrade install problems did NOT heed the MS advice to disable or shut down all apps, including security apps. I did not heed my own advice yesterday and tried an install of Offixe 2010 SP1 without doing this, would not install correctly. As soon as I came back to my proper frame of mind (have not a clue what I was thinking) and shut all apps including security down, installed without a hitch. Naturally when I disabled my security apps I had already disconected from the internet. My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.

Reply | Quote

I did not heed my own advice yesterday and tried an install of Offixe 2010 SP1 without doing this, would not install correctly. As soon as I came back to my proper frame of mind (have not a clue what I was thinking) and shut all apps including security down, installed without a hitch. Naturally when I disabled my security apps I had already disconected from the internet. My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.

Actually, Ted, does not this prove the very point for which I contended? If even the pros, or the wise, or the initiated, or the savvy often are not functioning in their “proper frame of mind” and having “(…not a clue what I was thinking)”, why on Earth would anybody suggest the “normal” user install a potentially problematic executable like IE9? I just think this whole idea–and Susan’s post–is insane. Besides, having spent decades in the context of IBM and Digital mains and minimains, SGI and Sun workstations, and PCs running every variation of UNIX, this whole matter of shut this off, turn this on, put this down, push this up, shove that aside, wind this thataway and twist this thisaway is just disingenuous.

rpb
San Bernardino

Reply | Quote

Actually, Ted, does not this prove the very point for which I contended?

Er, no.

If even the pros, or the wise, or the initiated, or the savvy often are not functioning in their “proper frame of mind” and having “(…not a clue what I was thinking)”, why on Earth would anybody suggest the “normal” user install a potentially problematic executable like IE9?

It’s no more potentially problematic than any other application. For the vast majority of people it installs just fine and works very well.

I just think this whole idea–and Susan’s post–is insane.

It’s a shame you can’t explain why.

Besides, having spent decades in the context of IBM and Digital mains and minimains, SGI and Sun workstations, and PCs running every variation of UNIX, this whole matter of shut this off, turn this on, put this down, push this up, shove that aside, wind this thataway and twist this thisaway is just disingenuous.

Huh? Just install it and browse. Nothing else required.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

You don’t read so well, do you Bruce? Let’s try on Ted’s words, again, just to see if they can fit a mind that is apparently far, far smaller than Ted’s:

“I did not heed my own advice yesterday and tried an install of Offixe 2010 SP1 without doing this, would not install correctly. As soon as I came back to my proper frame of mind (have not a clue what I was thinking) and shut all apps including security down, installed without a hitch. Naturally when I disabled my security apps I had already disconected (sic) from the internet. My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.”

Now, just to direct your puny little brain to the appropriate point, let’s see it, yet again:

“My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.”

Let’s see if you will be an idiot and reply to Ted’s words, to wit: “…because I did do this as well” (third time, Bruce. Got it, yet?).

rpb
San Bernardino

PS Susan’s recommendation without reservation is ~still~ insane, your vomiting to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Reply | Quote

You don’t read so well, do you Bruce? Let’s try on Ted’s words, again, just to see if they can fit a mind that is apparently far, far smaller than Ted’s:

“I did not heed my own advice yesterday and tried an install of Offixe 2010 SP1 without doing this, would not install correctly. As soon as I came back to my proper frame of mind (have not a clue what I was thinking) and shut all apps including security down, installed without a hitch. Naturally when I disabled my security apps I had already disconected (sic) from the internet. My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.”

Now, just to direct your puny little brain to the appropriate point, let’s see it, yet again:

“My installs of IE9 were similarly uneventful because I did do this as well.”

Let’s see if you will be an idiot and reply to Ted’s words, to wit: “…because I did do this as well” (third time, Bruce. Got it, yet?).

Thanks for the reading lesson. It really helps when you repeat three times what I quoted. :rolleyes:

If you think Ted has proved that disabling anything is necessary to install IE9, just because he did and it worked, then I don’t think I’m the one with a puny little brain.

Release Notes for Internet Explorer 9

PS Susan’s recommendation without reservation is ~still~ insane, your vomiting to the contrary, notwithstanding.

But we will never discover why you think Susan is insane or regard my comments as vomit, will we?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

I am using Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit and attempted to use IE9 – a disaster to be sure. Uninstalling IE9 is a major task. I will wait at least another 6 to 12 months before moving from IE8 – which by the way has worked very well from day one on my machine. I really appreciate the update information and the overview of IE9 but will wait longer before making any move toward IE9.
As a matter of interest. Windows Secret is the most reliable and truthful publication on the internet. Pass the word.

Reply | Quote

Windows Secret is the most reliable and truthful publication on the internet. Pass the word.

The best money I ever spent.

Reply | Quote

A friend purchased a brand new HP Computer. It has IE9 pre-installed and no rollback to IE8. An Intellinet IP Camera will not dislplay even in compatibility mode. I use a Speco Technologies DVR at work for security purposes. They have a TT, TH and TL series, they have a firmware fix for the TH and TL but not the TT. Need to access remote viewing capability, will not work with TT series, have not tested the TH as I have no desire to load IE9 again (after perfoming the firmware update) on my work computer. Really should never have been rolled out if it wasn’t completely backwards compatible.

Reply | Quote

I do have some problems with IE9;

1. When I apply for a job on some HR systems (taleo is #1), IE9 won’t let me upload any documents.
2. If I’m in an already open tab and want to do a search or put in a new URL, it just doesn’t work. I’ve got to close that tab and open a new one.
3. Far too many sites need compatibility mode. Even worse, compatibility mode doesn’t seem to do much of anything in some sites.
4. Still too much RAM usage and it looks like there are memory leaks that only clear if you close IE and restart it.
5. MS still won’t let people arrange the top of the window (tabs, bars, etc.) the way we want to.

On the positive side;

1. Far fewer IE lockups (even more so now after some updates).
2. Far fewer IE crashes that bring down the whole browser.
3. Noticably faster browsing.

Reply | Quote

Read the thread, Bruce. Read the thread.

Your turn. You get the last word.

rpb
San Berdoo

Reply | Quote

Gentlemen, this name calling tirade between you 2 is totally uncalled for and inappropriate in these forums. My statement of my experiences in installing an update was not intended to provoke this type of name calling. I have reported these several posts to the moderators as inappropriate. It was intended to provide a possible answer for others that have experienced a similar failure as a possible solution to try.

Yes in my experience, and the experience of many others considered much more professional than I in this field, and in the recommendations from MS, when installing updates to the OS or apps closely tied to the OS it is advisable to shut down running apps including security apps. A warning pops up advising this is many instances of these updates. I was only relating that on this occasion and has happened on other occasions in the past, when I did not follow this advice, I experienced intermittent failed updates, but when I did follow this advise I did not experience the problem. I did not say that this was the only way to do this, I did not say that my experience proved that disabling anything will produce positive results. I simply stated that I have a failure when I did not follow this advise that was corrected when I did, period.

I also believe that this advice was not followed in a large percentage of these type failures simply because people take the easy way out. It is more work to do this.

Reply | Quote

I stand rightly rebuked, and therefore humbly apologize to the forum, to Ted (for apparently misreading and abusing his words), and to BruceR, my worthy opponent in this sharp debate.

rpb

Reply | Quote