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.
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.
[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
This isn't about tabs. A new version of Internet Explorer hasn't came out since 2001, which is a very long time in computing years. Unless Windows 2000 users use an alternative browser, they would be stuck with Internet Explorer 6 as the latest IE browser.
This isn't a good idea on Microsoft's part, because there are still many users using Windows 2000 (in fact, Windows 2000 is still supported; and I believe that Windows 2000 is the best version of Windows that was ever released), and if Microsoft abandons all of its Windows 2000 users in the broswer market, where are all of these people going to move to? They're not going to spend $$$ upgrading to XP over a broswer; they would more than likely switch to Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape/KMeleon/Opera/etc.
During the original broswer war, IE was on almost every major platform. It was available on Windows as far back as Windows 3.1, Mac OS 7.5 and higher, and even Solaris; the only sizable community that didn't get IE was the Linux/BSD group (that community used Netscape 4.x until Mozilla or Konqueror became usable; I don't know which came first since I was a Windows user back then). It seemed to me that Microsoft wanted to control the broswer market, so instead of only offering IE to its latest Windows offerings, it offered it to a wide array of operating system (even though Netscape had a wider array; it included Linux).
Now in the second Broswer Wars, Microsoft is completely ignoring its older Windows versions, the Macintosh, and *nix. Yet Firefox is available on a wide array of platforms. For example, even though Mozilla doesn't have official support for Firefox on *BSD, using *BSD ports (which applies the appropriate patches to the source), it compiles nicely and runs well. If I were Microsoft, I would be a little scared. Just about every platform can use Firefox, and if it isn't available on that platform (such as Mac OS Classic), somebody can port it. If Linux or Mac OS X takes off, then Microsoft would lose its stranglehold in the browser market. If Microsoft wants to win this broswer war, it should port IE 7 to just about every operating system imaginable. Old Windows versions, Mac OS X, Linux, *BSD, Solaris; you name it, Microsoft should port it to that platform. If Microsoft really wants 95% marketshare, it should stop ignoring old Windows versions and other operating systems and start porting.
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.
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 ----
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."
That's true.
/. does now)
I have been posting and I haven't had to type in anything from an image tilted 5 degrees with a bunch of static (or whatever
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
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.
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~
I'm one of them. You run Win2K. Windows XP runs you, by remote control from Redmond. There are still corporate sites installing new Win2K systems. It's more reliable than Windows XP, because Microsoft keeps putting new stuff into Windows XP and breaking it. The XP machines require significantly more attention than the Win2K machines.
And all our real work is on QNX, anyway.