Microsoft To Provide IE Patches for Windows XP Only

Fortunato_NC writes "Microsoft has decided that future IE updates, including those related to security, will only be available to customers using Windows XP. This news.com article has the complete scoop. A choice quote: 'Microsoft may be turning the lemons of its browser's security reputation into the lemonade of a powerful upgrade selling point.' This should provide a huge boost to Mozilla and other alternative browser backers."

Comments

Not security updates but security enhancements

[FuzzzyLogik]

They aren't saying they won't provide security patches for holes, they're stating they won't provide the features that are in SP2 in anything other than XP. That's what I got out of it. Which isn't such a big deal, did you expect anything less really?

"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement.

No, that's not what they said.

[stratjakt]

First fucking line of the article.

Microsoft this week reiterated that it would keep the new version of Microsoft's IE Web browser available only as part of the recently released Windows XP operating system, Service Pack 2.

Only the new version of the browser is available under XP Service Pack 2, for architectural reasons the other OS's lack (NoExecute and whatever else).

It says nowhere they won't provide patches for the most current IE's available under 2000.

The new IE only runs under XP SP 2. You also need to upgrade if you want true HT support, BTW.

Re:XP only ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement. "The most secure version of Windows today is Windows XP with SP2. We recommend that customers upgrade to XP and SP2 as quickly as possible."

Seems pretty clear to me.. Unfortunate .. commonplace for larger companies to be using Windows 2000 ..

In other news Microsoft decides to stop patching Windows 2003 and recommends that everyone upgrade to Linux..

Re:just like them

[miracle69]

I haven't been to a website in years that I couldn't see in Mozilla.

Care to provide any examples?

Still patches for previous versions...

[ImpTech]

According to the article, there will still be security updates for all supported versions of IE and Windows. What they're saying is that Win2k and older will not get the pop-up blocker or any other such enhancements.

Still sucks for the Win2k users though... Its clearly nothing more than a ploy to make them upgrade.

This is NOT what the article says

[pbranes]

The article says that Windows XP SP2 enhancements will not be delivered to Windows 2000. This says nothing about security patches. This slashdot posting is FUD.

Re:XP only ?

[guacamole]

IE/Solaris (and HPUX) has been dead for many, many years. OS X version of IE has been EOLed shortly after apple introduced Safari.

Read the EULA

[overshoot]

When you license (not "buy") an MS product, you waive any claim on them for anything. Put another way: whatever problems you have are none of their worry.

Re:Read the EULA

[CountBrass]

Fortunately, at least in the UK, anything a company sells has to be of "merchantable quality" and "fit for purpose" and that's not something the company weasle their way around in anyway at all. Doesn't matter if they put up signs in the shop saying "sold as seen" or make you agree to an EULA: those consumer rights still hold regardless.

In addition, it's a basic part of contract law that any clause that effectively takes away precisely the benefit you were contracting to receive is automatically void.

Re:XP only ?

[timeOday]

I have to side with the article summary on this one:

Microsoft promised "ongoing security updates" for all supported versions of Windows and IE.

The ongoing security updates do not, as Microsoft points out, include the latest security fixes with Service Pack 2, released last month. Those include a new pop-up blocker and a new system of handling ActiveX controls and downloaded content.

And it's those more substantial changes, rather than the bug fixes that come with routine upgrades for supported products, that security organizations have lauded for addressing IE's graver security concerns.

There you have it: there is no option for securing MSIE on Win2K.

Re:Classic M$

[Anonymous Coward]

No, their view, believe it or not, is that people don't want the security patches for older systems! At least, that's what Bruce Morgan, of the Internet Explorer team, posted on the IEBlog.

Re:just like them

[ruiner13]

"I haven't been to a website in years that I couldn't see in Mozilla.

Care to provide any examples?"

Windows Update.

There's one. Many financial sites are like that, as well as a few more i've seen. I love firefox, but it is still lacking in some CSS2 areas.

Sites not usuable by non-IE browsers

[spineboy]

I work in the medical field, and plenty of sites for reading X-rays, checking patient labs seem to be only usuable by IE(active-X issues, etc). It's the only reason I keep Windows on my Linux boxes.

TROLL ALERT!

[Anonymous Coward]

The story, if you read it, states the XP SP2 improvements to IE will only be available to XP SP2 customers. THESE imporovements will only be able to XP SP2.

The article DOES NOT state no more IE patches for 2000/NT 4.0

Very very misleading title to this story on ./

Re:TROLL ALERT!

[kidgenius]

The article DOES NOT state no more IE patches for 2000/NT 4.0

In a way it does. It basically says that the new version of IE will NOT be available for anything but WinXP. Therefore, any patches or fixes that are in the new version of IE will not be incorporated into the lesser IE's.

Re:TROLL ALERT!

[Muerte2]

I'm not sure I totally agree with what you say. You see I'm one of the rare Slashdotters that actually READ the article.

By refusing to offer IE's security upgrades to users of older operating systems except through paid upgrades to XP, Microsoft may be turning the lemons of its browser's security reputation into the lemonade of a powerful upgrade selling point.

While I'm not sure it's 100% as cut and dried as what the /. title suggests, it does say that some security releases may not make it back down to the old OSes.

Re:XP only ?

[HydrusZ]

"Microsoft promised "ongoing security updates" for all supported versions of Windows and IE."

It means you will still get all of the patches, but you will never get the popup blocker and other features specific to IE6 SP2. Not a big deal.

More /. editor FUD

[YU Nicks NE Way]

If you read the actual article, you'll see that what it says is that the new features provided in SP2 for IE (the popup blocker and the notification bar at the top) are not going to be back-ported to older operating systems. That's not the same as saying that "Microsoft To Provide IE Patches for Windows XP Only". In the article, Microsoft commits to continue patching IE for older versions, particularly for security bugs.

(And don't tell me that the submittor picks the title. The editors pick the title -- in this case, the title doesn't even match the submission, much less the article.)

Re:Classic M$

[Zorilla]

I bet you're right too. I'm sure there are many large corps who won't move from W2K to XP.

Microsoft will definitely give it a second though when they realize organizations like this one are using Windows 2000 on user machines. It took them until 2002 to get fully upgraded from NT 4.0 where I was.

Re:Classic M$

[poincaraux]

Don't be silly. You make it sound like his view, and the view of the IE team, is that a large number of people don't want security patches for old systems. What he said is this:

Here's another eWeek article on the same subject. You'll note that some people interviewed want an update for Win2K while some people do not.

And the article he's talking about has one person saying

he would much rather see Microsoft spend resources supporting current and future product releases rather than older ones.

So, fine, you may disagree with that, but it's not quite the fantastical position that you imply.

Re:XP only ?

[jekewa]

If you check the Product Lifecycle Dates they've already passed the end-of-life dates for many of the older versions of Windows.

Win3x, Win9x, and WinME are all long passed. WinNT Server remains until 31 Dec 2004, but other WinNTs are passed. Win2K is scheduled for demise on 30 June 2005 (start saving). Even WinXP is scheduled for desupport 31 Dec 2006. Win Server 2003 is scheduled for 30 Jun 2008, so you've got a while there, but it's on the plan.

It should not come as a surprise that they stop providing feature enhancements to the older versions. Profit and other greed aside, technically it's unrealistic to expect them continue to support systems indefinately.

Tick, tick, tick...

Re:Classic M$

[pbranes]

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh; [ln];LifeWin

Microsoft is already committed to supported Windows 2000 until **** 2010 ****.

All this article says is that Windows 2000 will not get a pop-up blocker and an add-on manager.

Re:Classic M$

[pbranes]

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh; [ln];LifeWin

Read it straight from Microsoft. Windows 2000 is supported until 2010. This article from cnet only states that Windows 2000 will not receive a pop-up blocker or an add-on manager. Hotfixes will still be released as needed.

Re:Classic M$

[Progoth]

Microsoft is already committed to supported Windows 2000 until **** 2010 ****.

All this article says is that Windows 2000 will not get a pop-up blocker and an add-on manager.

Mod this fellow up, if you bother to read the article you will see the post is correct. It specifically says security updates will be released, just not the sp2 "security enhancements." Didn't sp2 get some kind of protections against buffer overruns at a low level? that's what won't be backported.