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.
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
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.
It's a good thing. Why? Well, if it needs the use of the service pack, that only seems to indicate that the browser is more and more tied in with with the OS (if that's even possible).
Like someone mentioned on slashdot before (paraphrased):
"I'd rather browse the net with a browser, not an operating system."
[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.
>And I still don't trust SP2 and all the crap it dumps on your box.
"Crap" like pop-up blocking for IE6, a better wireless manager, NX support, firewall on by default, etc? It blows my mind that all these windows users hate the system they use and complain when they get a bunch of needed features. Of course, there are issues with the update, but thats true of any modern OS.
If you're using windows XP you should have migrated to SP2 long ago if you cared about security and stability. Then again this is slashdot, enjoy your ill-informed karma whore points.
And the only browsers that will be standards compliant for Windows 2k will be the aforementioned Opera and Firefox.
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
Oh joy pop-up blocking for IE! Like I need IE hogging MORE resources. Oooo, and a FIREWALL. Tiny Personal Firewall does a better job than a Windows firewall ever could. Stability? XP is pretty damn stable. My only real issue is all the ram it hogs after a box has been up for a couple weeks or so.
Yeah yeah, "switch to linux." I don't even want to start that thread here. Linux is definitely my choice for a server operating system. Nothing beats it hands down (well, maybe FreeBSD for some implementations, but shhhhh don't start a flamewar). When I use my home desktop machine, I want it to get the work done that I want to get done and that's it. I don't want to worry about GLIBC incompatibilities, dependencies, or whatever. I have used Linux as a desktop OS on and off for the past 6 years or so and while I'm extremely impressed by its progress, it still doesn't come close to the speed and ease of Windows XP for getting things done.
Mac OS X on the other hand... Damn, if only I could afford the hardware.
</rant>
--
NoVA Underground: Northern Virginia message boards and chat, with Fairfax County public ticket/arrest search
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
When I use my home desktop machine, I want it to get the work done that I want to get done and that's it. I don't want to worry about GLIBC incompatibilities, dependencies, or whatever. I have used Linux as a desktop OS on and off for the past 6 years or so and while I'm extremely impressed by its progress, it still doesn't come close to the speed and ease of Windows XP for getting things done.
GLIBC incompatibilities? This never happens if you have the source code to your software. If you're forced to used proprietary software, you should either ask for a statically linked executable or install the versions of libc that you need.
The same thing happens on Microsoft Windows as the vendor supplied MSCRT.DLL is quite incomplete wrt the posix standard. This is why some programs require various flavors of newlib (in the form of cygwin.dll or whatever) or other implementations of libc.
Dependencies? Your package management system should take care of this. Granted, there are corner cases when things can break horribly (often when proprietary software is being installed/removed) but the situation is generally no worse than on Microsoft Windows.
As an aside, the unreadable "human checker" image has convinced me that I'm really a script.
Except for the linux being free thing. And microsoft charging for the upgrade. And the fact that 2.2 still gets security upgrades.other than that your right.
Troll.
I hate being anonymous, no one ever gets to see how right i am.
The IE rendering engine with most of the features people get all gushy about in the Mozilla/Firefox browsers.
:p
Funnily enough, one of the things most people love about Mozilla/Firefox is that they don't use the IE rendering engine - they use one that can cope with ancient 1990s technology like XHTML and transparent PNGs and CSS layout instead.
And, not to rain on your parade, a glance at the MyIE page shows that the wonderful features you're expecting me to be impressed by are... tabbed browsing and mouse gestures. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned those are basic minimal features required for a browser to qualify as usable. I couldn't find anything there about a MyIE equivalent of Greasemonkey. Or Flashblock. Or EditCSS.
Seriously, you should give Firefox a try (or another try, as appropriate). It's got all the features people get gushy about in MyIE, and many more, and - as an added bonus - it doesn't use the IE rendering engine.
Refusing to make a version of IE7 a part of win 2000 is as much a business decision as a technical one.
Yes - Win2k is *old*. It's going into extended support (== only security updates) in a couple of months. Does RedHat actively support RH from 5-6 years ago? Does *anyone* support back-porting new features to versions of their products that are that old?
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.
Two things:
1) "microsoft weenies" - very mature of you
2) of course they don't want to use XP on their servers, no-one in their right minds would; XP is a *desktop* OS. For a Windows server, use a Windows Server - ie a flavour of 2k Server or 2003 Server.
MS will stop supporting 2000 completely.
Yes, sometime in 2010
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Microsoft doesn't have to branch out to other platforms to enforce that kind of marketshare. They just have to make sure that users of Windows can't remove IE from their machines, and make it as difficult as possible to use something else. With increasing dependence on Windows Update, it's freaking impossible to get rid of IE. And how many stupid apps use the IE engine internally, or forcefully open IE even when it's not your default browser?
Jasin NataelTrue science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
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?
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.
That's a little short sighted... The real danger to MS is that the site you quoted shows Firefox with 25% of the browser market. Now that statistic is undoubtably skewed a fair bit since that is a "computer techie" site but every good tech knows Firefox adoption is on the upswing.
The real danger to MS lies in the fact that the web browser is finally becoming a viable development platform for feature rich applications (gmail and google maps anyone?). If web browsers become a major platform which houses many of users favorite applications then Windows becomes marginalized and mostly irrelevant. Once you knock down MS' OS monopoly you have removed the cornerstone on which MS is built.
Microsoft can't allow any other application development platforms to flourish and they know it.
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.
The stats I quoted from W3Schools were for the last two years. w3School's OS stats for March 2003:
The one unmistakable lesson to be drawn here is that Windows users stay within the Windows family, they do not migrate in significant numbers to alterative operating systems.
W2K.......42%
Win XP...29%
Win 98....15%
Win NT.... 7%
Linux........2%
Mac..........2%
Win 95......1%
Others......0%
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:)
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!