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.
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
[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
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
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
There are lots of ways to have tabs in earlier versions of IE without upgrading the operating system
SlimBrowser is on that integrates into IE seamlessly and gives you tabs, pop up blacking, and all the other "obvious to everyone but ms" features
Of course the better alternative is still available
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
And the only browsers that will be standards compliant for Windows 2k will be the aforementioned Opera and Firefox.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 ----
http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &q=USB%20for%20NT%204.0
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."
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%
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.
In addition to Solaris, IE was also available for HP-UX though not Irix. I was seriously considering picking up a used SparcStation off e-bay and forwarding IE through X11 to my linux box in those days, but I was a poor college student and couldn't spare the $50 or so they went for. I think Konqueror became a web browser at KDE 2.0, but there were many sites it did not render correctly. Opera for linux was the first good browser on the linux platform I came across. I'm not sure when it first came out, I "discovered" it sometime after KDE 2.0 I think. I had still been using Netscape at the time, so Opera was like bread from heaven. Mozilla didn't come out for a few more years after that.
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."
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'
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~
Running Windows gives geek cred?
This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
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.
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.
Absolutely no compelling reason to upgrade, in my experience (which obviously isn't the same as others).
I spend a large portion of my working day writing stuff that interfaces with Windows on some low-ish levels. Nothing like driver writing, but a lot of system management stuff, scripting, network mapping, AD stuff, system scripting. I'm up to my ears in API stuff most of the time.
Most of the tools I create have 9x and NT versions, for obvious reasons. 99.999 times out of 100 the 2K and XP versions are identical. IIRC, in 3 years, there's been only one instance of XP actually offering me something apparently better than 2k -- and that was a more complete implementation of the WMI classes. Although funnily enough, the WMI method proved to be less reliable than the "Registry Key Change + API Call" method I was using in 2K... so I used that in XP also.
Windows 2000 is as stable as I could wish for, even on my modern system (a Sempron-based beastie). I don't see any software (apart from Microsoft's own browser, apparently) which requires XP over 2K. From where I'm sitting, Microsoft's carrot to get me to use XP is "Look! Shiny!", and the stick to punish me for using 2K is "Bad Man! No IE7 for you!".... to which my reply is, "So what?"
Security? I browse with Firefox, and my PC lives behind a firewall (well, an ipfw-configured iMac). Although in all honesty the PC's turned into a Wintendo, so spends all its time running World of Warcraft at the moment. All the day to day stuff happens on the my Mac Mini.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
"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!