IE9, XP, and Apple
Here’s the thing.
I just took a look at the back of the box my iPhone 4 came in.
Do you know what operating systems Apple lists as minimum system requirements? XP, Vista, Windows 7, or OS X 10.5.8 or newer.
Whoa.
That means that while Apple is supporting Windows XP (a 2001-era OS), they require their own customers to have an up-to-date copy of 2008’s Leopard or newer.
Does this make any sense? It should. They are just supporting most personal computer users. And virtually all Mac users can upgrade to Leopard or Snow Leopard (depending on processor architecture). It’s super easy, it doesn’t break everything, and subsequent software patches are unhindered by a buggy, anti-piracy “Genuine Advantage” program. You can even (practically, if not legally) borrow a friend’s $29 Snow Leopard upgrade disc. A worst case scenario involves also paying for $50 of RAM. Windows users, however, find upgrading an extremely costly, confusing, and downright unreliable adventure — if the new OS even runs on their hardware. So Apple makes iTunes run on old versions of Windows. Hell, even Safari does, and that’s not a prerequisite to using an iPhone!
So when Microsoft releases IE9 for Vista and up only, leaving behind over two thirds of their user base, what excuse do they have? We like to poke fun at XP’s age but until a year ago, it was undisputedly the best Windows operating system available, so age is a terribly lame excuse. XP is effectively only a year out of date.
I have to imagine the reasoning is little more than an ill-conceived attempt to encourage Windows XP users to fork over up to $400 for a shinier OS. But, hello, Redmond? 25% of the Net is still unconcerned enough to take the free update to IE8, so good luck with that.
