Microsoft promises final IE 9 to be downloadable on March 14

[Nothinman]

Can't disable ClearType so I just removed it. I really only touch it for a few sites that don't render properly in Chrome or FF, but it's really disappointing that something that should be configurable and is everywhere else is forced on now.

 

[Wyndru]

IE9 will be what forces us to actually start using windows 7. I have win7 working fine with all of our software on a test bench, but we still won't move from XP because "people are comfortable and we cannot afford to train".

At least IE9 will force us to upgrade.

 

[misfortune13]

nice thread

 

[Bill Brasky]

One big reason I use Firefox as my default browser and have been for six years.......NoScript. I don't surf the web without it,

As for web security, everything else can get bent. No Script coupled with a solid real time AV will cover the vast majority of threats on the internet.

 

[fire400]

Looking for Internet Explorer 9?

To install Internet Explorer 9, you need to upgrade to a more recent version of Windows.

Why choose Windows 7?

-Microsoft.com

Vista users okay?

 

[CZroe]

Well, even though everyone told me a couple months ago that the release candidate absolutely was the final code, I ran into a Netflix MCE plugin incompatibility which traced back to it which was fixed in the final IE9 release. I asked so that I could make an image of a fully updated fresh Windows 7 Ultimate installation with service pack 1, Internet Explorer 9, and all current updates. I asked and got BAD information which I acted on. Now I know that the image I made is flawed and requires more work should I need to roll back to it.

From now on, I'm never treating an RC as final no matter what people tell me. It calls the so-called "final" Win7 SP1 into question too!

 

[Nothinman]

Well, even though everyone told me a couple months ago that the release candidate absolutely was the final code, I ran into a Netflix MCE plugin incompatibility which traced back to it which was fixed in the final IE9 release. I asked so that I could make an image of a fully updated fresh Windows 7 Ultimate installation with service pack 1, Internet Explorer 9, and all current updates. I asked and got BAD information which I acted on. Now I know that the image I made is flawed and requires more work should I need to roll back to it.

From now on, I'm never treating an RC as final no matter what people tell me. It calls the so-called "final" Win7 SP1 into question too!

That's just MS not following general software standards, you should be used to it by now.

 

[Pretty Cool]

RC means Release Candidate which means it COULD be the relased version. Whoever told you that an RC was absolutely-going-to-be the release version was just guessing. This issue is not relevant to some standards.

 

[Nothinman]

RC means Release Candidate which means it COULD be the relased version. Whoever told you that an RC was absolutely-going-to-be the release version was just guessing. This issue is not relevant to some standards.

If RCX isn't the released version then RCX+1 should be, changing code between RC and Final without another RC is just plain stupid.

 

[CZroe]

If RCX isn't the released version then RCX+1 should be, changing code between RC and Final without another RC is just plain stupid.

Of course, but they were all reporting inside info stating that it had already gone gold with the same build number and, thus, the RC was final.

 

[Pretty Cool]

If RCX isn't the released version then RCX+1 should be, changing code between RC and Final without another RC is just plain stupid.

I think no matter MS did, you would complain as evident by your loyalty to some other OS.:\

Anyway, I am not sure if the final version of IE9 is the one you should load. When IE9 was first released, the text looked blurry on lower resolution monitors. Somewhere along the way, there must have been an update to IE or Windows that now makes the text more crisp on these monitors.

 

[Nothinman]

I think no matter MS did, you would complain as evident by your loyalty to some other OS.:\

No, I have no problem admitting when MS does something right; it's just so infrequent that I don't normally have to worry about it. =)

 

[Emulex]

ie9 64bit is teh sux. all the extra security i guess is incompatible with speed.

 

[atreader]

I added it and it stops some of the ads. But I still get google ads at the bottom of say this page. Doesn't seem to block it as well as the FF version. Also flash ads are still there until you enable activex fitlering, but then everything that is flash is blocked...

There seems to be this http://simple-adblock.com/faq/internet-explorer-9/
Not sure if it works well.


Also refresh page button is way too small in the address bar.

And the default save location can't be changed to desktop?
Edit: Yes it can, in the download window on the lower left there is options.

Among the tool bar buttons/menu items the 'refresh' button is one of the most frequently used button. Wish it was at a fixed location near any of the 4 corners of the box and was a bit larger than other buttons. Relatively speaking Chrome and Opera's refresh button is better than IE and Firefox.

For me Hotmail logout only works responsively in IE9 (no filter list). In Firefox and Chrome variant the hotmail isn't responsive, it just hangs for seconds until you have gone throuch click-stop-refresh-click cycle few times. It could be that I'm using Adblock plus and privoxy for all other browsers except IE9. In IE9 I'm only using privoxy to block ads. Some other sites also behave a bit better in IE9 for this reason.

So I'm guessing that the particular ad/malware - filter list + website ad loading mechanism could be the culprit. If the website is designed such that it gets into busy state to load some third party ads/services etc and those ads/services are blocked by adblock then it would appear un-responsive.

The big popular websites should test their sites with these blocking technologies (adblock, privoxy, anti-virus adblocking,..) on and off.