Slashdot Mirror
IE6 SP1 Will Be Last Standalone Version
mokiejovis writes "Program manager Brian Countryman stated that "as part of the OS, IE will continue to evolve, but there will be no future standalone installations. IE6 SP1 is the final standalone installation." See the Microsoft TechNet article." Several of the people submitting this story have come up with elaborate theories about why: killing competition, etc. etc. I think the truth is just that Microsoft intends to integrate DRM very tightly with their OS and browser, and they're aren't going to try to backport that to, say, Win98, so they just aren't going to release new versions of their browser for old, DRM-less operating systems. In the future server-side browser detection may be more about detecting whether the browser supports the DRM your "web service" uses than what version of Javascript or CSS the browser supports.
In the future server-side browser detection may be more about detecting whether the browser supports the DRM your "web service" uses than what version of Javascript or CSS the browser supports.
Browser detection has always been about identifying what capabilities the browser supports, or what bugs need to be worked around. Otherwise you wind up with sites that don't work in some browsers, and everybody bitches at you for not supporting them. The key is to not redirect to a page recommending that the user download IE or Netscape, since that really pisses people off.
I don't plan on producing DRM-protected content, so I don't plan on detecting browser support for it.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
on a previous story
AC comments get piped to
> IE6 SP1 is the final standalone installation.
That's a pretty funny statement. The service packs are bug releases, hence they contain required changes that were not originally planned. How can Microsoft claim this is the last one that will be needed? Does this mean Microsoft will just abandon all of their users still running older versions of Windows?
I suggest this is just laying the groundwork for FUD to force users to pay Microsoft to "upgrade" their OS in order to replace the latest IE security vulnerability with a whole new set of problems, vulnerabilities, incompatibilities and restrictions.
I think the truth is just that...
I don't remember the role of the editor including giving personal opinions over and above those stated in linked articles. Why don't editors submit the story with a summary of other people's reasons, then post their own comment?
I do agree with Michael though, it seems fairly pluasible. All the same, it obviously has a competition-killing aspect to it, since Microsoft will tightly control their DRM technology, meaning that DRM-only web sites will probably be IE only, or at the very best IE plus other browsers whose licenses allow embedded proprietary code.
Is it me or is this exactally the thing the DOJ had them in court for so long to prevent? And finally won?
Tying a browser to hardware can be really bad for us mozilla men. Online Banking will jump on it real fast. Secure communication will later require IE for authentication. This would put us at a huge disadvantage. I had a thought: Would it be possible to run a "Virtual Palladium" (software driven)? It'd involve running parts of the software in a virtualization machine like bochs. Microsoft patented the hardware not any software.
IE will continue to evolve, ...
... etc. ...
As far as I can tell, development of IE's features was iced around 5 years ago. Compare and contrast with Opera, Mozilla, Phoenix
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
What I am expecting will happen is that IE will be absorbed into the integrated office environment, in the same way the Word/Excel et al are being drawn into just one package.
By bundling everything in together (probably with a mail client), M$ no longer have to worry about the opposition packages. It also would no surprise me to see integrated OS and Office package bundles/licenses, to keep out the competition.
As for the lack of support for DRM in Win98 being a motivation for no longer producing a standalone version, remember that M$ officially no longer supports Win98 installations.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
It's the beginning of the end for private personal computing as we know it!
Anyone got some champagne?
No, it means that the new features will be implemented the same way Windows Update does it for integrated aspects of the OS now: it will be downloaded and installed onto the system. What this means is that you will not be able to JUST get IE, but instead only get it through Windows.
"Stumble before you crawl"
I think that Microsoft's grand plan to move the world over to Trusted Computing will end up cornering them into a one-dimensional business plan. Anything outside that market will end up thriving. Robust alternatives like linux and Mac OS will become the dominant platform because they will not corner themselves into discreet markets, but rather, will continue to expand.
If this is the last stand-alone version of IE they are betting that their operating system and plan is the *only* operating system and plan. If they make too many mistakes in their Trusted Computing movement they may fail entirely as a company in the near future.
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
1. Microsoft ships their browser for free with the OS, fairly tightly integrated, thus marginalizing Netscape and any other browser on Windows.
2. Netscape et. al. convinces Gov't to sue MS for monopolistic, anticompetitive practices.
3. MS is found guilty of monopolistic, anticompetitive practices.
4. MS is slapped on the wrist by the Gov't and promises to play nice, ships OS update to remove the IE icon from the desktop.
5. {six months pass}
6. MS announces even tighter integration of IE into the OS.
Pity they weren't broken up.
And AOL just gave how much away for the rights to use this for the next 7 years???
Seriously. Isn't this a bad move for them to make regarding the anti-trust suit? Doesn't this kill their whole "freedom to innovate" mantra?
In any case, it doesn't really matter. Strange that Microsoft would virtually abandon a project that could have much work done to it, and yet try to push along new OS/Office versions which really have much possible improvement.
Maybe they are realizing that they can't compete with the Moz group, and are deciding to go in through the back door, back to their old tricks.
Everybody's jumping to conspiracy conclusions, but here's the simple answer: when you give away browser upgrades for free, but you charge for OS installations, and you think that the browser is becoming more important than the OS, you have to merge the two together.
As time goes by, more and more applications become web-based. These days, consumers are more concerned about the version of their browser than the version of their operating system. When you try to hit your favorite web sites, check your web-based email, etc., it doesn't matter whether you're on Windows 98 or Windows XP: the browser version is what matters. They know they can't simply start charging for browsers, so the way to fix this issue is to only do new browsers with new operating systems, and blur the line between the browser version and the OS version.
Bottom line, Microsoft wants to get consumers more interested in OS versions again. If consumers see a web site that says, "Sorry, you need Windows 2005 to view this site," then they have a much higher chance of opening their pocketbooks than if the web site says, "Sorry, you need IE8 to view this site."
What's your damage, Heather?
It is completely laughable and sad that Microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly for this very reason, and now they are integrating IE and Windows even further. The government really showed Microsoft!
No matter what your opinion is about the anti-trust trial or anti-trust laws in general, this is a clear display of how the Bush administration favors big business and selectively enforces laws in the favor of big business. The DOJ forced a "slap in the wrist" settlement against MS, and now MS and co. don't fear doing again what they were found guilty of doing before.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I wonder what this means for IE on the Mac?
How many minutes has it been since Microsoft spent 3/4ths of a billion dollars putting that Netscape stuff to rest? It was a strange set of arguments they had, simultaneously attempting to prove that IE was "an inextricable part of the OS" and yet entirely optional with no unfair advantage over any other browser option the user might attempt to use.
Now that that case is put to rest it's about time they made sure that the next generation of DRM technology can't be run under WINE or on the MAC. The best approach I can imagine for this is to have is use an entirely proprietary API for IE and to update it with WindowsUpdate. It's not hard to imagine the newbie surfing along who gets this webpage.
Our web servers have observed that your computer needs several security updates available for free from Microsoft [here]. For the safety of our customers we cannot allow you to continue surfing our site until these updates are in place. We apologize for any inconvenience.
At that point the user is using the latest IE with DRM enabled with no idea how many or few sites need it. All your content can then be DRM protected by default with FrontPage, and the user's take is that everything "just works" when they use IE, and has intermittant and annoying problems with every other browswer. This strategy is getting old.
The community may bitch, but MS is doing the design. Why would MS's reaction to community bitching be the communities fault and not MS's fault?
You have a strange concept of responsibility. (Troll?)
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
As a web designer, this worries me. How am I supposed to test my sites from here on out? Before it was as easy as loading up said site into IE 6 or IE 5 or what have you and seeing if the layout was as it should be. What now?
Not that I need a version number, but I would like to know how they're going to dole out any updates to Javascript, CSS, and the like. I sure hope it doesn't become small updates like "CSS Update 12-2-04". The goood thing about browsers up until this point, new features were released all at once in slow updgrade cycles, which meant you were testing at a stationary, not a moving, target. I'm curious to know how this will be handled from now on.
And yes, yes I know, "code to standards", which is the way it *should* be, but in practice, there's the reality that not all browsers output the way you need them to (especially IE).
I wonder what this means for IE on the Mac?
If I get it right, MSIE 6 is already not available as a standalone application for MacOS - it has only a "sort of" presence as a part of the whole MSN for MacOS X package.
On a similar note, wouldn't this make things even worse for Microsoft's with regards to the antitrust case in the EU? If I'm not mistaken, the Media Player bundling is a big deal already?
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused by this. First of all, it's a two-sentence statement in a chat room, so there is very little information to go on.
My question is, does this mean that end users will have to upgrade their OS to receive a new browser version? If this is the case, that's a huge blow to web developers. There are still a lot of things that IE6 supports poorly or not at all: transparent PNGs, CSS2, etc. I'm not seeing any indication that Microsoft is concerned about the continuing development of their browser AT ALL.
IE6 has really stagnated, and since Microsoft and AOL settled, I firmly believe that AOL will stop paying developers to work on Mozilla/Netscape. If both IE and Mozilla stagnate, the people who lose are developers whose platform is a web browser. I'm concerned that the stagnation of both browsers may stifle the innovation of developers who wish to deploy applications to standards-compliant web browsers instead of to a specific platform. (This means that those of you who don't use Windows should be VERY concerned, because if web browsers stagnate now, developers will continue to develop for a single platform instead of to a standards-compliant web browser platform. Microsoft doesn't seem to be interested in extending IE's functionality -- instead, the company seems to be pushing developers to make IE plugins, which creates lock-in.)
The Web has only been around for 10 years, and has only really taken off in the last 6. I don't think browser innovation is at its "zenith", and I certainly don't believe that DRM is the only thing left to add to browsers. It concerns me that Microsoft (or at least that Microsoft spokesperson) seems to think this is the case.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Tell that to a web designer. They'll laugh in your face.
Mozilla is fast, stable, mostly bug-free (and what bugs it has are fairly straightforward to work around) and very standards compliant. The last is important: it means I know what will happen if I write certain code.
Wish I could say the same for IE. Even its bugs have bugs. (Though admittedly it is not as bad as NS 4.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
*Backs up the truckfull of troll food*
/. isn't the only guilty body, every bitchy tech writer of the times is), saying how IE had too many priviledges.
I've always said it, and I always will, the community's incessant bitching about how insecure microsoft is has led to attrocities in design.
If security was designed in from the start, the design should be elegant and transparent to the end user.
Example: Windows file protection - to avoid DLL Hell. DLL Hell was pure and simple bad user habits (running in Administrator mode etc etc). So they made a system that completely bypasses security, and disallows everyone on your system from changing files... even administrators. It's a travesty, that's what it is.
That actually was a response by MS to programmers who felt like using a specific API in a specific DLL, of felt they could just over-run Microsoft's designs willy-nilly. Remember, the most pervasive Windows out there is still the 9x series, not NT and it's modern kin. Most users are root whether they like it or not.
Well, here we see another travesty: because of simple HTML script exploits, which under normal circumstances (ie, if you weren't running as admin) would have very little consequences, Moft has come up with another travesty, has introduced 'state' into what should be stateless... And as a result, I just can feel the hours and hours of headache that is now set upon us programmers, for the rest of time.
Two issues:
1 - Once a machine is compromised as any user, there are other ways to elevate privileges. IOW, runnig as admin usually has little or no effect to a serious cracker.
2 - If the security mechanisms are properly designed, you won't be spending "hours and hours" dealing with security. If you are, Microsoft will have done a piss-poor job (again)
I can clearly recall posts on slashdot, (but to be fair:
What is supposed to be and end user application is an integral part of the OS. Sounds like a recipie for exploits to me. Unless of course they implement stringent secutiry mechanisms.
All I have to say is BULLSHIT... IE has as many priviledges as the user running it - and as such, just as many, not any more than Mozilla running at the same user level.
But Moz isn't part of the OS. BTW, IIRC, IE (specifically MSHTML) is loaded into memory before a user logs on. That means that that part of the browser requires system level priveleges. Mozilla's "turbo" mode (whatever it's called) requires you to log in first. See a diffrence?
Now, because of that bitching, we have a 'lowered priviledge set'... something which isn't based on users... it's a whole policy scheme... It's introducing complexity where there is no need for any... Yadi yada... *Sigh*...
Security is never easy, but it need not be complex. The one thing MS usually does well is make life easy on thier drone^H^H^H^H^Hdevelopers (right, Mr. Ballmer?), so you may have an easier time that you think. Unless you're so used to security as an after thought, that it does become a pain. IMHO, that puts you squarely in the "Part of the problem" camp.
Boo on everyone.
No, shame on you for not wanting to have to do any work at all in order to have secure code.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Tell that to a web designer. They'll laugh in your face.
(opens window to alley) Hey, get out of my trashcan! There's no more sandwiches in there... and let me ask you a question about Mozilla.
You should look at MozDev - there's a furious amount of development going on for extensions and plugins to the basic browser. It's amazing, and something I haven't seen in the IE community since the dot-com money went away.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
I have TCO meeting with my CTO in OCT and it'll be so boring I'll need a COT.
Sigs are bad for your health.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world"
- Ghandi (i think)
Opera, Konqueror and Mozilla supports more DOM modules than MSIE 6 SP1.
On MS website, they clam that.
This is not true....According to Microsoft own claims, through the document.implementation.hasFeature() method, Microsoft Internet explorer 6sp1 claims that it do not support DOM Level 1 HTML, but the DOM Level 1 XML returns true on the support question.
But...the node-type constraint, which is defined by the Node interface is not defined my MSIE6 SP1. In other words, Microsoft do not support ANY DOM modules at all.
Oh, so just send in a lot of Mail to M$... You all know that MSIE have full PNG support[2] since MSIE 4.... Thats what they promisted[3].----
Mike Menk
Grimstad,Norway.
[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dndude/html/dude03262001.asp
m l
[2] http://osys.grm.hia.no/html-repguiden/sshoot/
[3] http://www.petitiononline.com/msiepng/petition.ht
I've seen the inevitable 'online banking' scenario thrown up here a few times. What's going to happen is this...
:)
At some point, bank X will say "we're now going to require IE8 to secure online banking".
People will complain and say "hey, but I only have WinXP, and I can't get Win2006" (or whatever it becomes).
Microsot will have contacted banks and negotiated a way for banks to giveaway (or sell) copies of the latest Windows version, locking in users who may have considered switching at that point.
Bank replies with (or promotes in branches)
"Hey - to give you the ultimate in security, we're going to require Windows 2006 - the best in security. If you don't have a copy, we can sell you an copy for only $29.95, which can be applied to your checking account over a 3 month period - that's less than $10 month for modern security!" or something like that.
People will just use it because it's going to be pushed by most major banks. MS is the only company that can afford to do this (buy mindshare from large companies) and they're about the only company can can't afford NOT to do it as well.
Perhaps banking with MS software will be 'free' and using something else (linux/mac) will cost a 'security fee' because you're using something that can't be 'trusted'. There are teller fees, why not 'browser fees' for 'untrusted' browsers?
Microsoft may have already bought a bank (or started their own) in the next few years anyway. Banking fees are certainly a stream of steady income. If WalMart can sell used cars (probably real estate at some point too!) does MS banking sound all that far-fetched? Perhaps everyone writing M$ will give the idea even more credibility!
creation science book
It's naive to think that editorial opinion is confined to editorial pages. Astute readers can detect it everywhere, including in the mere selection of which stories to print out of the myriad candidate stories. This is true for newspapers, magazines, and (of course) cable news networks, who wear their editorial bias on their sleeves, right out in plain view. Those who have been paying attention know that the journalism industry has realized that it's just a business, and they'll offer up a trough full of whatever the people are willing to consume. It is not a branch of government...just a business. It's silly to criticize slashdot for not living up to standards that even "real" journalists don't live up to these days.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Bond of trust? What fairytale world are you living in? Is copyprotection a bond of trust? How come there are all these shitty CD's being released that won't play on computers? Is that the bond of trust you are talking about? How about the news that moviegoers are going to be metal-detected when going to see Finding Nemo? Is that trust?
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Is that what I have? So "standalone installation" is Microsoft code for "Well, we'll let you delete it (it goes in the recycle bin and all) but it instantly comes back"?
If WinXP wants to protect its help system, that's fine. But the IE frontend shouldn't have anything to do with that. And even so, there's no excuse for Outlook being undeletable. It doesn't show up in the Add/Remove applications window, even under "Windows components"
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
Honestly, what Slashdot is these days, rather than the great tech news site it used to be, is generating page hits. This means posting Microsoft articles at least once a day with some flippant remark or editorial in the summary so as to cause "controversial" discussion. The company likes that.
SCO is a big thing as well which gets hits, so even when there is no real news about it, we get "today's SCO news" posts.
It's getting harder and harder to believe the editors are genuine in their mantra that they simply post what interests them. Being corporate-owned, there are other motives at play in the selection of articles, the headline used, and the summary chosen or written.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Host: Rob (Microsoft)
Q: when will IE get transparent PNG support?
A: Ian, I'm sorry, I can't answer that question for you
With this:
Host: Brian (Microsoft)
Q: Why is this? the anti-trust? (no further standalone)
A: Although this is off topic, I will answer briefly: Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1. Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS
It would seem that MS has painted itself into a corner with the feature set of IE. They seem to rely on the OS for so many things the browser does (like alpha blending, or the lack thereof). I wonder if the OS development team has oversight of the IE development team. There really isn't much reason that the IE team wouldn't be able to build a feature like alpha blending independant of the OS (lots of apps like Photoshop do this), unless they have been told not to deviate from the OS feature roadmap. Why else wouldn't the IE Program Manager be able to answer a question about PNG support? Sometimes it seems like the IE team is really just a department of the OS team, which is something that MS could not legally admit from what I understand.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Time Magazine Interview with Tim Berners Lee, unfortunately, a preview to a for-pay full article. If anyone knows where the full article is, for free, let me know.
In any event, in this article, TBL - creator of the web - discusses what his greatest fear for it would be. In other words, what would harm the web most?
His answer: A "split" internet. Browser A is best used for this site, browser B is best for this one. DRM, thus, is technology that will do - as most of us are no doubt aware - more harm than good. It DESTROYS the ubiquitous nature of how one SHOULD be allowed to access online content. Time, ironically, has designed their site to be used with Browsers X and Y (Netscape and IE).
Does this mean that Slashdot will be deleting the big blue e graphic from the gif folder?
Beep beep.
Wasn't that what MSFT was sued for in the first place? They bundle the browser with the monopoly OS in order to stamp out competition? Haven't they learned anything?
Well I guess they have ... they have learned that they can get away with it.
The real problem you're discussing is one that has been noted many times: the internet kills anything successful.
Basically, the promise of the net is everyone's a publisher, and can make something kewl, and show it to everyone.
The problem is if they do a good job of it, they get popular. Bandwidth bills go up. They can no longer afford the site, because banner ads don't get you shit. Unless you're a lowest common denominator genius like stile (but there's only one stile).
So, they either die, get bailed out by a benevolent donor, or get bought by someone who cares about all the page hits.
So slashdot purely existing as a "great tech news site" was not a long term option. Because being great means being attracting attention, and attraction attention costs YOU money on the net, not your consumers. This inversion is not necessarily the panacea it was thought to be 10 years ago.
Personally, I'm quite content to go on loving to hate slashdot for the forseeable future. Gives us gov't workers something to bitch about at coffee break.
I did fine in Opera 7.10, but my real question is, hwo can a server know what browser you are if you fake the string? I mean, I've been to sites and had "Identify as MSIE 6.0" on but it still gave me the "not compatible" issue. Is it some feature they check just to weed out browsers? And to what end?
I was baffled by this with Capital One's banking site. I finally realized they were using JavaScript to detect the browser, which is totally independant of the UA string. No browser I am aware of allows changing what JavaScript reports.
JS browser detection is used frequently, but mostly to determine what JS code needs to be used. In some cases, though, the JS then redirects to the appropriate URL (the real site, or the "Upgrade Now" page).
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
I thought it was something in the SSL negotiation. If there's hard crypto involved in the browser identification step, you won't be able to fake it. That's where I'd be going if I were Microsoft, for sure.
Then, even if you do have "clever people" circumventing your access controls, you can still keep industry from adopting the circumventions. (Individuals might not care about the legality of their actions, but nobody is going to write a business plan around an obvious DMCA violation).
Repeal the DMCA (at the ballot box or at the point of a gun, I don't care how you do it), or live with its consequences.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
No browser I am aware of allows changing what JavaScript reports.
Download mozilla sources, look in:
dom/src/base/nsGlobalWindow.cpp
~ line 5830 you'll find:
aAppName.Assign(NS_LITERAL_STRING("Netscape"));
Change it to whatever you want -or- for a less permanent solution, make it read from a file. Recompile.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato