VMs free download from MS.

[Achaean]

If someone wants a virtual machine from MS (for running it at VBox), continue reading here: How to install and run Microsoft Windows for free on Linux.

I didn't tried them. If someone did, please tell us.

[oshunluvr]

They're only good for 90 days, then they die. OK if you're learning how to use Vbox, but not much good for actual use.

[Goeroeboeroe]

When IE 11 is out, I'm going to use it to test sites in. Testing in IE 8/9/10/11, pfff. Only because Microsoft refuses, for whatever reason, to update their rendering machine. I don't want to buy a new machine for every version.
I've used them before with VPC, and they worked pretty well, so I guess it will work in VirtualBox too. Microsoft advises to make a back-up immediately after unpacking, so you can replace the VM after three months. Why they have that restriction for three months is completely onclear for me. The only thing you can do is running IE,so how many people will use this instead of a os they pay for?
As far as I know this is the only way to test IE in exactly the same way as when you run a complete os with IE on it. All other ways I know render different from the 'real' IE on a 'real' os.

[SteveRiley]

Microsoft refuses, for whatever reason, to update their rendering machine.

IE 6 includes an older version of Trident than IE 10, just like Firefox 10 includes an older version of Gecko than Firefox 22. Mozilla does not port the newer Gecko to older Firefoxes. So why should Microsoft port the newer Trident to older IEs? This would introduce certain degrees of unpredictability -- not something enterprises want in their desktops.

[Goeroeboeroe]

I know this is the official reason Microsoft gives. But I don't agree.
* They could give a possibility to refuse an update. So most of the people would get the new version, and enterprises could first test it, or refuse it. And I guess an administrator on an enterprise can make a judgment if an update is welcome or not. Uncle Tim and Aunt Hilda can't most of the time. (This is, by the way, something Microsoft started to do with IE 9: you really have to block the automatic update of IE. So they could have done that before.)
* From IE there are now six versions. A lot of coders still have to test in IE 6. IE 11 is just out, for testing. There's no reason why someone would not use the newest version of Firefox. In IE you simply can't use IE 9/10/11 on XP. So, if I want it or not, I have to test on IE 8. For Firefox I just test the newest version, because everybody can use the newest version, even on XP (same goes for Opera and Google Chrome).
* I don't think updating (parts of) the html/css rendering would really give such big problems. If I use border-radius, older browsers just ignore that and give square corners instead of round corners. There's no lay-out where a round corner would give problems, because even a box with rounded corners uses exactly the same space as a box with square corners. So I don't think there's any technical reason to not update these simple things.
* Microsoft updates IE with security patches. That's good. But they don't patch, for whatever reason, even the worst bugs in Trident. There was a bug in IE 6 where a certain use of first-line not only crashed IE, but it crashed the complete computer. You had to restart the computer with a cold reboot (really use the powerbutton). I don't test anymore in IE 6, but this bug still existed around at least three years ago. I don't think this makes enterprises happy. Every evil sitebuilder could write some simple code to let this happen.
(I write the last part out of my head, maybe it was not first-line but first-child of first-letter. But I've tested it myself a few times over a period of years, and the bug really existed for years.)

So in short: the difference is Firefox replaces (almost) every Firefox when there's an update. Microsoft does not. What means I have to put an unbelievable amount of extra effort to make something work in IE

I think Microsoft should simply update the same way every other browserbuilder does. If that really is too difficult, they should at least fix bugs in Trident and add simple things like border-radius. I know there are enough good programmers working there, so it must be some kind of company policy not doing that.

[SteveRiley]

Remember that large enterprises make up the bulk of Microsoft's installation counts and revenue. Software updates necessarily have to be managed differently when you're a company this size, and have customers with hundreds of thousands of seats.

Millions of corporate applications still rely on IE 6, bad as it is, to function properly. To minimize support problems, Microsoft does not change the base rendering engine of the browser that's included with the OS when it ships. From the outside, from the point of view of a developer, I acknowledge this sucks. The alternative, which has been tried before, sucks even more.

[Goeroeboeroe]

I understand the problem. Especially for programs depending on IE 6. That should never have happened, but that's the situation right now.
But I think corporations that have programs depending on IE 6 have the knowledge to block updates. I don't understand why Microsoft blocked automatic updating for everybody.
After april 2014 this situation is over. Support for XP ends, so everybody can start using IE 9. And IE 9 updates automatically. People blocking updates, for whatever reason, will miss some new things on sites, but that are probably only a few people. Anyway, on april 2014 I instantly stop supporting IE 8, and I guess more people will.
And I still have not seen a good reason why IE 9 can't run on XP. Microsoft said it had something to do with hardware acceleration, if I remember well. But if Firefox, Opera, Safari (for the time it existed on Windows), Google Chrome, ... are capable doing that, why can't Microsoft? Or they could have disabled some parts, if they gave problems.
Maybe I'm too critical because of the past of Microsoft, but the only reason I can think of is pushing people to Windows 7 (or newer). That's not the technical department, those people are most of the time completely okay, that's the top of the company making that kind of decisions.
(I know you worked there. At the moment I think Apple is bij far the worst company in this business, and Microsoft is really bettering it's life.)

[SteveRiley]

And I still have not seen a good reason why IE 9 can't run on XP.

IE 9 expects that the operating system will provide certain services. These services aren't present in XP.

[Goeroeboeroe]

Hmmm, I don't think we will ever fully agree about this. Not strange, since there have been written millions of pages about this.
Personally I think you shouldn't build a browser if such a big part of your users can't use it. Or build it in a way you can disable certain parts, so everybody can use it. IE 8 and later have compatibility modes emulating older versions of Trident. They could have done something like that with the whole browser.
(There are small differences between compatibility mode and the 'real' browser, so you can't use it to test. Otherwise the biggest problem for developers would have been solved this way.)
As a developer I really feel Microsoft has put a whole lot of problems (and a whole lot of extra work) on developers, and the people that pay developers, instead of solving their own problems.