IE 9 to go public tomorrow

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

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

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

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

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

And fast, too.

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

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

Cat

Whoops. See my much earlier post Cat.

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

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

Cat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cat