

Man upgrades Internet Explorer 1.0 to 9.0 - creamhackered
http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/

======
yannickmahe
The fact that this guy makes something as boring as upgrading software over
and over again actually enjoyable to watch is really astonishing.

~~~
michaelcampbell
He's got a good, non-emotional speaking voice, and his content:noise ratio is
high. Also, the tempo of the overview is near perfect, and his choice of what
video to show to go with his voiceover is flawless.

~~~
zackattack
> He's got a good, non-emotional speaking voice

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this?

What makes it good? What makes it non-emotional? What is an example of a bad
voice? What is an example of an emotional voice?

~~~
michaelcampbell
He reports the facts in a way that doesn't give any clues to any biases; he
gets neither excited nor upset at any point that I could detect. His voice is
pleasing; not nasal, screechy, grating, nor anything else widely considered
objectionable.

I suspect you knew all of this and were simply trying to jump on some point
that sounded subjective to you and perhaps it is, but that's what I mean.

------
pavs
"If you’re an Internet Explorer fan..."

Wait what? I was under the impression that most people use IE either because
its installed by default or they are forced by their corporate overloads. Do
people actually use IE because they really liked it after comparing it with
other options?

~~~
Niten
For one thing, IE 8 is arguably a more secure browser than Firefox due to its
use of low-integrity process isolation on Windows Vista and 7. It's also more
stable than Firefox in my experience, probably because of the way it isolates
browser windows into separate processes.

And now IE 9 has a rendering engine that's at least equal to Firefox's. It
lags behind Firefox's user interface in some respects (customization, built-in
spell check), but it feels much faster, and it doesn't bog down over a long
browsing session like Firefox does (again thanks to isolated browser processes
– now one for each tab, just like Chrome).

For my part, I still think Chrome is superior to both IE and Firefox for
general web browsing, but these days I certainly wouldn't look at someone
funny for choosing IE. It may just take a little while for the folk knowledge
that "IE suxors!" to catch up to the new reality.

~~~
Legion
Are you comparing IE 9 to Firefox 4.0, or Firefox 3.6?

~~~
Niten
I'm comparing to Firefox 3.6; Firefox 4.0 isn't released yet. But everything
I've read indicates that Firefox 4.0 will still have a single-process, non-
low-integrity process model, with all the security and reliability
implications that go with it.

Hopefully Firefox 4 will catch up to the likes of Chrome and Safari (and IE 9)
in terms of JavaScript performance, judging by benchmarks on the release
candidate, but I haven't seen any indication that it addresses Firefox 3's
fundamental design weaknesses. Of course, feel free to correct me if I've
missed something in the release notes somewhere...

~~~
Legion
Understandable, but still, when it comes to comparing how IE 9 stacks up to
"Firefox" on rendering engines and memory usage, it doesn't seem particularly
meaningful to compare the brand new IE 9 to the old Firefox just because IE 9
released a single week before the next major revision of Firefox is slated to.
Not that you were writing a New York Times article here or anything. :)

I certainly understand your other point about the single-process design.

------
S_A_P
I would probably watch a video about Tax Code law if this guy did it. Subtle
humor is always best. Great video.

------
estel
The best result of all of this is clearly that IE2 gets 93/100 in ACID3. Take
that, Google Chrome!

~~~
epylar
I'm running Chrome 10.0.648.134 and it got 100/100 with a fast, smooth
animation and pixel-perfect comparison to the reference encoding.

~~~
estel
But they took about 15 years longer to get there! (Also, I'm running
10.0.648.151: was there a 'regression' or are you running something custom on
top of Chrome?)

------
GeneralWaste
His choice of breakbeat hardcore classic 'We Are I.E.' by Lenny De Ice
deserves great praise.

------
nopassrecover
My favourite part was IE2 getting 93/100 on the Acid3 test.

~~~
Hixie
Yeah that's weird. I don't understand how that happened. If anyone happens to
have IE2 around I'd love to be able to study this.

~~~
JeremyBanks
The install's floating around in a lot of places; for example:
<http://www.oldversion.com/Internet_Explorer.html>; or as part of this
multiple-version package: <http://utilu.com/IECollection/>.

When I tried loading the Acid Tests websites in IE2 (from the utilu collection
on XP SP2) it gave me the error "Site Temporarily Unavailable (error id:
'bad_httpd_conf')". Not sure what's up.

~~~
estel
As he said in the video, IE1/2 don't send a hosts header with their request
and thus can't access most sites, ACID included. You'll have to download the
test and all necessary files to a local disk in order to run it.

------
krmmalik
He should do this for each of the MS Office Apps too.

------
citizenkeys
This video takes me all the way back to 1995, when I actually got Internet
Explorer 1.0 with the Windows95 Plus! Pack.

Internet Explorer 1.0 through Internet Explorer 4 were during the Browser
Wars. Internet Explorer 4 came with Windows 98, so after that the war was over
since most people just started using Internet Explorer because it came with
Windows and was the default browser.

------
rbanffy
To be fair, IE3 and, more specifically, Microsoft News and Mail, had _one_
intriguing idea - that mail (and NNTP) messages were things to be managed like
files and folders by a shell extension.

I would love to have Nautilus turn into a mail or calendar client when opening
specific folders (somewhat extending magic into discovering what a folder is
about)

~~~
ugh
Really?

I’m quite happy that the world has been moving into another direction. You no
longer have to browse your music or photos in the filesystem, you have a
dedicated music or photos program. That seems ideal to me, I wouldn’t want my
file browser to be a swiss army knife.

~~~
caf
There's no need for it to be a completely separated interface, though - in
theory, at the top level you could have "Files", "Music", "Photos", "Mail" and
so on. When you descend into "Files", you see the root of a traditional
filesystem, when you descend into "Music" you see a music-specific interface.

~~~
ugh
Would you really want your file browser to become such a monster?

~~~
caf
It's really more of a question of "Why does my shell currently privilege file
browsing above music or email browsing?" I would contend that it's for
historical reasons more than anything else.

------
jawee
I would have been interested to see the Unix and Mac versions of IE 5
included. And wasn't IE 5.5 a significant upgrade to 5.0, which was not
included?

------
ankimal
Most people use IE because they dont know other browsers exist. This applies
to MS Windows only.

------
jcw
It doesn't look like he used 1.0 in the video. Did I miss something?

~~~
kgermino
Are you sure? What's that at the 1:30 mark?

Serious question, I thought it was IE 1, but now I feel like I missed
something.

Edit: I'm sure he does, he explicitly mentions various performance issues with
IE 1.0 several times, starting with a screenshot at about 1:30

------
xutopia
He could have simply downloaded Chrome instead :-P

