I came across the linked article while reading the Homegroup article linked in a previous news item and thought it was worth sharing, not that I care about Internet Explorer. But I am shocked that a dumb browser would have such a high OS requirement. I can understand Microsoft wishing all Windows users move to Windows 7. This is still no justification for imposing this restriction.
Why? Because other browsers (looking at Chrome, Firefox, Opera, maybe all of the others) won't be lagging far behind (my original wording was "will still be better", which is an unsupported claim as I haven't got a crystal ball yet) because of not needing 7 SP 1.
What is so magical about IE9 that it has such a demand? Or will it be, paraphrasing another slogan, a "revolution in browsing"? If I am not mistaken, had they not changed their mind, having a "trivial" software package such as a browser impose an OS restriction with such a short compatibility time span, would have been unheard of. Someone correct me please.
I am wondering how the Windows market share is divided among XP, Vista and 7. Unless the figures show an undeniable tide towards the latter, for a browser with (I can only guess) the aim of reconquering some browser market shares, Microsoft wasn't making the best move. Good thing, for them and for the IE9 users, that someone sensible reverted that not-so-obviously-brilliant idea. Of course, that's until the reverting is undone.
Don't software companies have PR people dedicated to managing/taking care of/dealing with/protecting their image?