Slashdot Mirror
Internet Explorer 7 To Be XP Only
WindozeSux writes "The new Microsoft browser, Internet Explorer 7 will only be available for users of Windows XP. However, due to the fact the that a large amount of Windows users do not own Windows XP, IE7 is expected to boost the amount of Firefox users. From the article: 'Improvements in Firefox, along with IE 7 restrictions, could lead to a dramatic increase in the open-source browser's market share, according to Dotzler.'"
I doubt this will cause a 'dramatic' increase. The kind of people not running XP aren't the kind of people who care about upgrading their browser either. They will probably stick with IE5/6 whatever they are currently using and continue to be oblivious to the options available to them. Those people who are even following IE7 or even care, are the kind of people who are already using Firefox/Opera/etc anyway.
...making the browser part of the OS is a Bad Idea. If it was "just an app", it could (probably) easily be made to run on Win2K. Since it's in bed with the OS, upgrading the browser now requires an SP-level update to the OS.
Dumb. Very dumb.
MS realized that the last IE as well as the last OS (prior to XP) had some major security problems. Making all software back compatible is only going to make them more susceptible to similar problems. Going forward, and considering the fact that it has been over 5 years since the release of XP, it is thus wise that they are restricting it to XP only. In the IT industry, if you have not upgraded in 5 years (user programs, OS, Apps etc - not mission critical infrastructure), then there's something lacking and left to be desired. The software industry is constantly evolving and so should you. Who here run pre-2.0 kernel on their Linux boxes? I am sure some of you do, but not many.
I don't remember anyone suing RH for cutting the support for RH 9.x and before, or not releasing a binary of a new product for the RH platform.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
But how long will it be before M$ discontinues IE7 updates for users of XP given that that OS is almost 5 years old? I am still not so happy with Firefox on Linux mainly because it looks a bit ugly as compared to its windows counterpart. I am sure work is being done in this department.
Part of the reasons MS's product releases take so long and are so complex is their obligation to be backwardly compatible with all previous versions. And they've done a great job of it. (I have software that was written in 1994 for Windows 3.1 and it still runs fine on XP.)
Cutting the cord and telling Windows user's they must have XP is tough love, but will likely result in a more stable product and faster maintenance releases.
This approached worked great for Apple when they went to OS X.
Sam
This isn't good news for the web in general. One of the better things to come from XP was IE 6.0, which brought an improved CSS model to both XP and 2000 at the time. If the improvements in IE 7.0 are restricted to Longhorn only, it could be a very long time before reliance on older methods can begin to fade out. I'd like to believe a lot of the users will move to Firefox, but due to its already high levels of publicity, I'm unsure as to just how much of an unaware market remains for a 'better browser'
Business Voyeur
The predicted mass conversion to Firefox is flawed reasoning. IE 6 users aren't going to say, "Oh my gosh, IE 7 for XP is out! My IE 6 on 98 is now worthless! Oh horrors! I'd better download Firefox pronto!"
They'll just ignore the announcement and keep on using IE 6.0, 5.5, and 5.0, just as they have been for years.
Didn't we already know that IE7 would be XP only? Also, why would that boost FF numbers? There are users still using Windows 98 and IE4. Why haven't they switched to FF? Why would those who haven't updated to XP or to FF all of a sudden start using FF when IE7 for XP is released??
...you understand every single word of that. I enjoyed that quite a bit, especially the "A++" part.
Are you saying that they can drop XP support next year?
The saddest part about the entire thing isn't that they will do this, that is inevitable, this is Microsoft after all. The saddest part is that they know the reprocussions that will come, they know the lawsuits that will be filed, they know all the pain and torment they cause us all. But why, oh why sweet god do they continue? Because everyone keeps buying.
Thus, MS is screwed no matter what they do:
If they choose door #1, they will ultimately destroy themselves trying to secure the versions of their products that run on a fundamentally insecure base. They know this.
If they choose door #2, the A group users will continue to use their existing platform for as long as possible. When MS's lack of support finally burns them, they will jump ship and migrate to Linux/Mac (which are more than capable for light E-Mail, Web, music, the occasional document, etc) because their old PII is incapable of running XP, let alone Vista. The group B users will probably grudgingly upgrade and keep an eagle eye out for any escape route. They know this too.
Ultimately, because of this effect, MS will see a huge loss of market share because thier current business strategy (Provide the minimum quality of software needed to keep users from jumping ship) fails in the face of mature competitors (Linux, Mac, Solaris (?)). Then they will be forced to clean their platform up and take their place alongside other vendors. Competition is wonderful.
Microsoft undoubtedly knows all of this, and is trying to delay it as long as possible by trying to find a less-unacceptable mix of options 1 and 2. Eventually, they will have to start weaning users off of old platforms. This is it.
You can say that the Linux browsers are backward compatible but I would like to see you take modern v ersions of Firefox or KDE and the like and build/install it on a distribution from 1999/2000. Can you imagine the library differences or the effort you would have with upgrading all of the RPMs in a version of RedHat from that era. Now, since you are charged for most of the commercial Linux distros when you are told to upgrade the distro for the sake of getting modern libraries you are in essence being told to upgrade to get a modern browser and modern versions of all of the software. This is totally ok but when MS wants to depricate their OSes in the same way you hear "they are charging $100 for just a browser upgrade." You are not paying just for a browser upgrade but an upgrade to all of the latest versions of everyting in the OS and you are paying for the security and bug fix updates for years and years. MS is a company and they put out a good product in modern windows and office that is worth paying for. I love and I use Linux but I get disgusted occasionally by such bias, double-standards and MS-can-do-no-right additude.
I looked at your post history, and none seem modded improperly. Maybe your posts get modded trolls because you are a troll? Posts which exist to call people sphincter breath, and to try to join your goofy ass psp pyramid scheme are not useful.
You sir, are a troll.
The network I admin is all Win2000 machines. I've already started putting firefox on some of them and the money and time it's saved me and my company on maintenance is very measurable and it's no small amount.
Now I have justification to replace IE on every machine with firefox, since inevitably some sites will become IE7 only and Firefox has done pretty well in rendering even these IE only broken websites.
This may even help justify not ever buying XP and waiting until the next windows release.
MS just lost a big sale and saved us a ton of money!
XP is newer, but not necessarily better. Windows 2000 is one of the best and probably the most stable operating system that Micro$oft has ever produced. There is no compelling reason to switch a well functioning Win2K system to XP. Again, If it's not broken, why does it need to be fixed?
Sounds perfectly fair to me. Linux applications often have very specific version dependencies, why not software you have to pay for?
I don't expect to be able to run OO.o on Slackware 1.0 out-of-the-box, and I don't expect IE7 to have to run on old software either.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Yes, and? Apple does it. The latest version of Safari RSS isn't available for the previous point release of OS X, let alone a totally new OS. But wait, if it's Apple, no one on slashdot complains, because its not MS.
In fact, It was a good move on Microsoft's part to make IE free. Since IE is based on NCSA Mosiac technology, MS agreed to pay a small quarterly license fee plus a share of the profits from IE to NCSA. Since IE has been free for the past decade, all NCSA has gotten has been the small quarterly license fees.
NCSA thought they had a good deal, but ended up getting the short end of the stick.
I thought Microsofts whole argument when sued for anti-trust and asked to seperate IE from the OS was that IE is so bound to the OS that it is impossible to remove IE from Windows.
If that is true, then IE is not free. It is part of the operating system.
If I was NCSA, I would find a good law firm and sue Microsoft. How many people would have purchased windows the past 10 years if it did not come with IE? It was part of the sale. It is not like Microsoft sold windows, and then had IE available for download, or on a second CD with 2 or 3 different browsers to chose from.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Yes, but if you read Microsoft's EULA, you'll quickly see that they disclaim all liability for its use or misuse, the product is licensed AS-IS, the product is not fit for any particular purpose, and they grant no warranties of any kind, explicit or implied. In other words, you can try to sue Microsoft, but it will be dismissed so fast you won't know what hit you.
:-), using Microsoft and most other general-purpose commercial software programs is just like letting your friend store his lawnmower in your shed for $5 or even $500 but under a contract that explicitly states that anything stored in that shed is the renter's full responsibility and that if anything happens to that shed and, consequently, the renter's property in that shed, then the renter has no recourse at all, other than whining on Slashdot or consumer product boards about how bad the shed owner is. (of course, for the sake of argument, this was a contract that had the renter sign and/or initial every paragraph and write out that he/she fully understands that he/she has absolutely no legal recourse and waives all rights to civil and criminal proceedings other than those explicitly granted by law, but I digress again. Perhaps it could even be worded that storing property in the shed constitutes full legal abandonment of said property). So how is that different from open-source software that a company paid no money for?
:-).
:-).
Say someone at Microsoft embeds a cute virus or tracking cookie or something (according to many, they already have in the form of Alexa cookies, but I digress). People may screem and shout Holy Murder all they want, but because they licensed the software and agreed to pay Microsoft for a product that has no warranties and no assumption of wrongdoing on the part of Microsoft, other than, perhaps, defective media on boxed products, then it's tough cookies.
To expand on your analogy
However, not all is lost for the lawnmower owner. Both open-source and commercial vendors typically offer support and warranty services for an extra, typically annual or per-incident, fee. The Mozilla Foundation offers telephone support and probably other options as does Microsoft. If a company is so inclined, it can purchase these support options from the Mozilla Foundation and others. Companies don't have to, but it's there for those who want or need it. And bam, there's the legal obligation to make it all work
Mozilla developers have their collective and individual reputations to keep their software in check. If a process breakdown or malicious intent resulted in an official release of Firefox containing malware and viruses, that would probably spell significant doom for Firefox, especially if it was malicious intent. Same thing with Microsoft, though with Firefox, the Mozilla Foundation invites everyone to see the "man behind the curtain" in the form of source code, minutes, and the like while Microsoft keeps that under lock and key, requiring the Mozilla foundation to be especially careful in what it puts in and keeps out of Firefox.
As a minor nitpick, Firefox does have an organization behind it -- the Mozilla Foundation. And that foundation has interests and a reputation to protect and defend. So, for those who believe that they can sue software creators, one could sue the Mozilla Foundation just as easily as they can sue Microsoft (though, in both cases, the suit would highly likely be thrown out).
Just my $0.02
As another way of looking at it, couldn't an IT Manager that ignores Firefox and insists on using Microsoft Internet Explorer as their organization's desktop web browser be reprimanded for knowingly deploying a product throughout the organization that is known to have significant security holes and an active exploit community, thus knowingly putting their company in harm's way when a known safer, (mostly) compatible, and open-source alternative with the backing of top-tier software companies exists? When combined with organizations th
Because moderators are idiots.
Every time I'm trying to be funny, Slashdot mods give me a +5, INTERESTING or INSIGHTFUL. Every time I'm trying to be insightful or interesting, they give me a +5, FUNNY.
So stop loading your browser. Keep it open.
Oh, wait, IE crashes a lot.
Never mind.
By the way, if you'd seriously compare the two, you'd see that Firefox renders pages much faster than IE, which is the primary reason I used to use Opera and now use Firefox. Which is far more important than how fast it loads.
My main irritation with Firefox is memory leaks, which supposedly will be fixed in the next major release.
Compared to IE, Firefox crashes much less often, renders 98% of Web pages correctly, and still works with my bank's security even though they say it's not supported.
The only time I need IE is handling some online multimedia situations where Active X controls are required, and the occasional secure site that doesn't work with Firefox, and the fairly rare site which is so heavily IE-specific that page menus and links don't work at all.
Another advantage to Firefox is its extensibility. If I don't like something about it, somebody else won't like it either and will do an extension to correct the problem. As it is, I only use four or five extensions, all of which are to correct irritations or provide features I used to have on Opera (such as the "z" page back key.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I'm utterly stumped as to why ANYONE would think this will move people to firefox. Let's review: NOBODY is "waiting" for IE7 on 2k. If they're using IE6, it's for a reason. Hell, 2k for "home users" in all reality is non-existant. None of the major vendors ever sold 2k en masse to the general public. Any corporations that are using 2k are usine IE for internal pages, and news flash: they don't give a flying fuck about PNG support, or the latest tabbed browsing, when it comes to internal pages that have Active-X type functions.
IE7 isn't going to change anyone over. Nobody will upgrade "just for IE7", and nobody is switching to firefox just because IE7 isn't available for 2k. If you really believe that any major enterprise will be like "oh, we can't get *native* tabbed browsing for IE, let's spend $10million on a new web system so that we can use firefox with it, you're a crackhead.
Basically anything firefox can do, someone has made an add-on for IE. It may not be native, but I doubt the majority of IE users give a flying fcuk.
Now, you have to remember that the Mozilla foundation isn't just a couple of guys kicking back and doing some programming -- it's a company just like any other. There's people behind the Mozilla name, and they try to make a living doing what they do. When/If Mozilla writes crappy software, people will stop using it. If this happens, the people behind the Mozilla name will have nothing to work for, which means no grant money or endorsement, which means no food on the table. This, to me, sounds like an obligation from the Mozilla Foundation to the user, which would 1) increase trust, 2) keep quality high, and 3) keep a couple of programmers from writing a virus into Firefox.
So you paid $$$ for your Windows installation (which came with IE). What makes you feel Microsoft is obligated to *you*? What makes you TRUST Microsoft? Yes, they sell products to make a living, but do they really have to cater good software in a market they've got full control of? No. Why would they want anything to change? Why is Microsoft still using the same user interface since Windows 95? Oh wait -- they colored it blue with a little green start button. In any case, trust should come from software quality, and not from how much you paid for it or what you gave up to get it. If you ever find a point in time where Microsoft isn't holding up their end of the obligation, since you paid for it, you can legally sue them. However, there's almost no chance of winning. By buying Windows, you made a deal with Microsoft -- a deal that gives you no rights to contest problems. So, when Microsoft changes the lock on the shed, how do you expect to get your lawnmower back? Upgrade to the newest key, of course. Do you have any say in it? Once again, no. Personally, I'd trust a company that will give things away, quality being the only thing that keeps them alive. If I have a preferbial beef with Mozilla, I can tell them about it. If most other people have the same beef, Mozilla will change. When has Microsoft changed anything based on user input?
One last point: The "Mozilla Shed" is only going to burn down if Mozilla dies out; Mozilla's only going to die out when people stop using their software; people will stop using their software when it becomes crappy. Therefore, if Mozilla has any say in their future, then the Mozilla Shed won't burn down, and they won't write crappy software. If you can't put your trust in that, I don't know what you can.
The software industry is constantly evolving and so should you.
What does a business benefit, if their current software does the job? Is a new version of Word going to suddenly make all of a secretary's documents better? Are their spreadsheets suddenly going to command more attention?
And as far as IE7 is concerned, what will it bring to a business whose intranet is optimized for IE6?
None of these increase cashflow; in fact, they will probably reduce productivity with all the Help Desk calls it'll generate when the new software doesn't look exactly like the old.
Most businesses will get IE7 when they buy new machines, not before.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
thats not the argument tho, the argument is NOT: "ie will not be functional without windows (although probably it is)" it is "windows will not be functional without ie", there is a difference
It's like the Xbox 360. They said that wasn't going to be backwards-compatible with original Xbox games but now they're going to run the emulation software because people have complained about it so much. I think they will release IE7 for Win2k and ME, but maybe not until after the release for XP (depending on how many people complain).
Either way, I think this will be a nice step for Firefox with somewhere between 40-50 percent of Windows computers running ME or XP.
That's what happens when it's tied into the operating system. If it was a self-contained browser it wouldn't be that difficult to backport.
No existe.
look, we all know /. is full of dupes it's common knowledge. I understand that it's annoying that people are pointing it out on so many stories, but couldn't they just maybe....post less dupes? i know that's some crazy offtopic flamebait trolling there, but seriously. You can check my history, i'm not a troll, and i've never bitched about them before, but can we accept the dupes as at least part of the problem instead of just talking about how annoying the people who point them out are?
Unless it relied on security features in Windows XP...
That's pretty dumb; why the hell should it? As I understand it, Firefox doesn't depend on any features of any operating system or any architecture, so long as Gecko has a way to render and Firefox has a way to show itself as well. Yet, it's at least as secure as MSIE (probably including 7!), if not even more so. Though I could be mistaken.
It's not even (entirely) a matter of religion; Firefox really is (or at least seems) operating system independent, so long as the OS has a GUI. It relies on its own security features and just the GUI itself; no more, no less.
But please for the love of $DEITY correct me if I'm wrong.
Because most people who use Windows don't even understand what an OS is....
Open Source Sushi
Um, what security features?
Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online