Slashdot Mirror
No IE7 For 2k, Now In Extended Service
Yankovic writes "Looks like MS will not support IE7 on Windows 2000. 'It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000... [S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.' While security fixes will still be available until 2010, I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox." All the details about an MS product's fall into senility available at the lifecycle page.
My choice is to upgrade from Win2K to WinXP for IE?
Hah! I'll keep Win2K and Firefox, thanks.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Does that mean I'm stuck with Firefox, and cannot utilize Microsoft's intelligent autoupdate which automatically downloads security patches once every 3 days?
This raises an interesting question - Why/How can Firefox, which runs happily on W2K and others, offer better security, while IE cannot do the same on an OS developed by MS itself?
I'm sure Firefox will be laughed at if it said it could not develop a browser for Windows because some of the security work in Firefox relies on operating system functionality in Linux that is non-trivial to port to Windows.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the Win2K users?
When games I want to play stop working in Windows 98 then I'll buy a new OS. Untill then going "oh no, you need the new IE you must upgrade" isn'tgoing to get my money.
I like muppets.
I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.
So what, the statement is incorrect anyway but so what. Tabs are nice but the are not the be all and end all of browsing. Some people like them, some hate them, they are not a big deal.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Looks like Internet Explorer is well on it's way to becoming a mainstream browser....
Many people are sticking with Win2K because of the draconian licensing and validation process required with WinXP. They will begin to lose a significant portion of the browser market as people realize how easy it is to get Firefox and the benefits it offers over Explorer.
12:50 - press return.
"Besides, if we supported our products with our products, nobody would have reason to buy our new products."
Dramatized for your enjoyment.
So, Internet Explorer is no longer free, to get a secure Microsoft Browser (Yeah, I'm making a few assumptions here, but let's just live in the hypothetical word for a moment) I have to buy a new version of the OS? Or I can get a secure version of Netscape (That they call Firefox these days) for free. I wonder what I'll choose.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
When they said USB would not be supported for NT 4.0. They said it was non-trivial to back port the code.
And yet USB for NT 4.0 exists and works just fine (I know, I've got it running for a USB keyboard, mouse and old Canon printer.)
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.
Shouldn't the focus of IE 7 be more on security and standards compliance than with tabs and other extras?
I can only imagine that Microsoft will concentrate on what is important, but this is Microsoft we're talking about.
If it aint broke dont fix it.
Average is dumb
[S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2
So does that mean I won't be able to run it on XP with SP1 either? I mean obviously I use Firefox, but if I'm going to be forced to have Microsoft's shitty browser installed, I'd rather it be the latest, greatest and most secure. And I still don't trust SP2 and all the crap it dumps on your box.
Just a thought.
--
NoVA Underground: Northern Virginia message boards and chat, with Fairfax County public ticket/arrest search
when all I use IE for, is downloading Firefox
hmm. Heard of the Avant web browser....with tabs..
Come to think of it, my wife's Win2K laptop does keep blue-screening exactly the same way again and again, like a crusty geezer repeating the same story endlessly . I never realized bits get old like that.
Most normal users never upgrades their OS and a lot of geeks prefer 2k to XP.
I suppose they have to release something new in Longhorn, they could make the window borders even bigger and more ugly and cripple the performance a bit more but with all the things they've dropped from longhorn they need some killer feature like copying firefox tabs to justify forcing another pointless upgrade on the corporate world.
Tabbed IE variants have existed for more than 4 years.
w ser.html
http://www.snapfiles.com/freeware/misctools/fwbro
But it begs the question: what's needed for a secure browser?
First and foremost, don't let outsiders penetrate my system. MS failed this. Firefox failed this. What does it take to get this right?
Get big stick, find MS, Bash continueosly
./
YAY for
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/
;-)
It is already bringging numerous compliances fixes on the DOM and CSS !
Vive IE7, Vive Dean
By the way, compliant browser such as Firefox does not need any fixes to implement the standards correctly, and do not contain any currently security breach.... unlike the expected IE7 ?
Considering that Longhorn will require 512MB of RAM; while most non-technical users just surf the web, read email and type the odd letter whigh requires say 128MB at most; I can't really see why these people should bother upgrading their hardware.
Governments, schools and firms certainly won't bother to upgrade if they need to.
The only thing missing is security upgrades, which Microsoft do not provide for old hardware (since by default has to run an old version).
There is a huge missing market here, new software for old hardware. That IE 7 won't work on 2000 shows that Microsoft seem poised to sleep through this opportunity as they did with servers.
Will anyone but Linux fill the gap?
My little Linux and tech blog
Come on. Just download Firefox and you can hang out with the other cool kids.
Aw... Is that a smilie emoticon I see in your window?!
[Mr. Burns] Excellent... [/Mr. Burns]
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.
What about Maxthon, a wrapper that adds tabbed browsing to Microsoft Internet Explorer?
My problem comes when using third-party software. You see, in some of these software(s) like Adobe's latest release (7.0), CCleaner and the like, when you try to visit the web from within the software, IE is started! This really bothers me a lot but I am no hacker to delve into the "DNA" of Windows.
Slashdotters, googling for solutions has not helped so, please help. Thanx.
yeah I know they game plan make browsers like IE6 and firefox incompatible with the new IE7...so you have to upgrade to see a chuck of the web's content
Some people believe 1-1=3 and for the sake of being politically correct, we should respect their differences
...who mourns for IE?
When games I want to play stop working in Windows 98 then I'll buy a new OS.
Likewise, tell me when a decent shared-screen 4-player fighting game is ported to Windows XP, and I'll switch from DolphinOS.
[S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.'
Oh, BS. This is just another way to justify getting us to pay for a new version of Windows.
Many people are sticking with Win2K because of the draconian licensing and validation process required with WinXP.
Patches for the validation scheme have been available for quite some time. You are referring to the difficulty of warezing XP, right?
People are sticking with Win2k for the same reason people stuck with NT4: they're luddites. These people represent a statistically insignificant segment of the population. 99.999% of computer users will use whichever OS their computer came with, and home machines that came with Win2k are aging nowadays.
Microsoft may lose a significant portion of the browser market, but no more than 15% or so. Mark my words, Firefox will never get above 20% of the market, no matter how much you fanboys rah rah rah about it.
And the only browsers that will be standards compliant for Windows 2k will be the aforementioned Opera and Firefox.
IE isn't the only app which requires a Windows OS upgrade to run the app upgrade - or vice versa. Lots of people don't want to upgrade apps, preferring simplicity, stability, familiarity or just "already paid for it". Which keeps them running Win2K, because that proven app doesn't work right under XP. My personal experience is with audio editing apps, but I'm sure there's lots more.
--
make install -not war
Someone actually paid this company good money for W2K and the browser on it; and now the vendor's blackmailing them into paying extra if they want the systems to stay secure!!!!!!
Why do people put up with this?
Just in case anyone wonders why Microsoft lets its OS support so many bugs and insecurity holes, this is your answer. Some bugs get fixed in new versions, which require the upgrade of the other components. The planned (passive) obsolescence of one component forces repurchase of all the others. When you've got a monopoly, and abuse it with forced bundling, there's so many ways to win, and so few to lose.
--
make install -not war
Previous slashdot articles have reported that businesses are intentionally not spending more money and not buying XP. Win 2000 works fine for them.
During the American antitrust case against MS several experts testified that IE could be separated from the OS in a matter of weeks.
Refusing to make a version of IE7 a part of win 2000 is as much a business decision as a technical one.
They want businesses who are not buying XP to get off win 2000 and buy XP.
I am not bashing MS, but it seems from what I have seen that XP is incredibly vulnerable to attack. In addition to managers not wanting to fork out the money for XP, their network people, many of whom are microsoft weanies, do not want to put their networks in harms way by using XP for their servers.
At some point the managers and network will capitulate. MS will stop supporting 2000 completely.
The question is how long the managers and network people will drag their feet, how much resentment towards MS this will generate, and what the effect of that resentment will be.
...I'd rather it be the latest, greatest and most secure. And I still don't trust SP2...
So you want security, but don't install Microsoft security updates because you don't trust them?
Dot dot dot.
there's more than one way to do me.
You can download a copy here.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
(Though I am quite fond of Opera)
Why can't Firefox properly render HTML published with Flash MX 2004? And why does Firefox insist on rendering incorrect code? (i.e. it attempts to render image maps without proper syntax)
Maybe wine can help with...
Ok, maybe it's non-trivial but I kind of like the thought of replacing as many of the Windows libs with winelibs until it's all open source.
...[S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2...
...[S]ome of the insecure work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2...
more accurately, this should read:
When will MS realize that integrating the browser with the OS is never a good thing.
That will kill most gamers and force them to upgrade.. Doubt they will be offering newer versions of that for W2K.
Already seen that with 98.. Wouldnt fly...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So what are they saying? W2K is so fundamentally buggered that we can't fix it? Or is it really a case of we'd like you to pointlessly trade up to another OS which will offer you very few additional features if you're a desktop user?
However, Microsoft have yet again shot themselves in the foot. Their whole recent history with IE in fact has been a disaster and I would have hoped that by now they would have blasted enough bits off themselves to realise that they are making a stupid mistake. After all, one reason IE grew so quickly to begin with was that Microsoft aggressively developed versions of IE for any flavour of Windows they could lay their hands on - including Win 3.1, W95 etc etc. What is happening *now* is that Microsoft are displaying their typical complacency about their market share. Sure, they have 85% or so which is pretty good, but we all know that the competition is eating into their market share.
Worse still, this whole effort is very half-hearted. Originally, MS weren't going to build an IE7 *at all*. Presumably they thought that IE6 was going to be the best browser ever. Maybe one too many Microsofties got 0wned?
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
I must say that I'm happy to see them destroy their older versions of the OS; since at least some percentage of businesses stuck with the buggy old stuff will upgrade to newer Windows instead of Linux.
On a diff note, hopefully MS will update the hosts file for Longhorn and add some fscking intelligence to the damn thing.
It'll block xxx.com, but not www.xxx.com or xxx.com/toolbar/installer.exe
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
For fun try browsing Slashdot and some other sites using Mozilla. Notice how even though IE isn't your default browser (and isn't running). IE Popups still happen.
You break into peoples' places to make sure no one can break into their places?
=]
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Haven't we heard such sh*te before?
"Yeah, the latest version of Windows Media Player can't be stripped from Windows because it's part of the OS." Only to be proved dead wrong.
I mean, we're talking about "user interface" changes and catching up withthe W3C times such as truly supporting the latest CSS standards.
Why on earth can't Windows 2000 do this?
MS should just tell it as it is, we hope you upgrade to take more money from, albeit in more euphemistic way OR simply state another valid reason. We'd rather not have to do regression testing on an older platform. Again, find a euphemism.
-M
I wonder how many Win2000 servers that are still out there. Last I checked, 70% of all Windows servers was Win2000, and the future seemed that when purchases of new servers with Windows OS would add Win2003 into the market. Many companies simply didnt want to do the upgrade from 2000 to 2003, but rather wait for some Longhornish server version.
Now all we need is flip Windowsupdate around to demand IE7 only.
All the systems at my work run Windows 2000 and we can't install Firefox. But I blame the IT department for that, and not microsoft. Although tabbed browsing would have been nice.
a quick ctrl-t or alt-pgup and you're safe.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...Slashdot's comments.pl removed your sarcasm tags too. You DID mean IE, right?
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Or use SElinux. Config trouble.
Or get a mac to surf the web for now.
Run browser in virtual machine if all else fails.
Security, in this area, is a CHOICE. You typically lose some convenience and flexibility in exchange.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I love MS logic.
1. We are working on security, first we will do XP SP2 and then backport to 2K SP5.
2. Our customers don't need 2K SP5, we will give them a security roll-up to make their system safe.
3. IE7 will not come out for 2K since it does not have the OS features that XP SP2 has.
Hurray!
I for one, would have liked that 2K SP5 btw - it's not like there aren't patches to download after SP4 even with the newest security roll-up.
I see the /. double-standards still are going strong. The same crowd that would scream bloody murder if Linux advanced as slowly as a five year difference is whining that MS is trying to encourage upgrading from a five year old OS to one just slightly younger than that unless you count SP2 in which case it's only a year old.
For fark's sake, some of you compile new kernels more often than you change your socks and you complain about MS making you change the OS on your Win boxes. And you snap at newbies when they don't upgrage their Linux distros fast enough. "WTF?! You're still using Fedora Core 3? Why haven't you wiped it for Fedora Core 4 yet?!"
I mean really people, you're letting your irrationality show brightly here. Hatred of Microsoft over everything, especially logic.
Why don't you just whine that you have to buy a new box to use MPEG-4 with satellite? Or that you need to buy a new TV to use Cable Card? Or that Pontiac won't stick the latest and greatest model year accessories into your four year old first edition? But if Microsoft feels it too much work for too little result to backport the newest Internet Explorer, or anything on Windows for that matter, then you go ballistic.
It's hate, pure and simple. If not, then you're lying blatantly about Microsoft not mattering to you and Open Source being your mantra because you already have third-party web browsers with tabs and here you are kvetching that you can't get tabs with IE, the browser you supposedly hate, despise, and never use without a gun to your head.
Can we get real here? BTW, debian.org reminds me that tomorrow is supposedly the Sarge release. I wonder how many of you will gladly tear your hair out over upgrade issues, hose multiple boxes, and do so without the whining that you do over installing a new Microsoft OS every five years.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
NetCaptor is also an alternative. It uses the IE Engine but offers tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking. In short it kicks butt.
-Lord Shadow
That means as time goes on, W2K will become more and more of a security risk.
But that is their plan, force people to 'upgrade', even when what you have does the job you need. Gotta milk the consumer for every dime.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Too bad MS isn't a massive software corporation with loads of resources and cash to throw at such a thing, but since they're young and struggling and don't have the staffing to port things back to widely used versions of their OS, I think we should all cut 'em some slack.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I think the reason why the "upgrades to the browser" won't be back-ported is because it's not the browser at all. It's the age-old problems with the OS at it's basic (design) level. But instead of saying "we are fixing flaws in XP", which sounds bad, since they have denied them since day 0, they are "fixing the browser", because every-one already knows it is flawed.
"I see the /. double-standards still are going strong."
Stock Slashdot answer #142 everytime this is brought up
In other words hypocrisy is to slashdot, what WMD's are to Iraq.
The "free forever" strategy, announced in 1995 by Bill Gates, was meant to undermine Netscape Communications and lock users into Windows.
How about a browser that uses the Force (TM)?
[wave of hand] Firefox, go to slashdot.org [/wave of hand]
It's about providing more incentive for businesses who are doing just fine with Win2K, to make the jump to WinXP.
Microsoft has begun to realize that businesses are not so keen on purchasing liceneses for every workstation, simply because there's a new release. There needs to be reasons to upgrade. Since they lack innovative capacity to come up with desirable features, they just change their API's around so old software breaks, end support early, don't back-port software updates, and alter their license agreement so you have to pay a fee every few years wether you upgrade or not.
You do not need admin rights to install Firefox - just pick a directory you have access to rather than C:\Program Files.
If you change workstations all the time and have a roaming profile, surely you must have a network share where to save your documents? Installing Firefox on it will work as well.
Many people are sticking with Win2K because of the draconian licensing and validation process
Yeah, they're called pirates. Nobody really cares if they stick with 2k
In two years, Linux and the Mac have shown little growth at all, while XP's share has doubled.
If this is what the world looks like to a web developer, I don't think Microsoft has much to fear in the mass consumer market, where the browser wars translate into serious money and power, W2K was never a factor, and where Win XP has been the default OEM install since August of '01.
Win XP... 64%i n.NET.. 1%
W2K........20%
Win 98......4%
Linux.........3%
Mac...........3%
W
Others.......0%
If you've got any spare CPU cycles go here Spread Firefox
There are two things that are happening simultaneously that I can see in the OS battle.
1) Microsoft is making really horrible decisions with their OS marketshare, as seen in this exact story.
2) Software developers are making things more and more Linux-compatible.
I am hoping that by the time I am forced to upgrade from win2k (or play no more games,) that these exact games that I wish to buy will be Linux-compatible. Then I can be forced to "upgrade" to Linux - OH NO!
Until then, I will sit here on win2k and hope that Time is not my enemy.
Perhaps I've mis-understood something, but my understanding of the problem was that Windows couldn't work without IE. If IE7 doesn't work without Windows, then who cares? There are plenty of browser alternatives available. I agree that there could be a serious problem if Microsoft refuses to update IE for older versions of Windows, and in that way they could be leveraging their monopoly to force people to upgrade from Win2K, but I don't see that as being the same issue.
Anyone could write an application that relied on only recently-available API's, which is what Microsoft seems to be doing with IE7. It may be silly or restrictive to do so since it locks out large parts of the market, but unless they're still ensuring that new versions of Windows won't work without IE7 (completely possible), it doesn't seem to be the same problem.
At my company practically everyone uses Firefox or Opera. I think its really stupid for an IT department to not let people use anything but IE. If they are worried about functionality than its time to stop testing only with IE and develop applications that don't rely on IE specify javascripting or Active X.
"I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox."
Nope not true. And Maxthon is better than FF to boot.
Microsoft: when we stuff strictly user space application into the operating system, it gives consumers a better product!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Firefox won't run on my Linux a.out format box! Oh my God; everyone said how great Firefox was and how well it supported these new Tab things. What am I to do now??
If a home user has the sense to still run Windows 2000, how likely is it that they run IE?
I do, however, hope that nobody at my workplace sees this as a great "opportunity" to "upgrade" to XP.
Do you see what I did there?
OS 10.1 is newer than XP. I have it installed on an old iMac. Can I expect new features added in 10.4 to be back ported to 10.1? Or do I have to update to the next version to get the new features?
Slightly off-topic... but do you realise that the Doj - Microsoft settlement is due to expire next year?
Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9462.htm
"V.Termination
1. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by the Court."
Is it only me, or is something strange along those lines?
...is, for me, launch.yahoo.com. Is there a way to let the music/videos play in Netscape or Firefox? I always hit a brick wall when yahoo says it only works with IEn and a specific version of Netscape.
It's just Windows XP Public Beta. Maybe you should just stick with tried-and-true NT 3.51? Maybe you received Win2K free at a convention back in the day and you don't want to pay for Windows?
It was cool to run Win2K originally because the unwashed proles were running Win9X, whereas Win2K was really NT and thus a "real" OS. Those days are long past. Try running Windows Server 2003 if you want geek cred.
Without a functioning version of IE, there will be significant reason to dump it (usually an executive decision). The user will have a system that is more secure, responsive, and workable.
I need windows for school so I'm running nLite on win2k3 (SP1). No IE, much less insecurity.
Tell your friends about nLite, more importantly tell an executive. http://www.nliteos.com/
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I've never really understood why MS feel the need to support the running of decade(s) old DOS applications, and yet they're not planning on supporting a new browser on an OS that is one generation old?
Excuse me, but WTF?
Microsoft has a history of being backwards compatible (even to supporting buggy behavior in newer releases), but you're really talking about forward compatible rather than backwards compatible. Apps written for Win2k will work on Longhorn/XP, but apps written for Longhorn/XP may not work on win2k. At what point is a company allowed to stop adding new features to old products? Newer versions of cars add satellite radio, GPS, and MP3 capability, but I don't see any car companies provided these features on older models.
....Looks like MS will not support IE9 on Windows Longhorn, leased in 2009. 'It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE9 for Windows Longhorn... Some of the security work in IE9 relies on operating system functionality in MSP4 (Monopole Service Pack 4, which is essential security update for Windows Monopole, released in 2015) that is non-trivial to port back to Windows Longhorn.' While security fixes will still be available until 2018, the only browsers with for Longhorn will be Opera and Firefox.
It was reported that MSP4 caused some of application fail. 'Users who installed MSP4 may not be able to open a doc file in Word 2015. It is highly recommended for all the user to upgrade to Office 2018, as it already contains all the features of MSP4', the spokeperson of Microsoft said. The spokeperson also confirm that MSP5 is on the way 'for giving more user friendly experience on security and operation stability'
Find iexplore.exe... rename it to whatever.
Copy your favorite browser executable to iexplore.exe and put it where the old one was.
Chances are, these other crappy apps just fire off iexplore.exe with their url as an argument, so this might work for you. Of course, it might break other stuff, but then again, all the ie dll's and stuff will still be in place for your OS. You could always rename the original to iexplore.exe if it really hoses you up.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Nice sentence fragments. If you had replied to a post, not posted top-level, I might have an idea what you meant. As it stands, all I see is a standard Linux troll.
Remember that recently it appears dotnet is going to be decoupled from the Longhorn OS. I would speculate that IE7 will still use DotNet 2.0 API for its security features. Although the DotNet framework will not be part of the kernel itself - the security features will not be so comprehensively applied but apps like IE will use them.
I am wondering whether DotNet 2.0 is going to be available on W2K. Maybe it will but some features will not work - features that IE7 will need.
You're engaging in an arguement with yourself, at least you are to those of us who read at +2.
Makes you look stupid.
Oh, well.
Thats the point here folks. Progress.
I used W2K too.....back in frickin 2K!
Most of the complainers about this issue are still grasping on the old argument of why doesn't the "rich man" just gimme some stuff free??
Get with the times, and trade in your pinto for the new Ford so that you can USE the new features you so greatly want.
And don't give me the tired old crap about you or your company "not being able to afford it". Remeber them buying all those W2K liscences?
Oh... wait.... they didn't BUY them?
But I thought your company was MAKING money?
Tough shit then I guess.
Stop bitchin and moanin and upgrade your sorry butts, and get back to work:)
Hell, they went on and on about how Windows 2000 was the future of the platform and spent huge amounts of money and effort getting customers to migrate to it. How much time lapsed between the release of 2000 and XP? 18 months? As soon as XP hit the streets they stopped serious updates to 2000. Decent, integrated wireless support is the first thing that comes to mind but there are countless others. And then no service pack five? WTF? There are tons of real bugs remaining that don't require obscure configurations to surface. Hell, just the other day I found that I can't have a (long) group policy-defined logon banner that works on 2K and XP machines simultaneously without an unreleased QFE patch for 2K. Windows 2000 was essentially a preview or beta of XP as far as Microsoft is concerned. It was more stable and secure by sheer luck... they hadn't yet had a chance to integrate the portions that made XP so unreliable. As soon as the "final" product made it to market, Microsoft was ready to kill off Windows 2000. Every tool, utility, add-on, and feature update they have done since XP's release has been handled accordingly.
I don't think so. Fact is that even on the laptop I'm using now, which has Windbloz XP Pro on it, I am composing this using Firefox. My next generation box for my Snapstream stuff and all, will be Windows 2000 based as it makes no sense to pay Microsoft a ton of money for something they want exclusive control over. I have 3 licenses for Windows 2000 Pro, and I'll use them way past when Microsoft drops support for them. (unless there are extenuating circumstances :-))
Frankly it's rather silly too to consider an OS upgrade just so I can get a lousy copy of a broken internet browser!!???!! I gave up on IE some time ago and since there are still skads and skads of web sites that only talk IE; Why on earth?? Too bad for them, as my rule that I tell everyone is that if they only cater to IE users, they can have em'. They have nothing that I need to see or read. Why would I want to upgrade to another copy of IE?
Mozilla, Firefox and Netscape rule!!
Cheers!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
"...while security fixes will still be available until 2010, I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox."
Good luck finding any operating system released in 1999 that runs a tabbed browser other than an archaic version of Opera. Windows 2000 is already old, has been passed by, and people who are still using it aren't doing so because they're concerned about the latest news in web browsers.
Sorry about coming into this way late, but I have a preminition that scares me.
When installing a new HP printer I got (HP 5700 series), I ran into some problems when I tried to install the drivers/software for the thing in Win98. HP required that I have IE6 to install the thing (bullshit, I know). Well, I installed IE6 and it went fine, but what if I didn't have access to IE6 in 98?
Will I be prevented from installing software and drivers for products in the future because MS is deciding to buttf*ck me for not going to their "latest and greatest" system?
Vol~
... If they did, their whole anti-trust case would be shot to hell.
I can't run Safari 2.0 on anything below Tiger and no one's up in arms.
I thought we hated IE, why are we mad people won't be able to use the latest version. Do we hate or love MS today?
...and that's all there is to it.
Its no stretch to say that the only win2k installs left out there are being used either on servers (why are you using a browser on a server??? Or even better yet, why are you using Windoze on a server??? :)
The other group (ans these are the ones Im talking about) are those that for one reason or another belive that win2k is the best Windoze OS (better than XP, better than 2003)...most of these will state stability as their reason for using win2k...others will say that XP has too much bloat and/or eye candy. What M$ is banking on is that these users will switch to a new version of Windoze (XP or 2003)...but what is keeping these users from switching to a Linux distro?
It pretty safe to say that the majority of these users will be looking for office support and not exactly games support...if the argument is that Lotus Notes doesnt work or I need M$ Office, you can always buy a copy of Crossover Office for $40.00...much cheaper than even an upgrade to XP/2003.
And for most Windoze apps, you dont even need to purchase Crossover Office...all you need is a script like This one.
They have played this move before, but this time it could come back to bite them.
I would suspect that the singular reason that anybody has every tried firefox (including myself) is the promise of security. As evidence, I point out that adoption significantly slowed, (some stats suggest reversed) since a series of security flaws required 4 releases past 1.0.
Besides, I've had tabs for 10 years, but mine can hold things other tan web pages. I call it a taskbar :-)
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Is it just because the web site is not written in English, but the software can be changed into English mode, but there seems to be no recognition whatsoever to the great IE wrapper software called Sleipnir anywhere but in Japan, which is written by a Japanese.
http://sleipnir.pos.to/
It is the same exact thing OS X. Users of 10.1 can't use Safari, and have to go to other browsers to find something decent. In fact, to get Safari 2.0 you have to upgrade to Mac OS 10.4. I understand that it is far easier and less costly to upgrade Mac OS X, however the same policy exists.
Really, I don't see the big deal with it. As long as they're commited to security updates for Win2K, though I admit that I don't have much confidence in MS doing that. Though they have supported older products decently over the years, but that is mostly because Windows needs a lot of support.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Out there in the suburbs where I fix computers Win 98SE is still the most common OS, then comes XP & W2K comes 3rd.
mmmmmmm tough decision. Hold onto my rock-solid stable fully patched 2000 install and my favourite browser, Firefox OR.... pay AU$300, have to reinstall all my software (if it works) and OS and restore all my program data just so I can use IE with tabs :) I'll stick to a standards compliant browser that doesn't make such absurd demands of me.
:)
Fancy being railroaded into using Firefox by Microsoft. What a strange experience
"Who REALLY thinks that tabbed browsing is the selling feature of FF?"
I know such a user. The tabs are the "must have, could not be happy without it", feature. Not just "at the top of the list of features." THE feature.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
...the reasons why people stick with win2k. Most home users don't upgrade the OS, they upgrade the machine. So they run into WPA exactly once. Big corporations have volume licensing keys as usual. And the warez community had it fixed before it shipped. The only people annoyed (and truly so, and rightly so, but few none the less) are the DIY builders and tinkerers.
The primary reason people stick with win2k is that it works, and it works well. If I was in charge of any organization running win2k desktops, why on earth would I upgrade Windows 2000 to Windows 2001 (read: XP) in 2005? Chances are that in a year or two I'd be stuck on Microsoft's "backburner" support again, only this time with even less sympathy because my OS is already half a decade old.
Along the lines of "if it works, don't break it" I don't expect many to change away from IE6. Remember, almost every website works with IE6 because it must. I doubt it is the most conservative that are the first to jump to Firefox. But I guess the bashing of WPA qualifies for a "+5, Anti-Microsoft" with the mods...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In addition to this, imagine that in about 2 years we have a majority of PNG-capable browsers (IE7, Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror; pretty much everybody except IE5+6) and you want to use transparent PNGs.
Will you write:
If you run WinXP Service Pack 2, download IE7, if you run WinXP with an earlier version download Firefox, if you run Win2K or Win98, download Firefox and if you run MacOSX or Linux download Firefox.
or will you just write:
Download Firefox
Firefox works everywhere.
Microsoft has one of the best track records in the business for backwards compatibility. ...except they don't. My employer guarantees 100% compatibility with 20 years of future products as a condition of sale. We have fully supported software that communicates with hardware that was made in the 1970s. IBM has that sort of track record of long-time compatibility and support for its mainframes too. That kind of track record for Microsoft would mean being obliged to offer support for stuff like BASIC on the TRS80.
.ini files and registry settings specific to legacy apps. You might never run the DOS version of Simcity from 12 years ago on your new system, but there is code in the current windows that was placed there specifically to make that one app run. All of that legacy support is quite a hodgepodge at times.
That being said, MS DOES put a great deal of effort into backwards compatibility--to the point of including a DOS emulator in NT4/2K/XP (WoWExec) that is so seamless most people would never think that the aforementioned OSes are no more compatible with DOS than Linux is (it just happens to have really good emulation). There is a blog by a microsoftie called something like "the old new thing" that explains the lengths MS goes to to maintain compatibility with popular legacy apps.
There are two problems with the efforts MS has put into legacy support: Firstly, it has done a lot to make their codebase cryptic, nearly unmanageable and sub-optimal. This is a problem the likes of IBM and my employer have to contend with as well, except that DOS and NT were not engineered with then intention of being the core of a product for decades. As a result, you get a massive blocks of code,
The second problem with MS Legacy support is that it tends to be rather selective. In the past, when there was a very popular 3rd party app that sold a lot of copies of Windows (certain desktop publishing packages come to mind) legacy support was done without question. when MS Office sales are slumping...well it looks like time to add a few more features that 0.001% of users asked for and use them as an exuse to break file format compatibilities. The thing about IE7 beig "too advanced" for anything older than XPsp2 is another one of those cop-outs. A little company and a non-profit foundation managed to make more secure browsers with innovative features that runs on multiple platforms and MS can't use their billions to engineer something that works with multiple versions of a SINGLE PLATFORM? Bullshit. They are trying to accelerate the elimination of Win2k because it is limiting their revenue potential.
I understand that legacy support is expensive and that MS is beter than a lot of SW companies like Red Hat (not that that is totally Red Hat's fault--they just don't have the resources). The difference is that Free software often continues to work on anything it'll compile on, and if you do have to upgrade you don't often have to pay through the nose for a highly disruptive upgrade. The IE7 compatibility issue is artificial--MS could EASILY make it run on win2K with its resources and say "there is no official support--use at your own risk". They just made design decisions to deliberately create critical dependencies on XPsp2. Even more than concerns about support costs, MS wants to boost stagnant OS sales.
Problem is, that makes IE7 an expensive browser for someone like me, whose only MS OS is win2K. Firefox is free in all senses of the word, so IE7 makes for a pretty weak justification for an OS upgrade when Firefox is much more convenient to get and I don't need to re-install my OS.
"Newer versions of cars add satellite radio, GPS, and MP3 capability, but I don't see any car companies provided these features on older models."
There's some Car shop who will put inside your old 60's 70's 80's 90's car, all this stuff and what not.
Oh, but the fact is with cars you can mess with the metal, oil, motor, breaks and blue prints...
The problem with software is that "old software"
that are EOL (End of lifecycle/not supported)
are not released into public domain or sold to
3rd party company WHO WILL SUPPORT YOU.
That's the current problem with software.
Customer: "The breaks on my Ford 98, doesn't work... can you fix it!"
Ford: "Nope, we don't repair Ford 98 anymore... it's a too old model. But you can buy our new Ford 2000!"
Customer: "But with Ford 2000, the car has more probability of falling apart into pieces if I run it on the freeway."
Ford: "Well, buy yourself some Car Insurance!"
Ford: "Don't worry this will be fixed with the new Ford 2003 model!"
Customer: "But you're 2003 model still have the problem."
Ford: "But... it comes with a DVD player and a brand new PS2!!!"
Customer: "Can you just build a car that works!"
Ford: "Well, that's what we do! We put a lot of money and effort on security features!"
Customer: "Why don't you give me the blueprints for my Ford 98, so I can repair the breaks myself."
Ford: "If you ever try to fix it, we will sue you and put you in jail for 3 years for attempting to reverse engineer under the DMCA."
If car industry would be like that...
lots of congressman would do something about it.
Guess what software industry is like that
and nobody does anything about it.
Does the fact that I try to retrofit GM brakes
on my Ford 98, because that's what I want...
should be breaking any DMCA, patriot act, software patents or whatever idiocies?!
No! So, why software should be different!?
Think about it!
Seriously,
If they won't mantain Internet Explorer on Win2K, we should be granted an easy and clean way to remove it from the system!
I'm pretty sure that there are places that must keep IE for compatibility reasons, but where I work it's not the case. So, I'd like to remove all of it's components, not only disable it from appearing on the desktop.
But I think they'll never allow something like this, because without IE Win2K might become the more secure version of Windows ever!
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Well, the IT policy prevents installing any software. I can't blame them for that, but I would probably be fired or written up for installing Firefox (or at least yelled at). You run into that at a lot of large corporations these days.
It's called Maxthon and it has tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, ad blocking and the ability to turn off Jscript, ActiveX, Java, etc. on a per-tab basis. I surf with those usually off and it's amazing how many sites need JScript or ActiveX!
http://www.nliteos.com/
Best of all, XP-64 Support.
Cheers,
R.
They are different browsers. Although, Netscape, is now using the same mozilla engine, I believe.
Meh.
The only reason that IE7 has been made inoperable under W2K is to pressure users to switch to XP, the mandatory activation mandatory DRM model for microsoft's future of end-user control and mandatory yearly costly subscriptions. Better to use Mozilla for browsing, as I do. Better yet use Linux and Konqueror. So happens this letter comes to you powered by SuSE Linux. I prefer Mozilla over Firefox as there are more control options that I am loath to part with in Mozilla than in Firefox. Firefox came on the scene, you will remember, as Mozilla Light!
Well thats it.
Its official. My next big computer will be linux. I was at this point already, and have been thinking how to deal with programs I really like not being on linux. I have been eyeing GIMPSHOP, Opera already works, I hear you can use crossover or WINE for games, and also for dreamweaver. I think I was already gone before this announcement was made. Now to just upgrade and start the big transfer of all my crap over to Linux.
"THANKS M$, YOU MADE A LINUX MAN OUTA ME!"
Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?