Let It Snow… Faster!

In the spirit of the holiday season, we offer a new HTML5 experience that makes the most of your PC hardware and the new touch capabilities in Windows 8.

Check out Let It Snow and get ready for a GPU-powered snow storm. This experience brings together hardware-accelerated HTML5 canvas, SVG, CSS, and more. On Windows Developer Preview with support for multi-touch in IE10, you can reach out and brush the snow off the sign and reveal a holiday message -or just use your mouse. If you think your browser can keep up, kick it up to 1000 snowflakes. If it’s more of a flurry than a blizzard, try it with IE9 (or IE10) using the hardware acceleration built into the browser.

Screen shot of Let It Snow demo. Click the image to "Let it Snow."
Click the image to Let It Snow

Earlier this year we showed the first look at IE10, which offers more and more of the site ready HTML5 developers are asking for, so they can build beautiful and interactive Web experiences. With the Windows Developer Preview, we introduced more hardware-accelerated HTML5 for building touch friendly applications on the Web. We’re delighted and amazed by what developers are building on HTML5 and excited to be part of it.

Thank you!

Your participation and feedback is an important part of how we build IE. Today we want to say thank you to everyone who browses the Web with IE9, downloads the IE10 previews, runs the test drives, and reports issues on Connect. We also want to thank the people and groups who make the standards process work, the broad community of Web developers, and enthusiastic consumers who work to move the Web forward.

From the entire IE team, we wish you a Happy Hardware-accelerated Holiday Season, and we look forward to another exciting year on the Web in 2012.

—Rob Mauceri, Group Program Manager, Internet Explorer

Comments (110)

  1. alvatrus says:

    And a Merry Christmas to you too, IE-team!  πŸ˜‰

  2. planetarian says:

    maximized on a 2560×1600 monitor, set to automatic it rose to 2752 snowflakes, held at around 56fps. fun stuff.

  3. 6205 says:

    HP dc7900 SFF (year 2008) Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz, 2GB RAM

    Intel Q45/Q43 chipset(GMA X4500 family), Win7 32-bit with IE 9.0.4

    1680×1050@32-bit fullscreen

    4000 snowflakes 23 fps

    2000 snowflakes 38 fps

    Not bad…

    Merry Christmas and beat the crap out of Chrome with IE 10 πŸ™‚

  4. ajf says:

    Good work IE team! This absolutely blows away Chrome on my machine… Chrome runs it very slowly even with 64(!) snowflakes, yet IE9 easily handles 2000!

  5. Richard says:

    Well no luck on Windows Phone 7.5, which as I understand it should be the full version of IE 9.  πŸ™

  6. Claus, S. says:

    Cute, but the significance of the Google Easter Egg was not that it was technically superior but that it was released on their core product for all customers and went (was pushed) viral. You guys do cool stuff but only developers see it. Your marketing people are collecting salaries for nothing.

  7. PineMall says:

    It doesn't work on Windows Phone 7.5.

    Should't IE9 mobile be using the same rendering engine of IE9 desktop?

  8. Anon says:


    Intel Atom N270

    2GB DDR3

    NV ION (DX10, 256 MB VRAM)

    W7, IE9



    250 flakes = 60 FPS

    500 flakes = 39 FPS

    1000 flakes = 19 FPS

    2000 flakes = 11 FPS

    4000 flakes = 6 FPS

  9. Steve Scullin says:

    Hardware accelerated canvas is great and all but web game developers will go where the performance is and for 2D graphics that's with WebGL. Firefox and Chrome (and Opera 12 when it's released) frankly stomp all over IE9 and presumably IE10 as well. Have a read:


    Some of these test drive demos use MP3 audio and could be classed as games. I hope you have your MP3 licensing sorted out:


    I'd prefer it if Internet Explorer wasn't an also-ran. When will Microsoft help the web and web developers by making Ogg Vorbis audio and WebGL part of Internet Explorer?

  10. Jeff M. says:

    Nifty experiment. Hurrah for standards support! =)

    Note to Chrome folks: Go to about:flags in the URL bar and enable "GPU Accelerated Canvas 2D".  With that turned on, I'm getting 60FPS (the max I can get due to v-sync) at 1920×979 with 250 flakes.

  11. Stephen says:

    Enabling GPU acceleration in chrome certain doesn't seem usable, whilst it reports 60fps, it clearly isn't (I doubt its in the 10s) and bizarrely seems to constantly harass the hard drive..

  12. Thank you very much and Merry Christmas to my favorite browser! πŸ˜‰

    (Too bad I can not use Internet Explorer 10, I β™₯ Vista)

    Greetings from Finland!

  13. Firefox ftw says:

    Resolution: 1661×887

    4000 Snowflakes = 40fps

    all other 60fps

  14. Alex says:

    Doesn't work on IE8 (the version installed on my Win7 machine).

  15. Marcelo says:

    doesn't work form me either (on my IE8) but it moves smooth on firefox 8 πŸ™‚

  16. Nacimota says:

    Alex, it won't work in Internet Explorer below version 9.

  17. Edward says:

    Is Microsoft planning to ignore this question forever or actually going to answer it?


    Q.) Is Microsoft is fully committed to natively supporting an open video format for HTML5 Video playback AND the Media Capture APIs?

    [__] Yes

    [__] No, Microsoft intends to further ruin the future of the Web by only supporting h.264 – an invalid option for HTML5 video


  18. vijayk says:

    Good work IE team!

  19. ieblog says:

    @Edward: Yes, we plan to ignore this loaded question forever. Happy Holidays.

  20. game kid says:

    OK, all format politics aside, I love these little snow demos.  They're also helpful when I want to set the client area to an exact size (usually 1024*768 for me), since maximizing would make my window so big that websites look weird.  πŸ™‚

  21. Chrome User says:

    This runs fine on Chrome Canary 18 (1000+ snowflakes at 60FPS) without even hesitating. For current versions of the Browsers IE is winning in the speed for things like this, but Chrome and Firefox are catching up fast.

    Also enjoy the Holiday test drive even though it reminds me of what Google did with "let it snow" (Google it, see what happens).

    The IE team did a good job with IE9, but I hope they can start pushing out releases faster to keep up with the other browsers.

    Happy Holidays!

  22. AlfeG says:

    IE9 cheating on fps counter.

    On my slow machine visually no more than 4-5 fps, but IE9 reports that it's running 60fps.

  23. ffffuuuuuuu says:

    Wow, first link plays music… No warning, no way to turn it off without closing the page.

  24. johnnyq3 says:

    Wow this was very well made and it runs really smoothly.

  25. Klimax says:

    @ffffuuuuuuu  21 Dec 2011 6:19 AM

    It(apparent movement / eyes) can be quite misleading – FRAPS should be able (after enabling benchmarking DWM) to show any difference. (So far no Ε›ignificant difference on my machine)

  26. Bob says:

    I wonder what the F1 and F3 keys do on that page.

  27. giuseppe says:


    As a developer it is important to know in which areas the performace varies the most amongst different user agents. Basically, such demos highlight what we have to avoid, such that our products do not confuse our users (and our support team). We cannot tell them 'best viewed in browser X' as no browser is available for all devices, and more important, we are not in a situation where we have to like or dislike our customers based on the choice of their browser. There are even scenarios where the customer cannot choose at all, and increasingly even that the user does not want, or is not able, to modify his running system.

    And certainly such tech demos are a great way of letting competitors know where they can pump some extra size out of their apparat.

    Once these performance gaps have vanished, it will be great to work with Canvas2D, but for now, it appears as if a use in production would result in 'same markup for less than half of the web' (or poor performance for all).

    Keep it up, and tutti l'Albero di Natale!

    [reposted, as the msdn blog system failed or succeded silently.  I wonder if this is something I will ever get used to]

  28. Andrew says:

    Wow @ieblog – seriously UNIMPRESSED with that comment above.  I actually had faith that Microsoft would pull through and take Web Standards seriously.

    Thanks for showing your true stripes.

    Guess its time for developers to start actively protesting by blocking Internet Explorer from accessing sites.  I'd start by blocking Windows Phone 7 devices but blocking less than 1/3 of 1% of our mobile access seems like it won't be very effective.  Guess we'll have to start with blocking IE10 and IE9.

  29. Andrew says:

    Lets rephrase that question just so we're clear on Microsoft's stance. e.g. "load" removed.


    Q.) Is Microsoft is fully committed to natively supporting an open video format for HTML5 Video playback AND the Media Capture APIs?

    [__] Yes

    [__] No


  30. miffed says:

    Q.) Are web developers such as @Andrew and @Edward

    [_] Complete ignoramus's

    [_] Incapable of any intelligent discourse on any and all subjects

  31. Anon says:


    It is not hard to make people hurt themselves. All you have to do is make them think they are doing the right thing.

    Politics and religion come to mind.

  32. Anon says:


    "open", as you probably define it, is irrelevant. What matters is quality, performance, and being free for end users.

    IE9 support a high quality, high performance codec that is free for end users (me, you, everybody).

    Lets define "open" as a browser that is open to any compatible plugin and codec.

    By this definition, IE9 is the poster child. IE9 is open for other codecs, plugins, and various bloatware.

    AFAIK, Mozilla Firefox is not open. I do not think Firefox allows any other codecs for video/audio aside from a few elite ones.

    If that is the case, Firefox is a closed and not open for codecs.

    Browsers that refused to support the de-facto best quality video codec, also tend not to support MP3 audio.

    Almost all music is MP3. Thus trying to achieve audio/video codec 'purity' simply becomes ridiculous.


    Please hurry up with IE10, I want spellcheck! πŸ™‚

  33. D3M80L says:

    Nice Easter Egg inside ! πŸ™‚ LOL!

  34. Luke Jones says:

    @Anon: "'open', as you probably define it, is irrelevant. What matters is quality, performance, and being free for end users. IE9 support a high quality, high performance codec that is free for end users (me, you, everybody)."

    H.264 isn't free. You pay for the encoder, you pay for the decoder, and if you charge for the video you absurdly pay for the privilege of streaming it across the Internet.

    Anon: "Lets define 'open' as a browser that is open to any compatible plugin and codec. By this definition, IE9 is the poster child. IE9 is open for other codecs, plugins, and various bloatware."

    IE9 supports and only supports H.264 and WebM for HTML5 video. It is not 'open for other codecs'.

    Anon: "Browsers that refused to support the de-facto best quality video codec, also tend not to support MP3 audio."

    H.264 and MP3 are not open, royalty-free formats and so are not supported by browser vendors who are interested in a open, royalty-free Web stack (i.e. a stack that's compatible with Web standards) such as Firefox and Opera. I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand the issues or if you're sarcastically trumpeting Internet Explorer in order to make the case for Mozilla and friends.

  35. Carlos says:

    Developers caught using non-free, non-open Audio and Video formats are in for a world of hurt and licensing costs:

    For starters, if you are using IE's HTML5 Audio tag with MP3 content – watch out! http://www.scirra.com/…/even-more-about-audio-licenses-on-the-web you likely need to pay a $2,500 MP3 license fee.

    If you stuck with OGG like other browsers support, you don't need to pay this ransom fee.

    On a similar note, don't get fooled into using h.264 for HTML5 Video – not only will it only work in IE but you are walking blind into a world of DRM encumbered formats, and totally missing the point of the Open Web.

    Open Standards – once again, the only way the Open Web works.

    @Microsoft – when are you going to join the Open Web so that your statements about "Same Markup" for cross browser consistency actually ring true? Currently IE is the only browser not supporting Open Standard formats for HTML5 Audio and HTML5 Video.

  36. Klimax says:


    How can they support something which has no standard, because W3C dropped the ball? VIDEO and AUDIO tags are left to browser vendors with no directive what to support. They didn't learn from nineties still…

    (Don't forget patent situation – currently no format beside h264 is cleared of patents – submarines like to lurk)

  37. Jimmy says:

    @Klimax – the WHATWG originally required Ogg in the spec, but pressure from some companies made them remove it: en.wikipedia.org/…/Use_of_Ogg_formats_in_HTML5 – I don't think W3C dropped the ball, they knew it was best, it's other companies who forced the current situation (wikipedia seems to blame Apple and Nokia).

  38. I like this demo. It's much better than the "Let it Snow" easter egg on Google's search engine. Where did you get the song that plays in the background?

  39. @Edward and other tards says:

    Q.) Will you give us a break and gtfo?

    [__] Yes

    [__] Yes

    Happy Holidays.

    Let it snow…faster!

  40. Steve says:

    @Microsoft, @Carlos, @Klimax, @Jimmy – As soon as IE9 was in development and the betas came out we (myself, and likely yourselves) as well as many other developers worldwide expressed serious concerns that Microsoft was not going to use the same formats as other browsers (a consistency issue) and furthermore use formats that had significant issues. Neither h.264 nor mp3 are completely free or open.

    We built the Web on a foundation that it would be "accessible by Anyone, Anywhere, on Any OS, on Any Device".  HTML worked great for this, we agreed on a standard, browsers implemented it, all was good (I'm intentionally ignoring quirks mode and IE's lack of standards support).

    CSS came along… same deal… free, open, perfect

    ECMAScript/JavaScript came along… free, open, perfect

    SVG came along… free, open, perfect

    Canvas came along… free, open, perfect

    and best of all IE9 came along and Microsoft said "yes, we support standards and using the same markup everywhere" etc.

    However HTML5 came along… and Microsoft said we too will implement these HTML5 Video and HTML5 Audio tags that are crucial to the big picture in HTML5… we're going to add hardware acceleration to ensure peak performance… and were going to @$%*! you over by *NOT* natively using a free open format for either audio or video.

    We're very happy that Microsoft/IE is finally adopting standards and open web technologies but it __DELETED__ us off to no end when you fall massively short on your first implementation.  You had the time, the money, and the resources to do this properly but instead you re-created the Microsoft Silo [TM] that no one wants to play in.

    Not at all happy with Microsoft,


    oh, and by any chance rather than changing the style of the blog – could you fix the comment form so that it actually works?! – kthxbye

  41. @Everyone complaining about Microsoft's format choices

    Why is it such a big deal if Microsoft's format choices aren't completely free and open? Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with h.264 and MP3. Besides, look at what other companies are doing. Google likes to add features to its products that only work in Chrome, and Apple has "HTML5 demos" on its site that only work in Safari because of a browser protection routine. There's nothing wrong with requiring the use of common formats that just happen to not be completely free and open.

  42. Vic says:

    @WindowsVista567 – the reason why it is a big deal is that HTML5 Audio and Video *should* enable us to use audio and video in our HTML5 websites and applications and it will work everywhere!

    Unfortunately because Microsoft is not using appropriate formats for the open web… we can't. HTML5 Audio and Video is currently a failure because Microsoft will not play fair and support an open format that is supported across all browsers.

    On one hand they say use the same markup everywhere – on the other hand they don't support the same markup, on purpose no less. So yeah we're ticked that Microsoft claims they support web standards when in fact they clearly have shown otherwise.

  43. Vic says:

    @WindowsVista567 – actually you said it best. "There's nothing wrong with requiring the use of common formats" exactly! all other browsers support a common format… IE was the last browser to the table with support for Audio and Video and they specifically chose to use a **DIFFERENT** format than what all other browsers supported – that's the flipping issue.

  44. Anon says:

    @Luke Jones

    False. h264 will remain royalty free. Microsoft will continue to provide h264. Thus h264 is free.

    False. IE9 doesn't support WebM, it supports a WebM addon.

    False. MP3 is an open, well documented format that everyone uses. It is also free and supported by everyone. It will continue be supported by Microsoft and music will continue to be in MP3.

    I can't tell if you are making a case for h264 by pretending to be an open standards troll, or if you actually believe what you say.

    If you want 'open', destroy all your BDs, DVDs, Music Collection, stop using Dish Network / Netflix, stop using Apple and Microsoft products, etc. Otherwise you are a Hypocrite.


    There is nothing stopping h264 and MP3 support for all other browsers.

    They simply refuse – your beef should be with them and their ideals.

    Web browsers shouldn't even be bundles with codecs – it is bloatware.

    Besides, there would be less resistance if the 'open' codec rivaled h264 in terms of performance/quality/compression. Right now WebM can be looked at another XVID wannabe, not anywhere near h264.

  45. Bruno says:

    A Hardware-accelerated browser to make my and yours websites crash faster!

    It makes me laugh hard that this piece of crap has "BROWSER MODE" and "DOCUMENT MODE".

    Just use webkit and problem solved.

  46. Jimmy says:

    MP3 is *not* a free format!  It costs $2500 to use in games!


  47. Anon says:


    End users do no make games. It also probably costs Microsoft something to include MP3 support in alls its OSs.

    I am also not sure why games would want to use MP3s.

    You have to argue about how this effects end users. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter.

  48. Stifu says:

    @Vic: "IE was the last browser to the table with support for Audio and Video and they specifically chose to use a **DIFFERENT** format than what all other browsers supported – that's the flipping issue."

    Actually, Google Chrome and Safari both supported H.264 at the time, did they not? Only Firefox and Opera supported Ogg Theora.

  49. Epic Fail says:

    All this arguing doesn't solve the problem.

    Developers need a single format that is royalty free on all platforms. PERIOD.

    Currently there is no such format.

    Therefore until the vendors get together and agree on a single royalty free format for audio, and a single royalty free format for video – HTML5 Audio and HTML5 Video will both continue to be a complete failure.

    @msfanboys – We can argue till we're blue in the face about what Chrome, Safari, Mozilla, & Opera are doing… but so far they are the only vendors willing to step up to the table to discuss the issue.  Microsoft is the only one unwilling to even discuss the problem they are perpetuating.

  50. Harv says:

    MP3 is not free for HTML5 webapps/games:

    $2,500 USD license per title! (for distribution of any quantity over 5,000 copies)


    MP3 is patented technology (see above) and the owners can set the conditions they want on when/where/why/how it can be used.

    Dear Microsoft – please support OGG or AAC in IE10+ please.

  51. I didn't really intend for my file format comment to turn into this. I was really getting tired of seeing complaints about h.264 and MP3 in the posts I looked at, and I disagreed with the overall opinion that I was seeing.

  52. RF says:

    Does pretty well in my Chrome dev build w/integrated laptop graphics — stays above 24FPS (film) up to 1000, and 18-20FPS and 4K flakes. On some loads I get a DOM INVALID_STATE_ERR and no snowflakes fall.

  53. Luke Jones says:

    @Anon: Okay, now I can tell. It's that you don't understand the issues. There's not much I can do here to help you. I encourage you to research the licensing for H.264 and MP3 to come to your own understanding of the problems with these formats as they relate to the Web.

  54. Anon says:


    You say I am wrong, yet you do not correct me. Can it be the case then that there is nothing to correct?

    Is it not the case that h264 is royalty free? Is it not the case that h264 is de-facto in compression to quality ratio? Is it not the case that Microsoft and Apple supply h264 support? You cannot disprove factual information – h264 is royalty free, h264 is the best media format available, h264 will be provided by Microsoft and Apple. All you have to do is prove the above wrong.

    On the other hand, I do not care about MP3 as FLAC is superior. It is due to its populairty, MP3 support is a must for any multimedia device.

  55. Default settings in browsers = different performance values. Well why then Chrome does not have enabled GPU Accelerated Canvas, when it can improve the performance? I made some tests on my machines and the results are really amazing and interesting.


  56. benjie garduque says:

    we must dowload all windows complite and open online games plug n play

  57. Igor says:

    So @microsoft – since your "Let it Snow" faster demo game page has likely been accessed and had the audio mp3 downloaded over 5,000 time have you paid your $2,500 to mp3licensing yet?

    Sucks using a media format that is license encumbered doesn't it?! If you had built this to support ogg vorbis from day one you wouldn't have to pay anyone a dime, because it would be be free just like the open web.

  58. Igor says:

    PS your comment form is STILL BROKEN!

  59. Tom says:

    It's an expensive demo for Microsoft to show, MP3 license is $2,500 for each title individually.

  60. Anonymous says:


    Microsoft already has a licensing agreement, they don't need to pay the fee because they already have.

  61. stig says:

    msft has paid a license fee for encoding in mp3 format on windows for sure, but i don't recall seeing an exemption from game distribution on the web that would enable them to evade this fee.

    i can send an email directly to them for clarification of course.

  62. Anonymous says:

    @stig yes do send them an email and keep us updated!

  63. I think I can safely say that this is one of the best demos you have ever put on the site. It fits in perfectly with the Christmas season and is much better than Google's version. I'm beginning to wish there were more songs on the page. My only real complaint is that it seems odd to "brush" the snow away with a mouse – it's another case of designing something for touch and converting it to work with mice. Sadly, I can't test this demo with a touch screen.

  64. Senthil says:

    I am very unhappy with IE9's performance (I'm afraid the problem could continue into IE10 as well) in my system. I use Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit with all updates applied regularly.

    # I always use the Microsoft's homepage (the one with the animation) as a rough benchmark for graphics performance everytime I update IE9. Chrome and Firefox beat IE9 every single time. The animation gets so stuck, the transition is done in 3 stuttering steps rather than a smooth slide. In Firefox it is reasonably smooth and in Chrome it is super-fluid animation.

    # When I am watching videos in YouTube, within a matter of minutes I open a large number of tabs. By the time I cross 5 or 6 tabs with YouTube on them, they become non-responsive when switching tabs. When I click on an inactive tab, only the shade of the tab head changes, but the page doesn't change. It takes close to half a minute for the correct "page" to get displayed.

    # In web pages having large amount of text, images and embedded flash objects (eg: YouTube pages) scrolling lags behind by almost half a second to a whole 1 second in IE9, whereas in Chrome and Firefox it is a lot more responsive (although not instantaneous).

    # The overall experience in IE is bad – stuttering, freezing, jerky – for common actions like scrolling, opening, closing and switching tabs.

    # The only areas where IE9 out-performs Firefox and Chrome in my machine are – most of the demos in IE blog (!) and a handful of javascript-intensive websites. Oh yes, and, startup is very quick.

    I bought my current hardware more than 6 years ago. Even at the time I bought it, the components had been in the market for almost 2 years. So, my system is considerably outdated.

    Although one can very easily blame my outdated hardware for the problems, it must be noted that in the very same machine, Chrome and Firefox are performing well. Are IE9 and later versions totally dependent on latest hardware? Aren't they designed to perform reasonably well on old machines? I want to switch to IE permanently but these performance issues are stopping me πŸ™

    @IE Team : Please do something about this. I really get irritated when I'm in a hurry but the damn browser goes nuts.

  65. H264 IS NOT FREE says:

    Anon is a retard, probably Hera troll that keeps trolling on Mozillazine about H.264 crap. H.264 IS NOT ROYALTY FREE, YOU MORON. H.264 requires LICENSING FEES and ROYALTIES per browser shipped.

  66. Anon says:

    Resulting to personal attacks is all you can do when you know you are wrong.

    "ROYALTIES per browser shipped" is true and Microsoft pays royalties allowing FREE H264 FOR ALL BROWSERS AND USERS.

    Stay Classy WebM Troll.

  67. Anon says:

    Also before claiming things make sure you research it first,



  68. Alec says:

    I like the HTML5-powered snowstorm . =)

    Is there any chance of SVG SMIL animation support for IE 10?

  69. @Alec

    SMIL animation will not likely ever be supported since that can be achieved already beter by using javascript.

    No use in supporting that.

    The relevant SMIL elements were also recently removed from the ACID3 tests as even standards supporters have taken the view that Ecmascript emthod of animating SVG is the interoperabel way forward.

    So forget about SMIL animations. It is dead.

  70. Klimax says:

    Senthil  25 Dec 2011 11:20 AM:

    1) You mean this one http://www.microsoft.com/…/default.aspx ? What is your HW? (There might be problem with CPU/GPU/drivers as my notebook has no problem with that page – Elitebook 8540p Core i5 with nVidia GPU or Asus 1000H with Atom N270)

    2)Problem with ActiveX plugin from Adobe – There is nothing short of reimplementing Flash Microsoft can do.

    3)Seen that, but it requires very complex layout.  Room for improvement definitely.

    4)Sounds more like problem with your HW/drivers/other programms. First I'd check GPU drivers, then other drivers and then rest of programms as they might cause excessive CPU/disk usage – be it AV or something else.

    5) Six years old HW should be fine – Core2 + IGP is sufficent for majority of pages, for example.

    Also check whether or not IE uses HW acceleration or not (if yes, try to turn it off – some versions of drivers/GPUs are broken or insufficent and not yet on blacklist)

  71. Senthil says:


    Yes, that is the site.

    Intel 945G board/chipset

    Intel Pentium D – 2.66GHz

    2GB DDR2 RAM

    nVidia GeForce 9400 GT

    SATA 7200RPM HDD

    I installed latest driver for my GPU and made sure nothing is left out by Windows Update too. I tried disabling HW acceleration but still no improvement.

    Also, with regard to other programs, I don't have even a single piece of unnecessary crap software/service running in background. In terms of junk software using up system resources, you could say my system is as close you'll get to a fresh clean install of Windows. There is basically nothing except Windows and MS Office. Just to make sure, I checked task manager and resource monitor. Zip! Nothing else except the browser.

  72. Sunil says:

    Why browser can not use the codecs installed on my system. When my media player can use that format there is no reason why browser which is sitting on the top of  the underlying system  can not use that. It is just an bad  add on in browser. Also, there should not be any comprimise in terms of qualtity in the name of Open Web  for the sake of end user.

    Found a link for some pseudo open web proponents:


  73. Klimax says:


    Not good. I think I see the problem. Pentium D is successor of Pentium 4 (Netburst architecture) , which requires special optimisation because it's quite anomalous CPU family. Trouble is that optimisation for P4(D) won't properly work on any other processor no matter what it is. AFAIK generally current software is more or less optimised for Core2 and newer  / AMD Phenoms or for old procesors like Pentium III Apparently somebody did separate optimisation for P4 on some others browsers. (question is whether it is worth it as they are special case and quite old by now and needed quite high frequencies to have proper performance)

    Because I doubt IE team will create separate optimisation for P4, the only "fix" would be buying newer supported CPU (Core2) , which I would recommend anyway due to much higher performance and lower power consumption.  Quick look at ebay shows number of them available for reasonable price (at least I think it's reasonable unless one wants to fully upgrade PC to new platform anyway…)

    There are quite some reviews comparing Pentium D with Core 2 like http://www.anandtech.com/…/3 or big comparsion of wide range of processors http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/processor-architecture-benchmark,review-32238.html

    Advanced information source:


  74. Klimax says:


    Mostly it is about ideology and "politics"…

  75. Senthil says:


    Hmmm.. now that I've come to know that my processor is the problem, I can actually calm down πŸ˜€ Upgrading is not a problem, I'm going to do it anyway in the near future. It's funny how some processors before it and all processors after it are supported and I bought just that one in the middle!

    Thanks for all the info πŸ™‚

  76. @Sunil

    Browsers can indeed use the existing codecs on your system. The Firefox code repository for instance even has code added to it years ago to use existing h.264 Windows codecs for HTML5 video support but that code was never added to the browser because of political reasons/choices. So Firefox could easily use the existing h.264 codec that are present on almost every system already but Moxilla blatantly refuses to do so.

    But I guess that is why Mozilla is getting the 300 million dollars a year from Google who is the propriatary owner of the VP8 codec in WebM.

  77. Mike says:


    Please review all the deleted posts and restore all the ones that are not spam.

    It's majorly frustrating to see stuff on this blog one minute then deleted the next.

    The mp3 licensing stuff is critically important at the moment considering IE is holding back HTML5 again!!!!

  78. Andrew says:

    Did Rob Mauceri confirm that they paid the $2,500 licensing fee per mp3 title used in the HTML5 demos?  I'm thinking that maybe Microsoft would be willing to pay the licensing fee for all of our HTML5 apps and games to use the mp3 format for audio since they refuse to support OGG formats natively?

    There's also no update from Microsoft on natively supporting a free and open video format in IE.  We need support for this in order for IE to be able to support HTML5.  Currently Microsoft is the only vendor with a browser that doesn't fully support HTML5, which is pretty sad considering.  IE10 is really close now that it properly supports innerHTML, now it only needs to support free and open Audio/Video formats to make IE HTML5 capable.

    Keeping fingers crossed that the next IE10 beta will be HTML5 ready! πŸ˜€

  79. Jacob says:

    Does the Windows Phone and IE10 support rounded corners and gradients? or is it just the sucky metro UI that hasn't discovered that single colored squares makes everything look like a "HelloWorld" app built by VB Developers?

    I'm all for minimalistic design but the Metro UI just looks like no one cared.

    Since I may be forced to develop apps for Windows 8 that use this [sarcasm]UI design[/sarcasm] are there API options to override this and make a decent looking UI for my apps?!

  80. @Andrew

    The only really free and open video format is MPEG1. However noone supports it because it is old and crappy.

    Usage of MPEG1 would be very expensive for the internet.

  81. evan says:

    @A_Zune I don't think anyone is suggesting MPEG1.  We are suggesting using a format that is appropriate for the web – which means a format that is free and open, and yes ideally with decent compression etc.  The only thing that has been determined so far in the past 2 years regarding HTML5 Video is that there is 1 format that absolutely can not be used… and that is h.264.  However Microsoft has gone ahead and made this their default which means IE is the only browser that doesn't properly support HTML5 Video at the moment.  We're hoping that the people at Microsoft are finally getting this and working on supporting a free and open format so that HTML5 can be a success.  We've already encountered financial drawbacks to using mp3s for audio as even the Let it Snow demo has/had to pay $2,500+ in licensing fees for using a non-free, non-open format.

    Rumor has it that Microsoft has already learned this lesson and that internal releases of IE10 do support OGG audio natively but my sources have been very tight lipped about this as once again, Microsoft hates to admit that they were wrong about anything. like say… *cough* *cough* the Zune.

  82. Anon says:


    Read my posts above where I prove that h264 is "a free and open format so that HTML5 can be a success."

  83. Frank says:

    @Anon – how can a format with a patent pool to collect royalties on a propriatary format ever be considered either free or open?!

    Stop drinking the MSFT koolaid and read up on licensing and open formats.

    We've been complaining about this on every forum on the Internet for several years trying to find a usable solution and you somehow think that the one format already ruled out can somehow fill the gap!?!? Yikes dude you're about 3 months behind in your research reading on the matter.

  84. Sunil says:


    We missing one point here as every movie/songs site today plays so called h264 formats and millions and millions of songs/movies are in h264 format with a very good hardware support for them and none in ogg format. therefore, even if browsers support ogg format. I do not see this as a viable option to convert them all in different format. But going forward, working on do not repeat policy in development. Browsers should not take this responsibility of supporting or non-supporting a codec as this is already baked in underlying system. They can read from system. If , I my site support some format, I can distribute the codec for that. Once that is installed on that system. the Video/audio shoud work fine in all browsers.This will also be useful in implementing DRM in HTML5 with properitory codecs.

  85. Anon says:


    No one cares. No one. Not a single end user. Nill. Nada. None. All that matters is that h264 is free for end users. That is all that matters. h264 is royalty free and will be provided and supported by Apple and Microsoft.

    I could not care less about MSFT. Look I compared XVID, h264, and WebM. h264 is the clear winner in hardware suppot, quality, performance, compression, 3D, etc. This is the reson why I defend it.

  86. Anarv says:

    @Edward @Andrew @Steve @Luke Jones etc.

    Web is not detached from the rest of the world, so to promote a "Free and Open" codec, you need to get people in real world use it first. When almost every video capture/recording device including camcorders, cellphones, portable media players, etc. etc. produces H.264 encoded video and MP3 encoded audio. Even Android based phones like Samsung Galaxy S2 produces mp4 video files instead of webm. So for the common people it's simply much easier to share mp4 video and mp3 audio instead of transcoding into webm and ogg vorbis. I think you people should first try convince all those hardware manufacturers to adopt your "Free and Open" codec instead of trying to force web browsers to do so.

    The Web is a part of the real world, it won't work without being easily interoperable with the rest of the world. The Web serves the World, the World doesn't serve the Web.

  87. John Cano says:

    Please… The next IE without compatibility for Windows Vista SP2?… are you want to kill IE? Chrome and Firefox give support to Windows XP!!! And Internet Explorer 10 wonΒ΄t have support for Windows Vista? Escuse me… but are you crazy??? So IETeam… I hope that you consider this situation… Thanks

  88. @evan

    The only thing that is certain is that nearly everybody already has h.264 support on their devices.

    That proves that it no only can be used but in fact is already used more widely that any other format ever before.

    Your claims that it can not be used has already been flawed before you uttered it. Same for MP3. It is by far the most widely used format and everybody uses it.

    It has already been proven that formats that have some limited patent licensing around them can be extremely succesfull.

    A new format can only be succesfull if it proves to be better than those existing formats.

    So eventually mp3 might be succeeded by AAC or ogg vorbis. That could mean some minor savings in bandwidth and storage

    For h.264 no replacement is available that would not cost more bandwidth and more storage.

    Replacing h.264 would cost a lot more than a few licenses and is much more expensive in the long run.

  89. Aaron says:

    You guys are all missing the point.  As a developer I plan to pay *Abso-!@#$ing-lutely nothing* to distribute my media (audio/video) as part of my apps/games on the web/mobile/tablets.

    Thus for me (as a developer) as well as hmm, every developer I know… we have no interest in formats that will cost us just for the pleasure of using the format.

    Sure, over 1/2 of my music collection at home is in mp3 format, because it cost me (personally) zero dollars to convert my CD collection into a format I could use on the devices I need it for.  However when I make my web app/games I ensure my audio is in OGG format, and I make an AAC format for the browsers that don't support OGG (e.g. IE).  Over time I'm going to push IE users of the site to upgrade their browser – once the IE traffic counts for less than 20%, I'll drop IE support completely.

    I'm planning to make a site for audio and video… and I'm now at the point where I have to decide what format(s) I need to support.  Hosting my video in 2 or more formats will cost me time and hassle that I don't want.  Since the future of h.264 is highly unknown and it certainly doesn't fit my needs for a free and open format there's no way in H____ that I am going to use it.  Any users visiting my site will either hopefully already have the WebM support, or they will need to download it.  It sucks for usability that many IE users won't have the correct format installed by default, but hopefully if the pressure that comes from end users complaining to Microsoft that the free web format isn't supported by IE will get them to move their product to support it by default out of the box.

    Developers make a stand! Tell Microsoft you want free and open formats for HTML5 in Internet Explorer Now!  Don't let Microsoft ruin HTML5 Video and HTML5 Audio like IE6 ruined the Web!

  90. Aaron says:

    oh my god!  it took me 6 tries to post that comment! how can your comment form be soooo broken!?!? – fix it!

  91. Anon says:


    "MPEG LA has announced that H.264 will be royalty-free forever so long as video encoded with the standard is free to end user.

    Even if you are not offering free media, you should still appeal to the consumer and not to your pocket.

  92. sushil says:

    nice postt

  93. Jimmy says:

    MPEG-4 AAC support doesn't need to be dropped.  If hardware decoders work well with it, great.  We'd just like free formats available in addition to the patented ones, so everyone can use whichever is best for their job.

  94. @Aaron

    Ditching users will work fine. I already ignore sites that refuse to provide me with h.264 video.

    Sites delivering ineffienct video are clearly environmentally unfriendly and should be avoided by everybody.

    Video makes up more than half the internet traffic. Using even a slightly less efficient codec would in the long run cost hunderds of millions or even billions in bandwith investment. Also it would cost more running costs and use a lot more energy in transport network and computer clients.  Using a codec that is not widely hardware supported by GPU's will cost even more energy.

    If for instance Youtube would serve all video's in VP8 (where h.264 can deliver the same quality using 20% less data) than it might mean an estimated 1 Wh extra traffic cost and 1Wh extra cost to play the non hardware accellerated video for every hour of video. With Youtube serving 10 billion minutes of video a day or 160 million hours that would mean 320 MWh of extra energy wasted every day for using an inferior video solution for just Youtube alone.  Bad for the environment and bad for overall costs as well.

    Using Youtube on HTML5 with a WebM capable browser will actually costing users money and make them contribute to global warming.

  95. Vic says:

    @A_Zune I think we can all agree that high compression and thus reduced bandwidth is a serious concern but its also something that can be fine tuned over time making the format better and better.

    However the problem doesn't lie in the compression ratio but rather the fundamentals behind who owns the format and if/when/where/why there are charges for using the format.

    If I host a site, that delivers free video content… but you need to sign up to see that content… do I need to pay royalties? with h.264 it isn't quite clear about that, and what worries developers is that because the format isn't 100% free and more specifically NOT open, there's nothing stopping the owners changing their minds and saying… you know what?… this situation isn't making us enough money we're changing the licensing fee structure to increase all fees by 15%.  ****THIS IS THE ISSUE!!!!!!!*****

    This is scary for anyone hosting video because maybe today, my site is 100% free for all users… but down the road I discover that I just can't make ends meet with ad placements so I change my site model from a freemium service to a freemium/subscription model… now my dedicated users are paying to access the site… I've now crossed that line from serving free content… to technically serving up paid content… do I now have to pay up for h.264 license fees?!?!?!

    This is why the Web needs a free and open video format.  Compression should be a big concern, but BIGGER than that is the issue that the format ABSOLUTELY MUST BE OPEN in order to ensure that developers are safe from unknown 3rd party licensing changes that they have no control over.

    The PNG image format is a **CLASSIC** example of exactly why this is needed.  The owners of the GIF compression format did a number on the entire Internet community when they pushed for increased licensing fees.  The MP3 format also has issues, and h.264 certainly does…

    we don't care which format is actually used in the long run for Audio and Video…

    as long as it is FREE and OPEN… those are our PRIMARY concerns!

    (third attempt to post since comment form is broken)

  96. Anarv says:


    So you want your customers to pay you bucks while you don't want to pay anything to someone else? Excuse me but that sounds quite a moronic way of thinking.


    Then I think you should try push those Android phone makers to make their phones produce webm videos instead of mp4 videos before trying to tell IE to support webm. When even phones based on Google's own mobile OS produces mp4 videos, you don't have much of a case for pushing others for webm support.

    Like I said before, the Web serves the World, the World doesn't serve the Web. If you want videos in non-mp4 format on the Web, you first should push those video-producing device makers to produce videos in non-mp4 format. Especially those Google Android-based phones. If those Android devices produce webm videos by default, then there may be some incentive for Microsoft to support webm natively in IE.

  97. @Vic

    Actually the royalty situation fo h.264 is pretty clear in that the royalties in the patentpool can only be increased by a maximum of 10% every 5 years (last 5 year extension was without any increase) and that royalties end in about ten years (except on some newer feature additions like multiview which other codecs mostly do not even have).

    Royalties could actually get lower easily because less patents will apply in future years. To abide by the FRAND promise individual patent holders cannot increase their patent royalties so when more and more patents disappear from the pool the royalties need to get lower.

  98. Thomas says:

    @A_Zune – please provide a direct link to the URL that explains that publishing h.264 format video on a website, webapp, or mobile/tablet app is 100% free for the developer creating the app and can never be charged in the future even if the developer changes their business model. (e.g. free to paid service)

    If you can't provide a link to such info, then you've just discovered the issue.  Thus we need to find another format that IS FREE and IS OPEN because that is what matters most on the open Web.

  99. Anarv says:


    Since the open Web needs to serve the World, and the World does not serve the open Web, so the first priority for the requirement of a format for the Web is not whether it is open, but that it works for the World. What matters most is if its works best for the real World, not some "Free and Open" ideals. If those ideals really matter most, why Google doesn't push webm for all android devices?

  100. Sunil says:

    @Thomas Just look at one of my comment above , you will get a link there.

  101. George says:

    @Sunil @Thomas – Sunil you didn't read your own link… the article clearly states what we've been stating all along:

    "while H.264 was currently royalty-free (and would remain so until 2015), there was no guarantee that MPEG LA wouldn't start charging licensing fees later on" ——— THIS IS THE ISSUE!!!!!! THIS IS WHY YOU CAN'T USE ***NON-OPEN*** FORMATS on the Mother Trucking OPEN WEB!!!!! how many Mother Trucking times must we state this!!!!!

    HTML5 Video **MUST** use a FREE and OPEN Video format!… any browser that doesn't implement their HTML5 Video with native support for a video format that isn't open and free… has FAILED to implement HTML5 Video!

    Internet Explorer has NOT implemented HTML5 Video properly… thus IE does not yet fully support HTML5!!!

  102. George says:

    Yes I know that further in the article it talks about the free-forever announcement… but that is only when the video content for the end user is free.

    If your site or app is a paid site/app… and it just happens to include some video content (regardless how much)… YOU HAVE TO PAY LICENSING FEEs for something that you should not have to.

    WEB = Free

    HTML = Free

    CSS = Free

    PNG = Free

    JavaScript = Free

    Canvas = Free

    SVG = Free

    HTML5 Audio = Free (Except In IE you must use AAC format to qualify)

    HTML5 Video = Free (Except in IE)

    Internet Explorer is once again! the browser holding back the Web… its like the IE6 disaster all over again!… I'm not looking forward to 2015 and having to deal with old versions of IE that don't support open formats!

  103. tammy says:

    According to the Reigister http://www.theregister.co.uk/…/mpegla_v_google the catch with h.264 is that it is patent encumbered.


    "This means that if you use H.264 solely for free web video, you will never have to pay a fee to the MPEG-LA. It does not rule out the possibility, however, that some other patent holder outside the MPEG-LA will come calling."


    —- It does not rule out the possibility, however, that some other patent holder outside the MPEG-LA will come calling.—-


    That seems pretty $@#&ing scary to me!  If I'm running my business and a year or two in someone comes knocking looking for licensing fees I'd be screwed!  As would most small companies / ISVs.

    I'm personally providing all my video in WebM / Ogg Theora formats to ensure that it works in all browsers.  If IE users use my app, they will be prompted to install WebM if they don't already have it.

    I'm not sure what happens for Windows Phone 7 users though??? can they install WebM on their phones?  Would certainly suck for them if they can't.

  104. tragicomix says:



    —- It does not rule out the possibility, however, that some other patent holder outside the MPEG-LA will come calling.—-


    How is that different from any other one?

  105. sunil says:


    I think you did not read my comments properly, what I am saying why we need to have a  codec in a browser why cam't browser read it from onderlying OS. Then , as a Web Developer I will not have to worry about different browsers.if you want to support a particular codec you can distribut te codec and It will run fine across all browsers after first install. over 95% of the devices can read and produce H264 codec, hence It would very easy for end users and easier for developers if browsers use the codec to the underlying system.

  106. stan says:

    @sunil – as soon as MPEG-LA and all other patent holders on the h.264 agree to sign a "free forever", "will never start charging", & a "can be used freely to serve up 'free' content on a 'paid' app/site/game" the h.264 will be the way to go!

    Until then, it simply can't be used on the free Web.

  107. alvatrus says:

    At least, the MPEG-LA will defend you if you are attacked by a patent troll.

    Does WebM have the same support?

  108. @Thomas

    The patentholders in the patetnpool have promised to use fair licensing. That means that cannot change terms for their licensing in any drastic way. They would not be able to enforce such changes because it would be abuse of a patent promise.

    Also because of the large marketshare of h.264 the patent holders effectvly fall under anti-trust laws meaning that any action that is ment stifle competition is actually illegal and could mean billion dollar fines.

    So h.264 is actually very usefull for video as everybody can easily use it (proven already) and it does not pose a big patent risk for the future. Several other format do pose a lot of patent risks. VP8 poses so much patent risk that Google does not even want to provide other parties indemenity for using the codec thay provide.

    Microsoft provides Windows users with protection from patent claims. Why can't Google not even do that for their own V8 codec software ?

  109. dan T says:

    @Rob Mauceri, @Microsoft, @A_Zune – so I've made a webapp / mobile app that serves up video as part of its content (say 5-15%)… users need to pay to access the site, but once a member (e.g. once they are in)… do I as a developer have to pay MPEG-LA royalties if the format used is h.264?

    If the answer is yes, or maybe… then I want no part of this video format and I'll stick to WebM and Ogg (which I currently use).  If however the answer is no (and it is 100% free for me to publish the video content in h.264 now, and forever) then I'll consider switching for bandwidth/compatibility reasons.

    If the answer is foggy/unknown… you can see why web developers are reluctant to embrace h.264 in any way.

  110. Anarv says:


    "WEB = Free"

    huh, so Web is Free and you still want to charge people for accessing your website? What hypocrisy is that? In one sentence you say Web is Free, in another sentence you say you want to charge people for accessing your website, then in yet another sentence you say you don't want to pay others for what you use on the web to gain money.

    If you think WEB = Free, then you should not charge people for accessing your website. If you charge people for your website, then you are making the Web non-Free yourself.