Should I install IE9?

Topic

New Reply

I am not trying to pin anyone down (okay, maybe just a little) on this, but is there such a thing as an UNBIASED opinion on IE9 before I upgrade from IE8 into two desktops running on 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium SP1, and a laptop with a 32-bit version of the same thing? I’ve declined the upgrade to IE9 when it was first offered because. . . .well, because there is never any lack of controversy about anything new from MS any more, and I’ve read a bit of information about it that makes me nervous at a time I have a stable and properly functioning IE8, so I am having a hard time convincing myself to take the plunge. If anyone out there can offer an unbiased general opinion on the subject, I’d welcome hearing from you hopefully to avoid “jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.”

Reply | Quote

Replies

I’ve split this into its own thread. Please start your own threads. It gets very confusing to keep track of responses when a similar question is asked.

There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion.

From my experience, IE9 has been faster and more stable than IE8. I don’t know about more secure. I’ll take Microsoft’s word on that as I never had an issue with IE8 and haven’t had one with IE9 so far.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Opinions are like (insert expletive), everybody has one.

IE9 is better, but…
A good start for you, would be to take the time and make an effort in learning how to perform imaged backups.
This is what normal people who know and use computers do when they are undecided about performing an upgrade but want to check software that has a potentially complicated install/uninstall.
[you take steps to ensure that you are able to get back to your previous working environment in the event something does go wrong]

This way instead of blaming everyone and their dog including MS, if things go wrong a restore is just a few min away.

Partial apologies for the sarcasm

Reply | Quote

Opinions are like (insert expletive), everybody has one.

IE9 is better, but…
A good start for you, would be to take the time and make an effort in learning how to perform imaged backups.
This is what normal people who know and use computers do when they are undecided about performing an upgrade but want to check software that has a potentially complicated install/uninstall.
[you take steps to ensure that you are able to get back to your previous working environment in the event something does go wrong]

This way instead of blaming everyone and their dog including MS, if things go wrong a restore is just a few min away.

Partial apologies for the sarcasm

Clint, you bring up another question then. By “restore if something goes wrong,” I take it you mean System Restore? Also, last I heard, if it you uninstall an IE browser it automatically reinstalls the previous one, because I’ve had occasion to do just that I think with IE7. I am inclined to give IE9 a try, but is there any reason either one of these two processes would not take me back if needed?

Reply | Quote

I would definitely upgrade to IE9, but stick with the 32 Bit version for now. On the 64 Bit OS you will download the 64 Bit version which will actually install both the 64 Bit and 32 Bit IE9. Stick with the 32 Bit for now.

Also understand that a few sites do not do well with IE9. I have not personally found any of these, but a few have been reported.

Reply | Quote

I would definitely upgrade to IE9, but stick with the 32 Bit version for now. On the 64 Bit OS you will download the 64 Bit version which will actually install both the 64 Bit and 32 Bit IE9. Stick with the 32 Bit for now.

Also understand that a few sites do not do well with IE9. I have not personally found any of these, but a few have been reported.

Ted, I am inclined to do just as you suggest and give it a try. I know what you mean re the 64-bit browser and problems with some websites, because I’m currently using the 32-bit option with IE8 for that very reason, but thanks for the suggestion.

Reply | Quote

You are correct that if you uninstall IE9 your prior version is automatically restored. I believe that what Clint meant was that a restore from a backup image not a system restore.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

IE 9 is the most standards compliant browser Microsoft has ever made. IMHO, you should have less problems with websites in IE 9 than in previous versions and there is backwards compatibility if needed. You lose nothing by migrating to IE 9 and most likely you will never want to go back.

Reply | Quote

IE 9 is the most standards compliant browser Microsoft has ever made. IMHO, you should have less problems with websites in IE 9 than in previous versions and there is backwards compatibility if needed. You lose nothing by migrating to IE 9 and most likely you will never want to go back.

Okay, to ruirib and the others who offered advice over the last day or two, I thank you. I’ve just taken your advice and upgraded to IE9 in the primary desktop that I use. I will reserve an opinion on it until I’ve used it longer than an hour or so, but I’ve not noticed anything earth-shakingly different about it that I cannot live with. The favorites and other tools I use are now tabs at the top, but that is all and I can get used to that in time. Given past experience with new MS products lately, I have just made a conscious decision to follow up on IE9 for awhile before installing it, but was surprised to read very little against it this time and most of what I read on this forum or anywhere else positive in nature so. . . .now I’ve done it.

Again, my thanks to all who responded. I will use it for awhile in my own desktop (64-bit Win7 Home Premium SP1) for awhile, then if nothing convinces me otherwise will likely put it into my wife’s desktop (a virtual clone of mine) and my laptop (likewise, but 32-bit).

Reply | Quote

IE 9 is the most standards compliant browser Microsoft has ever made. IMHO, you should have less problems with websites in IE 9 than in previous versions and there is backwards compatibility if needed. You lose nothing by migrating to IE 9 and most likely you will never want to go back.

Well, I have a slightly different take on this. I installed IE9 on my Win7-64bit laptop and a new Win7-64bit workstation PC. Everything seems to work ok after I tweaked the display setup to my liking, with one big exception. I can no longer use Secunia PSI 2.0 — the installed version of their scanner. There is a TERRIBLE graphic distortion that prevents me from doing anything other than starting the program. One of their graphics duplicates itself to cover the entire action panel on the left side, so no actions are visible nor clickable. I have been in touch with Secunia and they advised that they use IE for graphics rendering, and that they only have had slight reports of issues with IE9 that are fixed by resetting the defaults in IE9 using the internet options. WRONG! Neither of my machines are fixed by this, so PSI on those is worthless. I have gotten no further response from Secunia after I attempted to follow up again. The right way to code such apps is to NOT depend on any 3rd party tools that may cause such problems, but its a typical lazy M$-loving programmer type issue.

So, beware!

Rob

Reply | Quote

Well, I have a slightly different take on this. I installed IE9 on my Win7-64bit laptop and a new Win7-64bit workstation PC. Everything seems to work ok after I tweaked the display setup to my liking, with one big exception. I can no longer use Secunia PSI 2.0 — the installed version of their scanner. There is a TERRIBLE graphic distortion that prevents me from doing anything other than starting the program. One of their graphics duplicates itself to cover the entire action panel on the left side, so no actions are visible nor clickable. I have been in touch with Secunia and they advised that they use IE for graphics rendering, and that they only have had slight reports of issues with IE9 that are fixed by resetting the defaults in IE9 using the internet options. WRONG! Neither of my machines are fixed by this, so PSI on those is worthless. I have gotten no further response from Secunia after I attempted to follow up again. The right way to code such apps is to NOT depend on any 3rd party tools that may cause such problems, but its a typical lazy M$-loving programmer type issue.

So, beware!

Rob

Hi Rob,

I have a Win 7 x64 desktop and a Win 7 x86 laptop. Both run IE 9 and both run PSI 2.0. Have no issues in any of the computers.
Personally I find PSI’s display code very unreliable. Before IE 9 I had serious issues running PSI on my desktop. Graphics wouldn’t display.

You may try to see if disabling or enabling the use of hardware acceleration by IE helps.

Reply | Quote

I never hesitate in updating programs that are part of the foundations, using them is another. I found a new browser in WSL that is based on Firefox, is just as secure but faster than FF & IE9.

Reply | Quote

I never hesitate in updating programs that are part of the foundations, using them is another. I found a new browser in WSL that is based on Firefox, is just as secure but faster than FF & IE9.

Roderunner,
I’ve now been using IE9 for a day or so and my initial impression is favorable, except for a couple of things like my favorites and such that are not where they used to be, but that is of pretty minor concern. I have a good friend (and a network engineer by trade) who is a diehard Firefox fan, and he has tried for years to get me to switch, but I just see no point in doing so as long as IE is “the standard” that the WWW follows including everyone else (including Firefox). I do have Google Chrome installed, but almost never use it, and have had others as well (Sahara for one) but ended up removing them.

I talk too much. Thanks for the reply.

Reply | Quote

my favorites and such that are not where they used to be

Where do you want them? I have a widescreen monitor with my IE9, so the natural place is permanently open on the left side. Have you right-clicked un the top IE bar area and played around a bit? 10 minutes should get you set.

Lugh.
~
Alienware Aurora R6; Win10 Home x64 1803; Office 365 x32
i7-7700; GeForce GTX 1060; 16GB DDR4 2400; 1TB SSD, 256GB SSD, 4TB HD

Reply | Quote

Roderunner:

And the name of that browser is . . .

Dick

Reply | Quote

Roderunner:

And the name of that browser is . . .

Dick

Interesting question. I’d like to know the answer myself.

Reply | Quote

Interesting question. I’d like to know the answer myself.

Check this thread!

I have not downloaded or even checked this browser. I guess I’m just too pleased with IE9 to consider another browser right now. I will not state I won’t ever, but not for now.

Reply | Quote

The image shows why I don’t use IE, especially all the nearly blank space at the top, with only one or two items.

Reply | Quote

The image shows why I don’t use IE, especially all the nearly blank space at the top, with only one or two items.

Why can browser and OS authors and software developers not combine everything into a single toolbar and add buttons to that one toolbar as appropriate rather than filling half the screen with unwanted and unuseful toolbars? IE9 was one small step in that direction from previous versions but was disabled (made worthless) with instability.

Reply | Quote

Why can browser and OS authors and software developers not combine everything into a single toolbar and add buttons to that one toolbar as appropriate rather than filling half the screen with unwanted and unuseful toolbars? IE9 was one small step in that direction from previous versions but was disabled (made worthless) with instability.

Except for an optional Bookmarks Toolbar, Google Chrome 12 does just this. And folks hate not being able to find the Home, Print, Save and other function buttons which have been pushed into the little wrench symbol at the far right-hand side of the Navigation Toolbar. But Chrome can reveal more vertical screen space than Firefox 4 or IE 9.

One nice feature of IE9 vs. IE8 is the little alert bar at the bottom of the browser, which can show you which toolbars and plug-ins are taking up resources, and thus slowing down IE9. None of the other browsers has this feature by default.

And on 64-bit Windows 7, IE9 is faster, more secure, and handles JavaScript and Flash Player faster and with better stability than IE8. Not as well as Chrome, but well enough.

For security, Chrome’s process isolation (sandboxing) has not been equaled, although the gap is narrowing. Future versions of Chrome may have the entire browser sandboxed within the Chrome Native Client framework. That for me is a big selling point, along with the near-impossibility of crashing the whole browser or freezing Windows just because one tab or one plug-in has crashed. Chrome privacy can be controlled to a great extent with a few options and a couple or three Extensions. And plug-ins and the browser itself automatically update in small increments, making updates almost a no-brainer. I’ve never seen (in one year of use) Chrome mess up a user’s Profile when updating. Firefox, not so much. IE — well, that’s the whole Windows Updates mess, which I find most unpleasant.

But, to each their own. I haven’t seen any Chrome-unfriendly web sites, except for MS Updates, yet. Maybe I’m just not that adventurous. But all my banking and downloading and e-commerce web sites work perfectly well in Chrome. Or IE8 or 9. Firefox, not so much.

And did I ever post about Chrome 12 completely blocking a LizaMoon type of drive-by download? Another story for another thread…

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Roderunner:

And the name of that browser is . . .

Dick

Sorry for omission, Pale Moon.

Reply | Quote

I did try IE9 recently. While I had no problems with it as a browser it did some nasty things to Windows Mail. I couldn’t click on attachments in emails and the header for each email had changed. When I looked online for a solution, it seems Microsoft were aware of the problem, but had no intention of fixing it. It was either use another mail program or do a complicated work around everytime I wanted to open an attachment. I took the third option and went back to IE8. I am running Windows Vista.

Melanie

Reply | Quote

I have installed IE9 64bit version about 2 weeks ago. No real problems so far. It did change the look of my browser which I had to re configure. And I could not get video on some sites until Adobe flash player was updated and I did have problems finding a 64bit update for flash player. Everything working fine today. Graham

Reply | Quote

I have installed IE9 64bit version about 2 weeks ago. No real problems so far. It did change the look of my browser which I had to re configure. And I could not get video on some sites until Adobe flash player was updated and I did have problems finding a 64bit update for flash player. Everything working fine today. Graham

The 64 Bit IE9 is not quite ready for prime time. Most of us have chosen to use the 32 Bit version (also installed when you install the 64 Bit version)

Reply | Quote

I have installed and uninstalled IE9 about three times now. This is because, several versions of “Flash” do not like to work in it. And as you know, almost all multimedia and millions of sites on the internet uses some form of Flash for playback, log-ins, etc.. Acording to Adobe there can be some issues with IE9 and various Flash and Shockwave players–and I seem to have them all on my sytem for sure. I am running Windows 7 (32 bit) and nothing else out of the ordinary that I’m aware of. There are some good things about IE 9: it runs fater, seems to be more secure, most current plug-ins work in it and (a big one), it-itself is only plug-in (of sorts). So when you want to uninstall it, you do so like any other program: go to Contorl Panel and uninstall using the “Uninstal a Program” console. This returns your PC to the default browser (most likely IE8 or perhaps 7) very simply. So lots of positives but until it doesn’t “break” my Flash player plug-in, I still can’t use it.

Reply | Quote

To allow a direct comparison of the vertical screen usage by my currently loaded browsers in what I consider a usable format: Safari 5.0.5, IE9, PaleMoon 4.07, FX 5 and K-Meleon 1.7 (based on the equivalent of FX 3.15):

Reply | Quote

To allow a direct comparison of the vertical screen usage by my currently loaded browsers in what I consider a usable format: Safari 5.0.5, IE9, PaleMoon 4.07, FX 5 and K-Meleon 1.7 (based on the equivalent of FX 3.15):

Very nice thumbnails, but shows very little.

Reply | Quote

Very nice thumbnails, but shows very little.

With respect, I think it illustrates very well what a little customising can do with a selection of modern browsers, whilst maintaining a range of visible tools and thus maximising the use of the vertical space for content.

Reply | Quote

With respect, I think it illustrates very well what a little customising can do with a selection of modern browsers, whilst maintaining a range of visible tools and thus maximising the use of the vertical space for content.

Your thumbnail looks like IE8 not IE9. The back button in IE9 is larger and blue.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Your thumbnail looks like IE8 not IE9. The back button in IE9 is larger and blue.

Joe, it really is IE9, 32-bit, notice I highlighted a certain term in the quote you used? That was for a reason, I customised all the browsers using their built-in methods.

If you don’t like the way it, or any other browser, looks or behaves, change it to suit your preferences and your way of working; 15 minutes spent trying out the options available can make a huge difference.

Reply | Quote

There seems to be a misconception that you must permanently “switch” to a different browser if one doesn’t suit you. I’m using a Macbook Pro right now running Snow Leopard and Firefox. (Sorry for using the M word here!) I also have Windows 7 Home Premium installed on the built-in Bootcamp partition, mainly to use my thermal printers and existing copy of Photoshop.

I always keep IE9 and Firefox open at the same time when using Windows with no operational conflict. If a website has trouble with IE9 I can quickly switch to Firefox, again with no conflict. There’s no reason not to “try” something else if IE9 doesn’t meet your expectations.

Other browsers have such a small footprint on your system that Windows won’t even notice you are using them.

Reply | Quote

I must warn you that my observations and preferences are often not mainstream. I am not a member of the world of “sheeple” and I make decisions based on merits of the case and not what is hot today.

I installed IE9 Beta on a test machine and ran it for a few months without issue, enjoying the clean, uncluttered look and ease of finding settings and such. It was after RTM came along that I began getting considerable “Internet Explorer has encountered a problem and needs to close. Sorry for the inconvenience.” and simply freezing up requiring a computer reset to break the “deadlock”. These issues were rare in IE8 and also rare in IE9 Beta, but became frequent in IE9 RTM. I uninstalled IE9 then reinstalled it with no change in behavior. I then uninstalled IE9 long term. I will continue to remain with IE8 for a few more months and hope Microsoft can fix the bugs remaining in IE9. To its credit, IE9 does make much better use of desktop screen space and has a much cleaner, uncluttered look.

Reply | Quote

Roderunner:
Thanks. Out of curiousity, were you running FF before migrating to Palemoon; or did you go from IE to FF to Palemoon?
Best,
Dick

Reply | Quote

Roderunner:
Thanks. Out of curiosity, were you running FF before migrating to Palemoon; or did you go from IE to FF to Pale moon?
Best,
Dick

Hi Dick,
I went from FF to Pale Moon. I also have FF portable on a thumb drive.
I stopped using IE when it started spreading things out like the aftermath of a chimpanzee’s tea party.

Reply | Quote

I think it shows very little difference between the blank areas at the top of the browsers shown. I guess the bottom line is that an individual will use the browser they consider the most secure, easiest to use, most widely compliant, fastest, and for me at this time that is IE9. I have tried FF and Chrome, and continue with IE9. As I have stated, that’s why they call these things Personal Computers!

Reply | Quote

No offense was intended directly or indirectly. To me, Pale Moon is as secure, faster and more customizable at present.

Reply | Quote

decann,

If I may chime in with one down side for 64bit IE9, there are some software providers that do not have any thing to go with this 64bit browser, like Adobe only has add-ons for the 32bit version of IE9. BUT, you may run both 32 and 64bit versions of IE9 on your Win7 64bit OS systems so there should not be a problem moving from one to the other, except replacing the addy in the address bar. Being a very ‘novice’ along with ‘very curious animal’ I have trained myself to adapt to whatever MS manages to throw at us. I too have a Win7HomePremiumSP1 64bit desktop and laptop and they both work just fine.

One last point, after reading about more than one browser running at a time, I had GOOGLE CHROME on my system for a short time, ’til I learned that most of what you do is also or only saved on Google giving them access to whatever you have done using their browser. Automatic Clouding without warnings.

"Infinite CREATOR" cast "Loving Light" upon thee
TIA, CU L8R, 'd' "LoneWanderer"
"Only you can control your future." Dr. Seuss
NOT a leader,
NOT a BLIND follower,
Join US and LIVE this LIFE as ONE!
Original author Unknown

Reply | Quote

IE9 has process isolation. I’ve yet to see a problem in one tab crash the whole browser much less crashing Windows. Not saying crashing the browser can’t happen just saying I’ve not seen it yet.

Personally, I don’t want anything automatically updating my PCs. I don’t let Windows do it and I don’t want anything else doing it. I see Chrome’s ultra-fast release cycle as a detriment. To me it is just Google putting on a different face on its never ending beta products. If you have a release version that only lasts a month or so what good is it? You never have a chance to catch your breath much less become comfortable with the software before it changes again.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I have absolutely no problems using IE9 together with Secunia PSI 2.0 on a Win 7 64-bit laptop. Perhaps you should try reinstalling PSI?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

@rbsteinbach —

I have bad news for you. All Windows software which does not open up your default browser to update itself is almost certainly using Internet Explorer components to reach its update servers. And other display windows which gather data from online sources are really Internet Explorer windows. And they open without the protections of many security products. This may not be the “right” way to code apps, but it is the Microsoft way. And the way for almost all Windows apps.

Another thing to consider is that nearly all installed Windows apps run as Administrator. Think about that when deciding which background and auto-update processes to allow. I allow Secunia, Chrome and Flash Player to auto-update. And very little else.

JoeP517 may not like auto-updating, but Chrome and Flash have never given me bad updates — unlike Windows or Office Updates. It is only those updaters which have caused me grief in the past, which I absolutely WILL NOT allow to update automatically on my computers. Life’s too short to worry about every detail individually. Manually updating 168 programs is too much detail for me.

Frequent, incremental updates, like Chrome, Flash, and now Firefox, are much easier to keep bug-free than the massive MS Windows/Office Updates and IE updates we are used to seeing once a month. And Apple’s less than monthly updates are massive and full of bug reports. I much prefer automatic, frequent and incremental updates. Especially in a browser or a plugin, where any failures do not render Windows unusable. I can always use (for awhile) (ugh!) Internet Explorer if another browser fails due to a bad update. And if a security product update makes it go bad, I can switch to another product for awhile, if not permanently.

Automatic, frequent and small updating is the wave of the future. Cloud apps do this and we have no choice but to go along. What is a problem is when a vendor makes changes to their user interface with each update. This is what drives me crazy about Acronis products and a few other vendors. Chrome doesn’t so this sort of thing, but Firefox does, and it breaks Extensions with every update. I have yet to lose a Chrome Extension due to a Chrome update.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

The 32 Bit flash player works fine with my 32 Bit IE9. I would suspect the problem lies more with flash than with IE9. I would use the Adobe Uninstallerto uninstall all versions (you might find more than one. Sometimes Flash does not uninstall old versions properly when upgrading.) I would also use an app such as CCleaner to find and get rid of leftovers. Then reinstall the latest version directly from Adobeand see if this helps. Be sure to uncheck any piggyback apps that Adobe tries to install along with Flash.

Reply | Quote