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.'"
No IE7 For 2k, Now In Extended Service... posted by ZONK! More proof he doesn't read things he approves.
This is getting scary.
] $/])for@F;$_="$s[-1]\n"'
We must fight against the Mozilla organization, for it distributes a "gateway OSS", which leads users down the path towards more powerful OSS, such as perl and emacs, which can be downright dangerous, leading to all sorts of permanent afflictions such as repetitive stress syndrome (featured in the well-known film, "Ctrlfinger"), as well as a gluttonous addiction to loosely typed programming languages. Over time, they tend to turn into "hackers," exploiting and even distributing OSS from their basements. This is just the first stage.
In Stage II, they join nefarious communities, with alien names such as "comp.theory," even wasting weeks and weeks to learn foreign languages just to communicate in locations such as "ruby-dev". They also begin typing in tongues. Just the other day, at our clinic, I walked across one addict with a window open, or I think it was a window -- the screen was all weird with footprints and insignia all over it, and in it he was writing material which looked like text yet did not read like text. It looked like he was trying to express something with a violent combination of chomps and chops and splices!
At Stage III, they begin idol-worship -- of demons and penguins, displaying their idols in public with stickers on their laptops. They begin to find pleasure in strange, alien activities, like changing their keyboard layouts around so that nobody else can use them, and buying calculators that read in input in some backwards order, with no equals key, and then they become fanatics who insist that everybody should learn this backwards method! If you ever see somebody lend out a calculator and then smirk when a borrower innocently walks away, you know they have reached Stage III.
At Stage IV, they wonder how to emulate their freshly bought calculator on their computer, in one of the tongues that they have learned. Those who have spent weeks of using the powerful and addictive OSS called perl begin to write "rpn.pl" in progressively smaller scripts, using that violent abortion of chops and slices. First, they make one that works in twelve lines, which is unhealthily short already. Then they naturally levitate towards three lines, two lines, one and a half lines, exhibiting some obsession towards achieving their goal in less than 80 characters. Some succeed, but only after several nervous breakdowns and complete distachment from spouse and family. Some begin their ramblings with references to primates, as seen in one quotation I've seen,
perl -ape 'eval(("\$s[-2]$_=pop\@s",q[push@s,$_])[!/^[-+*\/
If they succeed, this usually means that Stage V has been reached. It is believed that they begin to realize that they are seriously damaged, because they rather suddenly start mumbling about the "brainfuck" they're enduring. This realization dies away quickly, as they type out long meaningless random strings.
Occasionally, they manage to come out from their mental ruts, but only for short periods of time. These spells give our researchers a rare glimpse at what happens to their minds, as they make repeated references to things that don't exist, except perhaps in their hallucinations. They still have connections to their dreamworld. For example, I mentioned to one patient about how my niece got an A++ on a recent examination in school. And the patient replied, "She got a B? Well, better luck next time." He must have misheard, or so I thought, so I answered, "No, she got an A++," enunciating the A + + slowly. And the patient smiled knowingly, responding: "Exactly. I hope she gets an A next time." I gave up on that conversation.
There are further stages of this terrible affliction, but they would be too graphic to list here. My point is, this "Firefox" isn't just a harmless OSS that causes minor but and temporary impairment; it is the first step of a path towards destruction, and we must fight its spread with all our resources.
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.
"a large amount of Windows users do not own Windows XP"
I'd say that a large amount of the Windows XP users also do not own Windows XP...
...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.
Microsoft would be open to so many lawsuits that they would actually notice.
On what grounds? Were there any lawsuits when IE 6 SP2 was made available only as part of Windows XP SP2?
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
Thank buggery for that. I was getting scared that IE7 was going to be the Next Best Thing(tm) on UNIX and Linux desktops across the globe...
Guess it sucks for you LOSERS who only use Linux. My copy of XP, with IE 7, is sure to make me a hit with all the ladies! Look at all the advantages of IE 7 over Firefox. 1) Better security 2) Tabbed Browsing 3) More compatibility ... wait...
DOH!
But it's still better, because I SAY SO! mIcR0$of+ ru135!
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Why was this modded down? It's kinda funny :P
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Since the article that links to cnet mentions the switchover effect coming from the Windows 2000 users. Do they even have an idea how many Win2k users there are and how many don't plan to update because they are already using firefox?
I think, looking at the history of the way Microsoft operates, what will happen is that after they notice that many corporate Windows 2000 users are beginning to think of switching to Firefox, they will annouunce that IE7 will be available on Windows 2000 also!
I think what they're doing is trying to see if they can get companies to upgrade to WIndows XP by tying IE7, the 'great improvement browser', to XP. But if the decision is actually hurting them, Microsoft has shown their willingness to change their minds!
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
....they'll release versions of Internet Explorer 7 for Windows 2000 and Windows ME as well. Heck, they should release IE 7 for Windows 98 and Windows NT 4. There are still tens of millions of users (like myself) still using these older versions of Windows, who don't feel like "upgrading" to XP, and who won't have an updated Internet Explorer browser. However, the latest Firefox is readily available for every Windows version that supports Win32 except for Windows NT 3.x. If Microsoft truly cared about trying to steal Firefox's thunder, they should port Internet Explorer to a few older versions of Windows. I don't know too many people who would spend $100+ for an operating system just for a browser.
Well, it doesn't look like I'm giving up Firefox on my Windows NT laptop. Long live Firefox!
It will probably even boost the number of firefox users long before it is even released. Just like the stockmarket, people will speculate and anticipate the need for something else.
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??
People can't tell the difference between IE 6 and IE 5.5 from my experience. People that read Slashdot are not your normal computer users. I know people still using Netscape Communicator 4.7, because they were better than IE way back when. It's similar to the music industry argument. Were people that pirate going to buy in the first place? If not, the record industry didn't lose any money or market. Will MS lose market share from those that were never going to upgrade anyway?
...you understand every single word of that. I enjoyed that quite a bit, especially the "A++" part.
I think most people (though not you) find dropping support for a 5 year old OS pretty reasonable.
... a large amount of Windows users do not own Windows XP ...
No wonder Bill Gates is complaining about software piracy. All Windows user should own a legal copy of Windows XP.
a large amount of Windows users do not own Windows XP
Nobody owns XP, it's licensed, like most software.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Yes, because all potential customers of opensource software check roadmaps for software, and wait until the newest versions come out to buy it. My mom decided not to switch to firefox a few days ago because of the slashdot article - which she of course read, since slashdot *is* her homepage - about the versioning changes.
This story has featured on Slashdot before.
Paul Beardsell
You touched on the idea of a sales-boost. That's definitely interesting. There was an article this week, I believe, on theregister about MS trying to drum up sales of their current Office line even though the next upgrade (Office 12?) will be released next year.
So you're left to wonder -- is IE7 yet another marketing scheme to get people to run XP...and then get them again when astalaVista shows up?
Trustworthy Computing indeed!
Fsck that.
Actually, 6 year old. Windows 2000 was released in 1999.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Errm... Only Microsoft owns WindowsXP.
Legitimate MS-Windows users are just granted a license to use it...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Nobody owns XP, it's licensed, like most software.
In the United States, an "owner" of a physical object is defined by the Uniform Commercial Code and other state law. Under federal copyright law, the "owner of a copy" of a computer program has specific rights outlined in sections 109 and 117.
Or at least that was the case until the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 added a circumvention ban to copyright law. Now the owner of copyright in a computer program can encrypt the cab files used by the installer, claim that it is a "technical protection measure", and make almost any EULA terms enforceable as a condition of decrypting the cab files during installation.
... How exactly do you get sued for not making a product?
I seemed to have missed something in the logic here.
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.
If you're not going to upgrade, then 'screw you guys, I'm going home!'
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Microsoft is spreading Firefox!
_________
The world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?
Gee, you've got a great mom!
Can I meet her?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You're ignoring the ad revenue generated by Microsoft through having www.msn.com as the home page.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
This will be no different for when they were going to drop support for older Windows versions, and extended it by a few years... They either drop IE support for non-XP systems and continue developing security and bug fixes in a pre-XP branch along side IE7, Or let holes in their browser destroy user's systems if this holds. I don't see either happening unless they plan on completely revamping IE7 to completely take advantage of XP (which is doubtful with Longhorn probably much more open to innovations to IE7 then XP by far). With no Firefox, maybe they would try, but probably not at the moment.... People with older systems that use Firefox instead might eventually upgrade to XP/Longhorn like they want.... But I doubt they will leave Firefox behind....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
We've known that IE 7 would be XP+ only for what, two years? ever since 6.0 came out?
This is hardly a new revelation. Come on.
(what's with the image verification here now?)
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Color me off topic, but you spelled "burnt" wrong.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
On the contrary, Microsoft stands to lose huge amounts of money if they can't leverage their stranglehold on the browser market anymore. All of the sudden they sell less copies of Windows because people don't need IE to use poorly designed web sites or web applications, internal corporate sites in particular are notorious for this. That's only the beginning too. As a result of that, we would start seeing holes in the entire Microsoft monopoly as their two strongest shackles (IE and Office) weaken. Good news for everyone but Microsoft of course.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
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.
If it's XP only, what's going to run on Windows Vista?
that is the most insightful thing i have read all week!
Making it Windows XP is in my opinion, a very wise move. Windows XP is already approaching 5 years of age, and it wouldn't really be sensible to have retroactive support for any of their older operating systems. Moreover, it would probably be in Microsoft's best interests to keep the browser tied to SP2 and beyond.
Just think of the reasons why the average computer user will use IE. Is it because it is a better browser? Or is it convenience? Or do they not know any better? Probably the latter two reasons.
Why do I use Firefox as opposed to IE? Tabbed browsing and plugins, namely AdBlock. Even on my PowerBook G4, I still tend to use Firefox over Safari only simply because of AdBlock. Other than that reason, I'd primarily be using Safari (and no, I don't use PithHelmet). Heck, most Mac users I know use Safari because that's what came with their computer. Hence, the same reasoning for Windows users using IE applies to Mac users using Safari.
Ultimately, I think IE use will actually increase after IE7 is released.
Opera users call that "user mode".
What's the point in /. having editors if they don't edit?
qntm.org
Don't worry - I'm sure they'll make you that much happier next year when they force XP users to upgrade to Longhorn.
This approached worked great for Apple when they went to OS X.
I bet it'll work great for all the Win2000 users who go to OS X as well. If you mean to say that this is good news for windows users because they're being driven to OS X faster, I agree with you 100%. If you mean to say it's good news for people who actually pay for windows - I disagree 100% because MSFT is simply double-charging them for a minor upgrade of the OS that they already bought.
It's called the difference between paying for it and not paying for it.
When it's free and easy to upgrade, it's pointless to complain. When it costs money to upgrade, it's not pointless.
And plenty of corporations are still running servers based on Red Hat 6.2, if you didn't know, based on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy (not that I agree with that, but they do.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The answer is, without paying excessive amounts and putting up with the latest Windows garbage, I have no idea what my XP users will be looking at.
If IE7 will only work with XP, I will make sure I don't upgrade to Vista, and get stuck with IE6. ;p
How ya like dat?
Is there a specific technical reason why IE7 wouldn't run on Win2K or is Micro$oft doing something intensionally to keep it from running? The operating systems aren't that different. They are both varients of Windows 5.xx. I don't particularly want to downgrade to XP to take advantage of IE7.
I do believe that Windows 2000 is the better of the two operating systems because of it's better stability and fewer emcumberances.
...Should we all drop dead? Article doesn't say one way or the other whether "XP Only" means "XP-like OS" only or really just Windows XP...
How dumb is this?
Who did what now?
Not quite.
Microsoft is not creating IE7 to make money on IE itself, that's for sure, as you correctly point out.
But Bill Gates does NOTHING that doesn't make him money.
Anything they do to maintain their browser stranglehold on the market has a measurable impact on the viability of their OS as a desktop OS and as a Web services OS - exactly where they're most worried at the moment about Linux and OSS in general creeping up on them.
Plus they gain some marketing bennies from LOOKING like they care about security and the end-user's problems with the current POS browser they support.
Plus as numerous others have pointed out, SOME corporations and end users WILL upgrade because of this. Even if it's not enough to offset the development cost of the IE7 enhancements, it reduces their cost by some amount while still giving them the above cited benefits.
If home users are willing to throw out PCs because of IE's spyware problems, as has been reported here, a lot of them will be willing to upgrade to XP (or get XP on their new shiny soon-to-be-infected again PCs) to get IE7's supposed additional security.
Of course, since Microsoft is buying Claria, the odds that IE7 will actually DO anything about spyware is virtually nil - unless the suggestion that Microsoft wants to dominate the spyware market is true - which it could be.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
That is, IE7 won't be available for Longhorn, erm... Vista, whatever... ? So I suppose that next OS is still so far away there will be IE8, maybe even IE9 before , err... that thing is finished ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Bill, the IE team says they need advice from you on how to integrate Gator with IE7.
Please call them on your cell.
By the way, I think you're spending way too much time astroturfing. I need help running this operation, you know.
Steve
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I don't plan to upgrade from windows 2000 anytime soon at all. My design softwares I use work great under 2000; it's amazingly stable; all my games work for it, and I don't think any developers are going to ditch 2000 anytime soon; there's no compelling reason for me to move to 64 bit in the next year or two - I'd be better served with a great big honkin RAID setup.. so..
who cares? I'm running firefox now anyway.
I'm hoping to avoid the whole XP situation altogether, hope Longhorn/Vista falls flat on it's ass, and then move to a OSX / Windows 2000 hybrid solution on a beastly powermac in 2006 - something I would not have considered prior to the switch in platforms.
If I was MS, I'd be moderatly concerned. I know a lot of companies have no interest in moving from 2000 because it works, and works well.
..don't panic
The Firefox team needs to make sure that the upcoming 1.5 release comes packaged as a native msi installer.
Not being in msi form hinders the corporate adoption of firefox greatly.n.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
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!
then the solution would be to develop IE 7 in .NET. That way they, can ensure at least some portability between the operating systems that they support.
Coderz 4 Life
" I've always wondered why people throw a fit about a 5 year old operating system losing support."
Because the latest version of that operating system is only about one year younger.
The C64 CSS function id the best evAr.
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?
More like two years (December 1999 versus something like August 2001 for actual RTM). In addition, we "should" remember that the XP SP2 work was done far later, and it's actually SP2 that will be the requirement for IE7, free or not. SP2, in turn, contained some backporting from Windows Server 2003.
Now if IE fuckes up a computer, and someone gets pissed off enough, they can sue Microsoft, saying the user PAID money for a product and trusted that product.
Actually, you didn't pay for IE. You payed for Windows, and IE came free with it. It was a cunning move Microsoft made back in the day.
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.
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
You'd be getting a +1 Funny from me now. As it is, I can't mod at all, let alone in a story I've already commented on.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I prefer the IE mod Maxthon (formerly MyIE2) over firefox. The tabs and mouse gestures in firefox (ive tried multiple plugins) just dont feel right to me.
XP has been the default OEM install for almost four years now. Vista will be the default OEM install from day one of its release. IE 7 will if anything make the transition easier.
Except when you're a RedHat customer, and you actually paid for it, mmm?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
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."
I'm assuming "XP only" means XP.. not Windows 2000, not Server 2003, etc. A lot of people still run those because they don't want the bloat XP has to offer.
;)
Also, I don't know why Microsoft thinks that a web browser would motivate a user to upgrade their whole operating system (I'm sure this is the marketing technique they are going after). Is IE7 really going to be -that- amazing?
Just because Linux and Firefox are basically free, doesn't mean there's no liability when those programs are provided via sale or contract. Nothing prevents an OSS vendor from willingly taking on responsibility to their customers.
In other words: If you want someone other than yourself to take responsibility for software, then find a vendor that will sell it to you and stand behind it.
Which is why I said a lot of people are running 6.2.
Exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me.
Have a nice day.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Okay, I'm naive, but I don't see this. The primary reason that MS IE is the main browser is simply that people aren't changing from the default on their PCs. This isn't going to change simply because a new MS browser is released. I imagine that most of the XP users won't upgrade either, unless it's forced on them as a security upgrade. (Which may very well happen.)
The people running older versions of Windows will merrily keep running whatever dreck was originally installed as the browser on their machines.
What I see happening will be that MS IE 6 will take a hit in market share, which will be taken up by MS IE 7. If there is a significant difference in the browsing experience, people may react to the change by moving to another browser (I have to admit that is likely firefox, though I am not an FF fanbot) but this will not be the common trend. The greater portion of MS IE users will just keep trundling along.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
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
Wow. Just wow.
There is far more to the law than whether you pay for something. Try asking a lawyer about promissory estoppel, and enjoy.
Microsoft no doubt have all kinds of disclaimers written into their EULAs about not being liable for more than the price paid for the software, etc. So do many other firms. I'm not aware of these ever being tested in court anywhere, which makes me suspect it's clear to lawyers that they are valid (given the obvious scope for massive damages if it weren't, and how long they've been routine for).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Is this guy high on Firefox?
The article reads, "Improvements in Firefox, along with IE 7, could lead to a dramatic increase" NOT "Improvements in Firefox, along with IE 7 restrictions, could lead".
Dumbasshole!
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
IE6 is around 60MB will IE7 be 70MB or 700MB? FF is around 5MB, even though FF is smaller it still outweighs IE in features. I certainly dont want to clutter my pc up with 55MB wasted programing!
Wrong. Windows 2000's mainstream support was retired on June 30th, 2005. See here.Microsoft will continue to support Windows 2000 for corporations that have purchased the extended support license until 2010.
However, according to this site, Microsoft is going to support IE6 until September 2006. I'm not really sure what that means since they haven't updated the browser significantly in 2 years or so.
IE7 will be bundled with Longhorn, and people will likely continue to use whatever is bundled on their PC's... I don't see IE's dominance letting up anytime soon, despite Firefox being a superior browser (in my opinion).
Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths....
I only think technical beta (and warezers) could download 2195 before January 1st 2000. MSDN and the like didn't get it until early January.
I've heard that you can run IE under Wine. That kind of knocks the wind out of the whole "it's inseperable" argument.
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.
True all the "retail" and OEM MS Windows have this kind of disclaimers. But Microsoft also sells "custom Windows" to special customers that require exceptional stability. Essentially, it's the same software that reaches normal customers, but with special, custom licenses that DO promise to pay damages in case of failure etc.
Just expect a single copy with such a license will cost $4000-$10000...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Look, I know this is
You know of no one who has sued Microsoft -- say, for all the VB Script virii in the world -- because YOU CANNOT SUE THEM. Read the fine print of your Microsoft EULA and take a look at their regiment of lawyers. You ain't got a flippin' hope in a frog pond.
There is no security for you in buying a software licence. Much less for anything you obtain FOR FREE.
However, if you, or other experts can look at the code, modify it, and compile it yourselves, you know EXACTLY what it does.
THAT, my friend, is the greatest confidence that you can have in the software that you use.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Microsoft went this route already with DirectX, which is why nobody who likes computer games runs Win95 (or Win98 non-SE) anymore. You need at least Win98SE to use DirectX 9.0b/c, and they plan to require Win2k to use DirectX 9.0d.
However, this leverage actually has some effect, because a lot of games don't include both DirectX and OpenGL support, and hardware manufacturers have no interest in writing new drivers for old OSes when the DirectX component won't even work on the old OS. So, in order to play the next generation of games, users are forced to upgrade.
On the other hand, in the web browsing arena, any competent web browser gives you the same functionality as IE (if not better), and there are several to choose from. What's more, the current crop of web browsers is not under threat of obsolescence, since web standards don't change nearly fast enough to make that happen. IE7 not working in anything earlier than XP might not create a mass exodus to Firefox, but it also won't cause mass upgrades to XP, as long as IE6 still works.
Note that I'm not saying that Microsoft's original intentions related to either DirectX or IE7 were to coerce users into upgrading. However, I'm sure that once their team of marketing wonks got ahold of the idea, any concerns held by the programmers about unsupported users were quickly cut asunder.
No IE7 for 2k means no IE7 for 2K. This is saying no IE7 for ANYBODY. Pay attention.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
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.
you'll have to be satisfied with all your old security problems instead of enjoying all the new ones that IE7 will introduce.
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
This article confused me when I first read it. I think "only" is not the correct word to be using. IE 7 will, of course, be available in Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista (Longhorn) in addition to XP... just nothing older than XP.
Here is the #1 obsitcale I think Mozilla has to overcome. If Mozilla fucks up something, what recourse does a user have? Since Mozilla is given for free, you can't sue. Now, if IE fuckes up a computer, and someone gets pissed off enough, they can sue Microsoft, saying the user PAID money for a product and trusted that product.
No they can't, the EULA they agreed to when they started using IE says so.
I know nobody that has sued Microsoft. But there is some security in knowing it came from a real company.
A false sense of security, but yes there is. It not like Microsoft's code is somehow inheritantly "better" or "safer" because it's coders are getting paid for their work (many people here would say it's exactly the opposite). But due to the pig-headedness of corporate culture, this is believed. This mindset one of the things OSS needs to overcome to really make it in the corporate environment.
On a side note: What makes something a "real company"? Are you saying if Mozilla became incorporated this would be all different?
Or maybe I should write this another way. What if the development group of Mozilla gets together one night for beers. They decide they have had it with freeloaders, they are pissed off, so they will write in some small virus into their software. How many people would get infected before they would know? And if you did get infected, what could you do? You got Mozialla for free.
Uh, it's illegal to produce and distribute malicious code. You would call the A.G.
I have a shed in the backyard. I let you put your lawnmower back there for free. I do something stupid, the shed burns down. The guy who owns the lawnmower is screwed, nothing he can do. But if he pays me money, even only $5 or something small, and I destroy what is his, he can get the value of his property back. I now have a responsibility to care for his property, and that responsibility did not exist before.
Only if the agreement said you were taking responsibilty. I have a vehicle in storage in another state. It is not stored in a proper warehouse (where they take possession of your property and it is insured by them and everything), this is just a guy who owns a big building and he rents out spaces for people to store their classic cars in. In my contract, I have to maintain registration and insurance on the car while it is in his storage. The reason being if my vehicle rolls on it's own into a cherried-out '70 Dodge Challenger, he is not responsible for the damages, I am. I'm pretty sure if the building collapsed on itself and wrecked ALL our cars I wouldn't be getting any compansation for my squashed car, even though I pay $60 a month to him. Why? Because my contract says he holds no liability (if I remember right, I haven't read through the contract in a few years).
In a SmallCo I did some contract coding for last year, their average machine ran 98 and had a 15 inch monitor. Yes, there were some 95s out there (running god knows what networking bolt-ons to get them on the network).
The only way they "upgraded" was when one machine died or they got a new person and they had to purchase a new box.
Just out of curiosity, I opened one of their 95 machines; you could've filled a lunchbag with all the dust in there. Now recall that dust is mostly skin flakes and mite feces... ewww!
Yeah, right.
Oh yeah... like it is such a big thing that IEX 7 is for the XP only. What is the big deal? Another product out of Redmond will be buggy at first and soon the updates will be following. So folks will change to Firefox..big deal or.. even switch to Apple with Safari.(the best choice ofcourse) And those still using 98SE/ME/2000? Let them..at least they don't have to worry about those frequent patches/updates..
" Always look on the bright side of life "
True, people have successfully run Microsoft Internet Explorer under Wine, but did they use only the IE installer and the Winelib DLLs, or did they import DLLs from a Windows partition? If you're importing DLLs from a Windows partition, then you haven't truly "separated" IE from Windows, right?
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
...People who are running Windows 98/ME/2000 can always install the Avant Browser and Maxthon "shell" programs that work with IE 5.01 SP2 or later.
I've used Maxthon for quite some time and it has a lot of functionality very similar to Firefox (tabbed windows, RSS support, changeable "skins", etc.), and it is a highly configurable program, too. Small wonder why PC World magazine recommended Maxthon.
Internet Explorer was not derived from NCSA Mosaic. It was derived from Spyglass Mosaic. Spyglass licensed the technology and trademarks from NCSA. But they did not use any of the NCSA Mosaic source code[1]. Microsoft then licensed Spyglass Mosaic from Spyglass.
References:
[1] http://biztech.ericsink.com/Browser_Wars.html
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
First of all, lots of people still use 2000, though mainly companies and tech-friendly-people who don't especially care for XP but still want to use Windows. I would not be surprised if either these companies or tech-friendly-people switched to firefox when it becomes clear that there is a free way to catch up to the positive aspects of XP that are introduced in IE 7. For example, when managers at companies get used to using tabs in IE7 at home and want tabs at work I can almost guarantee you that when they ask the IT department how they can use tabs the word "firefox" will be mentioned.
While I agree that it's not a good plan to use a 5 year old poorly supported operating system, who wants to upgrade to a 4 year old operating system that will be abandoned as soon as M$ wants you to upgrade again (shortly after Longhorn Vista Windows is released)? That's just stupid.
...there is a large base of users who still use Windows 98 because it runs decently and reliably on older hardware, and as long as you aren't trying to use the latest games or whatnot, it works just fine.
Take me,for instance. I run Debian unstable on my primary laptop, with a WinXP partition just for the odd game. My girlfriend runs Windows 98 on her older laptop, along with OpenOffice.org and Firefox and a number of other programs that are more reliable, less flawed, etc, than the Microsoft options.
Obviously by failing to put out a version of IE that will run on her old machine, MS is losing any chance that it might otherwise have to win back one of these lost users who just switched to Firefox because IE6 was so badly broken, and who can't afford the time and/or money to bother switching to a newer system that can properly handle XP (not to mention the cost of an XP upgrade).
Ultimately it's not really important, but it will definitely cost MS when users like my girlfriend realize that they aren't bound to windows/IE, and that Microsoft will say "fuck you" if your equipment is too old or you don't want to shell out $$$ for an OS upgrade.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
Even if I wanted to run the same OS "forever" I wouldn't use Linux or BSD, probably something supported by Sun, IBM or HP. So whatever the argument is, you have no argument. You have yourself a great day, too.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
The old one will still browse, won't it?
Windows XP offers absolutely nothing over Windows 2000. The only people who see a benefit of Windows XP are RAM manufacturers.
If people truly want the Windows XP experience without the hassle of upgrading from Windows 2000, all they have to do is shut their machines down and remove a stick or two of RAM.
This has nothing to do with Windows 2000 being a legacy OS with no useful purpose. This is all about Microsoft knowing that their operating systems have reached a plateau, and this is the only way to force people to upgrade.
Good point, but I think I'm going to go out of my way to help any STANDARDS COMPLIANT browser win the day. So, I'll wait and see when IE7 comes out how it scores on the compliance tests. Then what I'll do is put one of those really annoying hovering layers on all of my websites if the browser != Firefox or a small handful of others like Opera. Will IE7 be on this list? I would let it in if they do their job. I really seriously doubt it'll be more compliant to web standards than Firefox is today.
This reminds of the arguement: "few people will want to use longhorn/vista, so everybody will switch to linux." Why not just stay with XP/2K?
I'll bet you'd like me to play with a red hot poker too. I'll stick with running the latest software on my hardware from 1999, thank you. These things can and are done, after all you can get IE to run under wine on Linux.
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.
Hmmm, could be you are paying for a smooth upgrade path.
The problem, Deviant, is that it's hard to compare M$ shit with free software the way you just did. Mozilla and Konqueror, since about 2000, have both had more and better features than IE7 will have whenever it's "ready". There are more real changes between commercial linux releases than Microsoft could dream about making in ten years. Actually it was easy to compare the two systems, it just looks bad for M$.
You are not paying just for a browser upgrade but an upgrade to all of the latest versions of everyting in the OS and you are paying for the security and bug fix updates for years and years.
Oh, so you do understand the Linux side of things. It's too bad you think M$ actually improves things. That kind of naivete will keep you and your clients on a very crappy platform.
MS is a company
Wow, I thought it was Billy G's little pissing ground.
and they put out a good product in modern windows and office that is worth paying for.
Sure, I see, paying for all of that support up front so you can be dumped later when you could just download a zero cost OS and get better software. That's a no brain decision, really.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
IANAL.
However, it occurs to me that suing Microsoft over the quality of Windows is problematic for a number of reasons. At least today, there is competition in the marketplace, so if Microsoft Windows is not stable enough for you, why not go with something that is?
Secondly, software errors when they occur are often extremely complex, and I would think that it would be extremely difficult to establish who was at fault.
To successfully sue Microsoft over such grounds, one would either have to establish (iirc) that they acted in bad faith (for example put a cryptigraphic back door in their software) or were neglegent. One would also have to have standing, indicating that one had already been injured by such actions. Establishing these three points would be, in my mind, nearly impossible given the complexity of most software environments.
So the fact that these have been untested in court may have quite a bit to do with the difficulty in bringing any lawsuit to court over such claims.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Why does someone who calls himself "Windozesux" give a flying shit where IE7 will run?
Someone needs to hack the Microsoft update server to send out this message:
"Windows Update has noticed you are not using the latest version of Internet Explorer. The following update is available:
http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-1.0.6 &os=win&lang=en-US
Do you want Windows to download and update your web browser?
Yes | No
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
NEW IE 7 with new and improved security holes and re opened some of the old ones too :) have a blast surfing in tabbed windows and having more than just pop-ups come up.
(disclaimer aka read at light speed so no one can hear you):may not work on your current system in fact it may not work at all. we claim no responsibility for the damage it causes to you, your computer or your loved ones. have a nice day :) by the way nice pictures of you and your wife on you honey moon i like the one of her in the black...)
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
The thought of children .....
1) Borne by which of the 2 ?
2) Number of heads per child ?
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
I mean, let's be frank. There are a *horde* of basic bugfixes that are meant to be in IE7; things which will bring it into compliancy and free an awful lot of people using an awful lot of broken implmentations.
This was supposed to be a real gift and boon to the Web - something Microsoft was finally going to do right. They were going to release a version of IE which fixed most of the glaring bugs, fixed PNG transparency, brought forward a lot of basic technology that all of the other standards-based browsers have.
And now? Now they're not releasing it for the majority of platforms that people are using.
They've just taken that goodwill that they were building on, and chucked it out the window, because now they're giving us just another browser, one which will take much longer to "trickle down" into the main browser population. Their gift of the shiny red apple turns out to have a worm in it.
No, this sucks. In every possible way, this sucks. This decision guarantees a future where our work just got harder. I see nothing good in this decision for anyone but Microsoft; it certainly isn't in the users' best interest, nor in the best interest of the web or the quality of the web on IE platforms. Nobody's going to care about new features in IE7 when they're still stuck supporting IE6, and Microsoft deserves the compatibility it will inevitably end up with.
-- A mind is a terrible thing.
Surely IE7 will be on Longhorn too, duh.
If you are using Linux, in theory you can recompile the kernal on a system of your choice.
Now if those users who insist on running Windows 98/ME/2000 on an old system are affected by any loss of functionality by Microsoft not providing an updated version of IE, they will:-
1) Buy a new computer (if they can afford it)
2) Install Firefox
3) Install Linux
4) Buy XP (very unlikely as it may not work)
The software industry may be constantly evolving, but sometimes manipulating the market so that you force your customer to buy new product when his current product previously worked to an acceptable level is another.
On the other hand, if Microsoft sold IE as a product rather than a freebie with Windows, they would be looking to ensure backwards compatibilty back to Windows 95!
But since Maxthon and other similar programs use the IE core for rendering pages (and thus essentially _are_ IE) they are prone to the same security issues that IE is vulnerable to. Using Maxthon on top of IE5 is just as bad as using it vanilla flavored.
Actually, vulnerabilities running Maxthon are less if you have all of the functionality of AD Hunter in the programm running. The way that a lot of spyware/adware get loaded are through online ads and unknown loading of new ActiveX objects; AD Hunter when fully active will block the loading of most of those nefareous programs.
yet another "feature" that didn't make it to the release schedule.....thats just too bad, no?