IE7 Separated from Windows Explorer

An anonymous reader writes "Security experts warned Microsoft 10 years ago that putting IE as a component of Windows Explorer was a bad idea, looks like Microsoft finally decided to listen to the advice. According to a short write up in Business Week, Microsoft has decided that when IE7 comes out with Vista it will no longer be a component of Windows Explorer and will be able to replace IE6 even on XP machines."

Comments

Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[LiquidCoooled]

Surely they mean outwordly replace IE 6 like Firefox etc do, whilst keeping IE 6 tied into the XP system?

I wonder what would happen if you decided to remove IE 7 after installing it. Or will they "upgrade" it like they do with DirectX and Media Player (ie one way upgrades only, essentially no rolling back).

They are talking about Click to activate ActiveX controls as being a security benefit thats been added for the user - I thought it was because of losing the patent dispute?

ps, the guy talking sounds like Farnsworth, its worth listening just for that!

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Krach42]

They are talking about Click to activate ActiveX controls as being a security benefit thats been added for the user - I thought it was because of losing the patent dispute?

Companies do this stupid stuff all the time. It's called "Spin".

Banks were marketting the instant scan of checks to customers as a security feature. "See your checks online right away, to be able to spot fraud easier!" In truth? With the instant scans of the checks, "check float" has been removed, and a big issue that banks had with some illegal behavior that most people thought were ok, is gone.

Heck, sometimes it comes to down right lies. I worked for a certain ISP signing people up for service, and if we were having computer problems, like a crash or something, we were told to tell customers that we were "upgrading" our system to provide "better customer service in the future". Which of course is a lie, because the network just sucked and was slow as crap, and the computer would crash and reboot all the time.

I don't believe any "feature" anymore as of Java, which marketed things like "architecture neutral", when I realized, it wasn't "architecture neutral" it was just designed to be an easily emulated architecture.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[AKAImBatman]

With the instant scans of the checks, "check float" has been removed, and a big issue that banks had with some illegal behavior that most people thought were ok, is gone.

Check floating is not illegal. It's simply an artifact of the way banks work. You're probably thinking of check kiting, which is an illegal scheme that takes advantage of the float periods.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[zodiaccat]

People more persuasive than I could try to argue that writing a check for money that you don't have (even if you will soon) could constitute fraud. Strictly speaking, you're supposed to have the money in the account when you write the check, which is a promise of money.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite know the ins and outs of it, but I have IE7 installed on this computer (XP) and when I enter a URL into Windows Explorer, it loads my default browser (FFX), and when I enter C:\ into IE7, it loads Windows Explorer.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[zodiaccat]

I worked for a certain ISP signing people up for service, and if we were having computer problems, like a crash or something, we were told to tell customers that we were "upgrading" our system to provide "better customer service in the future". Which of course is a lie, because the network just sucked and was slow as crap, and the computer would crash and reboot all the time. Nonsense! "Working" is definitely an upgrade from "not working." But yeah. I'm not sure how they're going to manage to get IE7 to completely replace IE6 on an XP machine without it going into Explorer. Maybe IE6 will just have its named change to "Explorer component 6" or something when you install IE7. So yeah; spin.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[M. Azerty]

Actually, you can try the Beta of IE7: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/ie7betared irect.mspx And yes, you can uninstall it properly afterward.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[AKAImBatman]

People more persuasive than I could try to argue that writing a check for money that you don't have (even if you will soon) could constitute fraud.

Check floating isn't the same thing as expecting delays in check cashing. Check floating is the period between when you cash the check with the teller (thus putting money in your account) and the bank of origin removes the money from the account the check is from. Granted, some people may have relied on the float period as opposed to the pre-cashing period, but it still wasn't illegal.

As for writing checks for money you don't have, that can be a little tricky. Some banks provide protection in your contract against overdrafts. If your account dips below zero for any reason, they'll extend you a temporary loan to cover the difference. Thus in these cases, there is still no criminal activity. This can be important because of the way that today's personal finances work. Thanks to practices such as automatic withdraws or payments sent in advance to account for the delay of postal mail, it can happen that transactions can occur in an odd order. In these cases an overdraft may be unintentional. Even your own balance sheet may say differently.

If your bank isn't nice enough to overlook the issue (which isn't really "overlooking" it if they charge you a fee for the privledge), many businesses will often overlook the inconvenience of one or maybe two bounces before black-listing your checks. Of course, they'll charge you a ~$25 fee for their troubles, so try not to step on their good graces.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[c_forq]

Actually you can still get away with this. If you write a check and put the date as a date when teh cash will be in the account you can do that. You aren't supposed to be able to cash a check until the date, so if someone cashes it early you aren't liable for the charge until the date on the check.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[AKAImBatman]

A quick question if I may. Does IE7 install alongside IE6, or does it automatically take over your system for the period of it's installation?

Having experience with previous Microsoft IE Betas (4.0 w/ the new explorer, and 5.0), I'm not too keen on replacing my stable installation of IE. Without it, I won't be able to properly test web applictions and might as well uninstall IE6.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[ShieldW0lf]

People more persuasive than I could try to argue that writing a check for money that you don't have (even if you will soon) could constitute fraud. Strictly speaking, you're supposed to have the money in the account when you write the check, which is a promise of money.

Considering that one of the services I and many others pay for is overdraft protection, strictly speaking, I'm not obliged to have money in the account when I write a cheque. If you could set up a situation where the overdraft was large, the fees small and the interest high, you might even be able to turn a legal profit at kiting.

Why wouldn't the banks just ensure that interest is stopped the date you wrote the cheque for and retroactively deducted from your account? That seems like the easiest answer.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[multiOSfreak]

People more persuasive than I could try to argue that writing a check for money that you don't have (even if you will soon) could constitute fraud. Strictly speaking, you're supposed to have the money in the account when you write the check, which is a promise of money.

Somebody better tell the government that.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[c.r.o.c.o]

You worked for Rogers, didn't you?

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[jank1887]

of course, if a bill is due on Day 2, and you date a check for Day 3 and hand it to them on Day 1, most businesses should still apply a past due penalty to the account.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[drinkypoo]

Well, you can make multiple IE installs now by unpacking the installation cab files into a directory and putting a file called something like "IEXPLORE.exe.local" (I think that's it) into the directory. Unfortunately, it won't show the proper version in the About box, but if you load a page that renders differently in the two versions you can see that it is in fact using the older renderer. This is what I do to do testing between IE5.5 and IE6 on WinXP now. Maybe this new version will install alongside IE6?

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[plantman-the-womb-st]

Check floating isn't the same thing as expecting delays in check cashing.

Wrong.

In 2004 a law known as "Check 21" was passed and put into action.

Please read up on what check floating is and what the law "Check 21" does.

Under new law, floating checks no longer float
New law sinks 'check floating' practice
Check Floating

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[pkulak]

I've installed IE7 and since removed it. It's a rollback-able update.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[AKAImBatman]

Your "wrong" is wrong. Sorry. Try reading your own (highly sensational links) next time. Check 21 is all about electronic processing of the check. The moment the check is transferred to the bank (either by hand or by electronics), the bank will make the check electronic and communicate with the bank of origin. This reduces the "float" period between when your check arrives at the destination bank and your bank removes the funds from your account. This used to take several days due to the amount of paper generated.

Or to put it another way, just how do you think that your bank knows that you've written a check and put it in the mailbox before the recipient receives it? Electronic paper, maybe? Your own checkbook is transmitting to your bank?

Here are a few less sensational links:

http://www.bcsalliance.com/credit_checkact.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_floating
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 414351

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Forseti]

That'd be hilarious, if it wasn't probably true.
Wonder how many non-Canucks out there are scratching their heads at that one...

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Hollyfeld]

Actually, no. Post-dating a check will have no effect on when it can be cashed, or your liability for payment. The date field on a check has no legal signifigance - a check is a demand draft against an account and is payable on presentation...

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[jZnat]

Maybe they'll have a new version of the explorer file manager to go with IE7?

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[ArsenneLupin]

Or to put it another way, just how do you think that your bank knows that you've written a check and put it in the mailbox before the recipient receives it? Electronic paper, maybe? Your own checkbook is transmitting to your bank?

The date that you yourself write on the check. Theoretically banks could check "after the fact" whether there were enough funds in the account at the day of emission. Of course, you could always post-date the check. But if the goal is to meet a payment deadline, this is counter-productive.

That being said, the links do indeed point out that Check21 is all about making the float period shorter, and nothing about it becoming illegal to take advantage of the remaining small float period.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[AKAImBatman]

Theoretically banks could check "after the fact" whether there were enough funds in the account at the day of emission.

Theoretically, yes. However, that would entail that a huge number of transactions be rerun to compute the proper transaction order. Most banks aren't going to bother. Check 21, OTOH, makes them happy because they don't need to extend the "float" loans for more than a few minutes or hours.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[dadragon]

Dude, it's not even non-Canucks. It's also non-Eastern Canucks. Pretty much everywhere west of Thunder Bay has Shaw as their cable provider. Rogers in my city only exists as a movie rental place and mobile phone provider.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Belial6]

This is why floating a check is illegal. If you write me a check, and I immediatly take it to your bank, and you do not have the money in your account, you have been caught commiting fraud. If you have "Overdraft" protection, you are not really "floating" the check, as you have a guarentee from the bank to cover your checks. Saying that floating is not illegal unless the check actually bounces is like saying murder is not illegal if they don't find the body.

(I realise you didn't say floating was legal. I replied here because your point about a check being a "demand draft" hits the nail on the head.)

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Tumbleweed]

Maybe this new version will install alongside IE6?

You don't have any previous experience with Microsoft, do ya? People have been wanting that ability with every new version of IE that I can remember. Remember - Microsoft isn't in the business to sell you want you want; they're in the business of selling you what they've got.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Bull999999]

Post-dating a check will have no effect on when it can be cashed, or your liability for payment.

I found that out the hard way. Fortunately, the bank refunded the NSF fee when I asked them nicely. Let's just say I'm much better at keeping a reserve fund in my checking account now.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[drinkypoo]

I have a lot more experience with microsoft than I ever wanted. In fact, it began back when it was stil fashionable to call them names like M$, microshaft and such, which is why I still do that occasionally, and as a result get flamed by slashbots.

However, Microsoft is in a unique position now: They are in trouble every way but financially, and they'll be in trouble that way too soon enough if they don't turn things around a bit. Giving us this functionality could be a way to avoid getting hit with more antitrust rulings.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[shmlco]

Nah, they just print more when they need it. They're covered...

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[mightybaldking]

Then why are cheques returned as stale dated when I forget to change the year in January?

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your check was returned because it was over six months old, hence it was "stale dated." For example, after New Year's 2007, you are still a bit tipsy after all the sparkling cider and pay a bill with a check mistakenly dated Jan. 2, 2006.

Most banks will pay the check anyways, but you never know.

Also, FYI, post-dating a check doesn't work any more. The bank is legally obligated to cash it when it is presented to a teller for cashing or presented by another financial institution for payment. Going back to the example: if you write your check for Jan. 2, 2007, the bank will pay the check. If the payee brings the check for cashing, the teller ought to refuse the check for cashing, but if the teller doesn't catch the error, the check will be cashed.

How do I know this? I work for a bank.

(It's cheque, not check, for the non-Americans here.)

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[freeweed]

Post-dating cheques is (from what I understand) either illegal or just not useful in the US - due to exactly what we're talking about here. Your money must be present in the account when you write the cheque (barring overdraft protection, etc).

In Canada, post-dating cheques is very legal, and very common. The provincial insurance companies accept post-dated cheques for payments due in the future, so it's certainly legal at that level.

I ran into this years and years ago when I first computerized the books for a small business - the vendor didn't provide any functionality for tracking post-dated cheques (they were a US vendor, and we were their first Canadian customer). When we called to request this feature, their response was "but post-dating cheques is illegal!". Pretty funny at the time. It took them over a year to get this functionality working right, incidentally.

Oh, and the banks here WILL honour post-dates. If I cash a cheque earlier than the day it is dated for, it usually gets caught. If it goes through by accident, it will be reversed (not as an NSF) and it's up to me to collect the money from the cheque writer.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Elektroschock]

I am currently using IE7 beta 2 which renders very fast. I do not like the new user interface, reminds me of MSN explorer. Scrolling is not very smooth.

If you had any questions regarding IE7 I recommend you to install the beta. It is free, so why not try it.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[LifesABeach]

Personally speaking, I think its a great idea. Now if they would separate that sad excuse for desktop manager, I could then use KDE on Ms.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Jonny_eh]

Thanks! I almost had a heart attack!

I wrote a year's worth of post dated cheques for my rent to my landlord.

I'm glad to be a Canadian!

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[prell]

Actually, it's easy to uninstall the IE7 Beta (the one I used, anyway): All you have to do is go into Add/Remove Programs, click [Show Updates], and scroll down to IE7 and uninstall.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[jci]

One of the funny things I remember when working at a retail establishment was the subset of people that were either shocked or outright refused their check be processed by machine.

The check would be handed to me, where I would type in the amount manually and have the machine scan the lower account numbers and print a receipt on the back. It would ask for ID to be swiped more often than not.

Doesn't this sound pretty much the same as what a live teller does when you make a deposit? The best part is that it had at least as much float as if I were to deposit the check manually the same day.

Maybe they just didn't like that the machine would check if they were on a "deadbeat who bounced checks" list for us :P

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[compwizrd]

my bank will even accept a postdated check for deposit.. they hold onto it, and deposit it on the right date.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Stevyn]

A lawyer once explained this concept to me why post-dated checks aren't worth anything. A check is a promisory note saying "on this date I promise to pay you X dollars". Therefore, a post-dated check is interpretted as "I promise to promise to pay you on this future date to pay you X dollars". So since it's a double promise it doesn't hold up in court I guess. I may have butchered the explaination, but you get the point. I'm sure what happened is someone at one point in time tried to get out of the obligation of a post dated check and so the judge interpretted it this way.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[L0rdJedi]

Except that 9 times out of 10 (in my experience anyway), the person you write a check to doesn't have an account at the same bank. Before, when that happened, it gave you 2 or 3 days to get the funds into the account because of the way banks worked. The only time I had it happen where it took just 1 day for the funds to be withdrawn was when I deposited a check at a different credit union then the one I have an account at. Credit Union to credit union transactions seem to take place faster than bank to credit union transactions.

Of course now, the funds are probably transferred instantly, even though the credit unions and banks will still tell you "there may be a delay of a few days before the funds are deposited" unless it's a rebate or payroll check. So it's really a one way street now. You deposit a third party check, you still have to wait a few days to get your money, even though the bank has it in their vault almost instantly.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[willy_man_33]

Actually, I just tried uninstalling an IE7 install earlier today .. and discovered that there's no (obvious) way of doing so. I thought I might try running an IE6 install, if such a thing exists, to see if that effectively rolls it back. But I'm guessing I'm stuck with IE7 beta foreeever.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can downgrade DirectX, Media Player and uninstall IE (losing MS update service). I've done all of this on a lightweight laptop which specifically entailed downgrading DX to 9.0b for compatibility, downgrading Media Player to 9.0 to reduce bloat and removing IE completely. Patches and such can still be gotten from microsoft.com, but you have to grab them manually, so no biggie.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[AJanuary]

The interface is not the final. It is a functional beta interface.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Que_Ball]

In canada the regulations for image scan processing of cheques is actually taking steps to make post dating cheques more effective. When the regulations go into full effect at the end of this year cheques will require the date fields to be marked with month day year field indicators to remove the ambiguous notations currently used (Section 5.4.1 of new regulations).

Basically they want to allow the banks to use image processing software to automatically recognize the date field on the cheque so that postdated or stale dated (old) cheques cannot be processed. In the past, it was very easy for the clerk to miss this. Even if they check the date on the cheques they may confuse something like January 10 and October 1. (1/10/2006 vs 10/1/2006) In Canada the conventional order of month day year is different depending on what area of the country you are in (French vs English speaking provinces traditionally do it a little bit differently). Believe me, I'm looking at store receipts and gas receipts right now to get my taxes in order and it's hard to figure out what format they use.

Links:
Main page regarding new specs http://www.cdnpay.ca/news/new_cheque_specs.asp
11 Page document explaining their take on the benefits of the new system: http://www.cdnpay.ca/publications/pdfs_publication s/imaging.pdf
The full text of the new regulations: http://www.cdnpay.ca/publications/pdfs_publication s/imaging.pdf

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[Krach42]

That being said, the links do indeed point out that Check21 is all about making the float period shorter, and nothing about it becoming illegal to take advantage of the remaining small float period.

Regardless of all the argument here. Banks don't like check float, and that's the reason for the Check 21 law.

They still TELL everyone that it's for THEIR benefit and security, not that it was in the bank's own self-interest for reducing check float time, which they've always been frustrated by.

At least even in part that someone can use the money before the check actually hit, and then the check bounces, and the bank has to deal with an angry customer coming in and yelling and complaining that the check bounced, and the other bank being upset that they already cleared the check and gave out the money.

Check float, whether legal or illegal has continually been a problem for a great number of people who accidentally bounce checks. Reducing the float time was the goal of these laws, *not* the security of the customer.

Re:Replace IE6 on XP machines?

[x2A]

hehe, in the UK, "check 21" is to do with proof of age... alcohol can only be sold to over 18yo's, but as a 'margin of error', places have started putting into policy that they will ask you to prove you're over 18 if you look younger than 21. They call this "Check 21"

But then the thing you write instructing banks to move money here is spelt "cheque"...

...yeah, useless irelevant information, I happen to be very tired okay! ;-)

One Word...

[Anonymous Coward]

AWESOME!

Welcome news

[From A Far Away Land]

I had heard initially that IE7 wasn't going to be available for Windows 2000, and assumed that meant it wasn't going to be for XP either. If it works on XP, what would stop it from running on 2000 other than a Microsoft desire to cripple it so that people have one more reason they must leave 2000 which still works fine for most tasks [as long as it's well patched]?

Re:Welcome news

[coaxeus]

well patched meaning, what is 2000 on now, service pack 4,293 ?

Re:Welcome news

[Josiwe]

If it works on XP, what would stop it from running on 2000 other than a Microsoft desire to cripple it so that people have one more reason they must leave 2000 which still works fine for most tasks [as long as it's well patched]?

From what my sources tell me, the IE7 code has rambling, poorly constructed comments. 2000 prevents such code from running.

Re:Welcome news

[offput]

Windows 2000 is no longer in the windows labelled "mainstream support" so the less they have to deal with it the better for their support teams. On IEBlog, they also cite specifically why it can work for WinXP and not Win2K. It's because of the security upgrades done to XP in service pack 2 which they claim are not easily back-ported into 2K.

Re:Welcome news

[shaitand]

exactly... they have shaken out the simple bugs.

Re:Welcome news

[baadger]

Service pack 4, and it has about the same number of post-SP4 hotfixes as XP SP2.

Re:Welcome news

[Just Some Guy]

If it works on XP, what would stop it from running on 2000

You mean, like the fact that XP actually ships with newer components than W2K? By your logic, why stop at Windows 2000? If it can be made to run on XP, then why not NT4? NT3.51? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say "beyond this point we do not go". It likes like they picked their cutoff.

Re:Welcome news

[cyber-vandal]

Not easily translating to not profitable. What is the difference between NT 5.0 and 5.1 anyway?

Re:Welcome news

[acidrain]

More to the point, why would anyone upgrade to vista now?!?

Re:Welcome news

[sim82]

Why not NT4? That's a good question given that the win32 api has not fundamentally changed in the last 10 years. So what are those components in XP that w2k has not (and that could be useful in a web browser)?

Re:Welcome news

[tepples]

What is the difference between NT 5.0 and 5.1 anyway?

Twenty months.

Re:Welcome news

[From A Far Away Land]

"More to the point, why would anyone upgrade to vista now?!?"

Because it has a [Spyware or Linux-esq in appearance or feature] detachable sidebar with network/financial/whatever monitor, detachable clock, and transparent window titlebars, as well as no START word on the Start button.

In other words, window dressing. The demonstration I saw of it had Outlook open faster when the system was under heavy load than when it was started from scratch, and it still took many seconds. The presenter didn't know why the start times were mixed up. It's still a RC he said.

There's also a Firefox-esq search bar in the corner of nearly everything where it starts to search and display as soon as you type, and looks within files too. I don't know what cost the indexing for that has on the system performance, but I bet it doesn't work so well under 128MB of RAM ;-)

Re:Welcome news

[kimvette]

Want Windows Vista (sidebar and all) without DRM?

Ingredients:

Windows XP
Desktop Sidebar ( http://www.desktopsidebar.com/ )
Style XP ( http://www.tgtsoft.com/ )

There's your Windows Vista. ;-)

Re:Welcome news

[skiddie]

To be fair, when you're in file manager and it's loading all of your drives, the animated graphic is more interesting in Vista. And the folder icons are see-through.

Re:Welcome news

[kimvette]

Oh, well then, I'm dumping my Linux with KDE installation for Windows Vista. See through folders? SHINY!!! ;)

Re:Welcome news

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true, except that XP is a minor version upgrade from Windows 2000. 2000 = NT 5.0, XP = NT 5.1, 2003 = NT 5.2.

Re:Welcome news

[pstreck]

funny thing about windows 2000 is that many large corporations still dont support windows xp due to application compatibility, performance overhead, unproven security and more.. one company that comes to mind is Progressive, they are still a 100% windows 2000 shop

Re:Welcome news

[Just Some Guy]

This is true, except that XP is a minor version upgrade from Windows 2000.

Sure, and Linux 2.6 is a minor version upgrade from Linux 2.4, which is one step up from 2.2, which is just a little tweak away from 2.0; the point being that version numbers mean nothing.

Re:Welcome news

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, why should they provide completely new software for windows 2000? They are not a charity you know. You can't expect free updates to turn windows 2000 into windows XP but without the blue gui.

Re:Welcome news

[From A Far Away Land]

Not only that, but you SEE the files in the FOLDERS. They generate a tiny preview of each document to flip though the File folder picture. And Alt Tab switching has the whole window come up in a rotating fan mini-preview.

Re:Welcome news

[baadger]

Well as a geek i'm more interested in the under the hood changes than 'Oh applications and eye candy are available for XP so why bother'. Wait 'til November and see.

Re:Welcome news

[x2A]

I won't switch to XP because on the computer, I know what I'm doing. I don't want a speech-bubble type tooltips popping up everytime anything happens, and I don't want to be asked if I'm really-really-really-sure about every slight movement I make with the mouse.

"There are some really evil people out there who just want your money. This website could be one of them. Are you sure you want to download this file from it?" ...... well I clicked the link didn't I?!!

"One of your partitions is low on space" .... I know, it's full of ripped movies, but I have plenty of space on C that's all that matters to you.

2mins later

"One of your partitions is low on space" .... yeah, we've been through this

"Okay, it's still low on space" .... is it getting lower? No, stop bugging me.

2mins later

"Guess what... it's to do with one of your partitions"

OH FFS!!!!!!!!! Where's my Win2k disc gone? Talk about dumbing down the PC user.

Lied to the EU?

[Manip]

Didn't Microsoft engineers claim, in court, to the EU that they couldn't remove Internet Explorer from the Operating System without breaking it?

Interesting seeing as Microsoft are now suddenly able to seperate the two (in reference to Windows XP, not Windows Vista).

Re:Lied to the EU?

[mtenhagen]

That did not apply to windows xp but to windows 95 and me.

Maybe it could be done but this is the reason it will only be done for xp. On the other hand, having seen some of microsofts products it doesnt suprise me that a web browser which executes remote code (activex) is part of the os.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Cro Magnon]

It's only a lie if an IE-less Vista isn't broken.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[FatRatBastard]

Technically they were correct. Think of it as if BMW rerouted the ignition circiut to make sure it passed through the car stereo. Technically, removing the stereo could render the car useless. Its a stupid design decision unless you're trying to monopolize the market in car stereos.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Y-Crate]

"Didn't Microsoft engineers claim, in court, to the EU that they couldn't remove Internet Explorer from the Operating System without breaking it?"

That doesn't mean much when your OS has been broken from day one.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, it's a great design decision.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[qw0ntum]

If you listen to the full podcast (LTFP?), they say that the seperation between the browser and the OS will only come in Vista. In XP versions, IE7 will only add new restrictions to ActiveX controls.

So I guess they were not lying, at least according to BusinessWeek.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[dtfinch]

You can't completely remove IE without breaking things. A lot of third party programs use IE to display html, or use HTML Help (.chm) files. Without IE, Windows would have trouble running many of the programs Wine has trouble with (unless IE is installed).

Re:Lied to the EU?

[SuperRob]

I suspect that for Windows XP, there will be no actual separation. IE6 will still be on the machine and used in Explorer, but IE7 will be the actual browser component.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Shimbo]

Didn't Microsoft engineers claim, in court, to the EU that they couldn't remove Internet Explorer from the Operating System without breaking it?

Nope, that was the US case. The EU case is primarily about bundling Windows Media Player.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[gardyloo]

We're talking about Windows and IE here. Define "broken".

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Schnapple]

It took ten years of work to figure out how...

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

If combining a file manager with a web browser was stupid, then why did the Konqueror folks rip off the idea and do exactly the same thing?

Re:Lied to the EU?

[FatRatBastard]

I'm not arguing that combining the windows browser with the web browser was stupid (I think its actually not a bad idea). I'm it is a stupid design decision to tie it so tightly to the OS (or, as someone else pointed out not stupid at all if you're Microsoft and you're trying to kill Netscape). There is no technical *need* to run the OS's update functionality through the browser, yet Microsoft did it anyway (if I recall correctly that was one of their exhibits on why they couldn't remove IE from Windows without it all breaking).

If you remove Konqueror from KDE does your entire system shitcan itself? I didn't think so.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[diegocgteleline.es]

Technically, they weren't correct at all. Your analogy is far from being true, removing IE wouldn't "render XP useless". You wouldn't be able to use the "active desktop", some view modes in explorer.exe, the html help, part of the media player...

Microsoft managed to convince that if those things stop working, windows is "rendered useless". It's not. The kernel is running, drivers are managing the hardware, the win32 API can be used.....

Of course Microsoft was interested in make judgues think that IE could not be removed. It could, it just neede to redesign some small parts and make windows....more configurable. The fact is that microsoft could have allowed to remove IE in many ways. They just weren't interested in doing it. The fact that Microsoft is allowing to remove it again pretty much proves that it was not so integrated as they said

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Bert64]

They should make the API details public, so that you can replace the mshtml code with an html rendering engine of your choice, such as gecko or khtml

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you remove Konqueror from KDE does your entire system shitcan itself? I didn't think so.

If you remove all parts of Konqueror from KDE, will all KDE applications be unaffected? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm really wondering.

Because this was the case with MS/IE/DOJ, of course the OS doesn't "shitcan" itself if you remove html controls, but some applications relying on them being there would have problems. Which does mean that it "breaks" the platform, as long as that was expected part of the platform.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[whitehatlurker]

A lot of third party programs use IE to display html

Yes, they do, and it's complete and utter BS. These third party programmers are too [censored] lazy to use the browser that I have set up as default. MS IE is buried behind a firewall and filtering software so it doesn't run, and I have to manually copy the URL to the good browser from the horrible one. Not a big problem, I guess, but still, I paid for the third party s/w (well, unless it was free), it's running on my machine, it should respect my wishes and defaults.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Phillup]

If you remove all parts of Konqueror from KDE, will all KDE applications be unaffected?

What if it did?

KDE isn't the OS, and... all of your non-KDE apps... (including GNOME) would still function as they always have.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[drinkypoo]

There is no option to set the default embedded browser. I did once see a patcher that would cause programs which use embedded IE to use embedded Mozilla, dunno if that still works or not, but it required patching the executable which is a support nightmare.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[CTho9305]

They should make the API details public, so that you can replace the mshtml code with an html rendering engine of your choice, such as gecko or khtml

It is, and you can (with Gecko, at least).

Re:Lied to the EU?

[FatRatBastard]

Because this was the case with MS/IE/DOJ, of course the OS doesn't "shitcan" itself if you remove html controls, but some applications relying on them being there would have problems. Which does mean that it "breaks" the platform, as long as that was expected part of the platform.

Which goes back to my point about the car radio. BMW makes the car radio part of the ignition circuit and therefor "vital" to the usage of the car. Sure, you replace the radio with an aftermarket Sony, but you'll lose some of the functionality of the car... like the ability for it to start.

There is little technical reason why things such as the OS update code should rely on HTML rendering code, actually only MS's version of HTML rendering code (much like there would be little technical reason for BMW to run the ignition circuitry through the stereo). On the other hand, there was a huge business reason to do so: hurt Netscape.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[deviantphil]

Didn't Microsoft engineers claim, in court, to the EU that they couldn't remove Internet Explorer from the Operating System without breaking it?

Interesting seeing as Microsoft are now suddenly able to seperate the two (in reference to Windows XP, not Windows Vista).

What's more, IIRC, Bill Gates himself testified in a US Antitrust case that doing such a task would not be possible. I'll be waiting for Bill Gates to be arraigned on perjury charges....but I won't hold my breath.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[QuestorTapes]

> If combining a file manager with a web browser was stupid, then why
> did the Konqueror folks rip off the idea and do exactly the same thing?

If it were merely that IE was the file system browser, it wouldn't be the problem it is. IE is a critical component of the help rendering engine, and the source of a lot of the APIs underneath that -any- file system browser in Windows is normally going to depend on.

In addition, critical DLLs (COMCTL32, and SHLWAPI for two) have been updated, APIs added, and code and behavior modified for the entire operating system, at the direction of the IE development team, for new versions of IE.

IE updates broke a -lot- of applications by changing the way that common windows controls display and behave, adding and modifying new shell APIs, and changing all sorts of things that aren't relating to web or file system browsing.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no technical *need* to run the OS's update functionality through the browser, yet Microsoft did it anyway"

I'm sure during the dot.com heyday they were on the "everything will be tied to the internet!" bandwagon. So they wanted the OS to be closely connected to the big happy internet family, for no good reason except it was the thing to do. Unfortunately the family now includes Uncle Spyware and Aunt Virus.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Forseti]

That statement can't possibly have applied to 95. IE wasn't fully integrated into the OS until IE4, which wasn't out when win95 OSR2 shipped. If you'll remember, upgrading IE to version 4 on win95 completely changed it's behaviour. This might have been about 98, ME and 2000, maybe.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about Windows and IE here. Define "broken".

You just did.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[edward.virtually@pob]

Yes. They claimed that in court in the DOJ case too. Just proves they were lying, as everyone with a clue knew at the time anyway.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[jZnat]

The two are separated into different kparts. It's a lot of programming jargon, but the fact that you can use something like KHTML in another program (e.g. Safari) without including the file manager and all other integrateable components shows that. Konqueror sort of provides an interface that can be used to combine more functionality than just KHTML. If XULRunner (Firefox's future) can be used as an integrateable component of Konqueror, you'll see what I mean in much better detail.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[jZnat]

If Bill Gates is like any other programmer, he probably said that removing it would be non-trivial. That, of course, normally means if not impossible then very hard/tedious/costy to do.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

...because the KDE developers can't do anything but slavishly copy Windows, even when the ideas are stupid.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

That's partly true, IE 4 included a shell update to 95 and NT 4.
HOWEVER, if memory serves you could choose not to install the updated shell and continue to use ye olde 95/NT4 shell.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Firehed]

Hardly. Vista is new code. I'm sure their argument was, in effect, "we'd have to recode the entire OS from scratch in order to not bundle it." While it's probably not quite from scratch, Vista will be more than just a graphical overhaul (well, it was, now that WinFS is gone, I'd wonder about that). Now exactly how people are supposed to download a browser without having a browser installed is somewhat beyond me, but I guess it's safe for me to assume that it rains Firefox installation discs in Europe, as I certainly doubt that MS would include the installer (or even be legally allowed to) and having IE preinstalled is what got them into hot water in the first place. I hate IE as much as the next geek, but assuming that everyone in the continent has a spare computer to which they can download a browser installer and then put it on some sort of physical medium (read: burn it to a CD) may not be a great idea.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[aardwolf64]

Did you read the article? Internet Explorer will most definitely not be removed from the Operating System. IE6 will still play the same roll it always has with the file system. Adding a new version of a browser that will run concurrently (IE6 with IE7) has nothing to do with removing IE from the OS... They're just not adding IE7 to the OS for file management.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[jonwil]

The problem with replacing IE is if the webpages the apps want to display use IE-only crap somehow.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[tshak]

These third party programmers are too [censored] lazy to use the browser that I have set up as default.

The problem is not with developers who want to launch a webpage from their application - most applications properly do this so that your browser of choice is used. The problem is when you want to embed certain functionality such as what's found in MSHTML. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this from a technical standpoint. The problem comes when the browser application (IE) is required even though only core components are needed. In Vista we will still get MSHTML, but we won't need the actual browser.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[zenhkim]

Yes, Microsoft insisted that IE could not be removed from Windows (98) without breaking the whole damn thing. Of course, this not only fails the laugh test among programmers, it also has been proven to be complete B.S. by Shane Brooks:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/09/removeie .idg/

Basically, all he did was replace a few key files in Windows 98 for the previous versions in Windows 95 (which did not have the same idiotic Windows-and-Internet-in-one Explorer design). Lo and behold, Windows 98 suddenly ran faster, worked (more) reliably, and did not screw up the installation of Netscape! What a coincidence!!

Hell, during the install process Windows 95 gave you the option of leaving IE *completely out of the picture* -- so why should it be any different now? Can you say "broken as designed"?

When I was a kid, I felt proud of the fact that I wrote my own computer programs. Learning to program didn't just teach me skills, it taught me values: Keep It Simple, Stupid! ...Garbage In, Garbage Out... Never Say "That Can't Happen!" ...Design Defensively -- The Butt You Save May Be Your Own... Form Must Follow Function... There Is Always Another Approach... Do More with Less... Always Have A Backup System... If The Program Crashes, IT'S NOT FINISHED. It's lying incompetents like the ones at Microsoft that make me ashamed I ever studied programming.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[spectre_240sx]

MS doesn't have to include a browser in the OS. You have OEMs that can do that.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Goalie_Ca]

Huge difference between a library and a web browser. In a normal operating system (read: every other one out there) the libraries (renderer) and the application (web browser) are entirely seperate entities.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[wanorris]

Exactly -- if you need to embed a browser in your application, you can't just embed "default browser."

And there may be design constraints compelling IE over an alternate component -- we embedded the MSHTML component in our application because the primary use is to access MS Reporting Services which renders horribly in other browsers (but that's a different topic I won't go into further).

Re:Lied to the EU?

[mrbcs]

I had a windows 95C disk once.. don't know what happened to it but it was pretty slick. It was basically the exact same as win98 first edition. As stated in the post above, you could remove ie and make win95 look and act like win95 again.

You could completely remove ie from that os. I was surprised that the DOJ didn't get their hands on one of those copies.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[BlueStraggler]

Now exactly how people are supposed to download a browser without having a browser installed is somewhat beyond me

It's pretty amazing that this whole world wide web thing got off the ground in the first place, isn't it?

Re:Lied to the EU?

[BlueStraggler]

The two are separated into different kparts.

The main reason why I steer clear of KDE is I'm afraid that I, too, will start talking like this.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Firehed]

Well that's great for everyone who buys a Dell; it could present a bit of a problem for those who either purchase the OS retail or as an OEM copy with parts (granted most DIY'ers are going to have an installer of sorts available, but let's not forget about the poor geeks). Having said that, they'll probably still have an IE7 installer on the disc, even if it doesn't actually automatically install.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[pizpot]

Are any of you guys computer programmers? Saying IE is tied to Windows is just BS.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[rabiddeity]

No no no, it's so that when thieves break into your car and steal your stereo, they can't go and steal your car too! See the logic? Of course we haven't yet figured out what to do if they steal the car and THEN remove the stereo in a chop shop. Give us a few more months and we'll have it worked out.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[drsmithy]

The two are separated into different kparts. It's a lot of programming jargon, but the fact that you can use something like KHTML in another program (e.g. Safari) without including the file manager and all other integrateable components shows that. Konqueror sort of provides an interface that can be used to combine more functionality than just KHTML.

This is exactly the same relationship Explorer and IE have.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[fireman sam]

And the relationship between IE and the Windows OS would be like the Linux Kernel using the konqueror kparts component to do system logging.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[penguin_asylum]

Not to be a troll or anything, but saying that something 'executes remote code' sounds alot worse than it actually is. You could say the same thing of javascript.

That said, ActiveX can do some dangerous things...

Re:Lied to the EU?

[whitehatlurker]

Well, let's use one of my pet beefs then. Adobe Acrobat reader. When a link is clicked on, it spawns a new instance of a browser to open the URL, not embedded within the document reader itself. I don't see anything special about the use of this browser by the launching program.

Is it not reasonable for it to take a peek into the registry and find out what handler is set for the http protocol, and use that?

While I am willing to accept that embedded web access may be greatly simplified (e.g. opening a webpage in OpenOffice) by using the standard API and thereby MSIE, I don't see this applying in most of the situations.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[drsmithy]

And the relationship between IE and the Windows OS would be like the Linux Kernel using the konqueror kparts component to do system logging.

False. IE is completely userspace.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is in Windows too. There's the rendering engine, which is a DLL and is used by many, many other applications for a lot of things. Just some examples: Visual Studio uses it to display build results in rich text (color highlights, links to the code that had an error, etc.), AOL Instant Messenger uses it to download and display ads in the buddy-list window, Windows Help uses it to display the help files (which are compiled HTML), most media players uses it to display their embedded media guides. The browser portion is a small application that simply provides the GUI for what you see as "Internet Explorer", provide bookmarks, history and such features. I'm sure you could remove that part without too much trouble.

This is exactly how it is on other platforms too. KHTML / Konqueror in KDE, WebKit / Safari in OS X.

The only reason you're bitching is because it's Microsoft.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[jZnat]

But I am a programmer, so I will inevitably start using jargon in any conversation regarding it. I don't think it's a side effect of using KDE; maybe Debian or Gentoo, but not KDE. ;)

Re:Lied to the EU?

[TheGratefulNet]

Sure, you replace the radio with an aftermarket Sony, but you'll lose some of the functionality of the car... like the ability for it to start.

that was actually the fault of the sony. someone r00ted it.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[rtb61]

You seem to have forgoten microsofts big hype on "push marketing" i.e. marketing they jam onto your PC whether you want it or not, driven by IE being bound to windows explorer. Of course you were meant to be paying licence fees to microsoft to make use of the push marketing tools but the spy ware etc. companies just worked around it.

So a whole lot of companies ended up freeloading on microsoft's trojan marketing tool suit, a bad decision by microsoft driven by the greed and poor judgement of it's management. Spyware is the unltimate definition of "push marketin", of course microsoft have now redfined the definition of push marketing to try and hide their orginal intent.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[baadger]

'KDE isn't the OS' ...and 'Linux is just a kernel not the OS' (I hear this one all the time) so what exactly is is the OS? Eh? Answer me that.

The Linux situation is not so different from the Windows kernel and Explorer shell relationship, Window's components just has a much closer development process.

Stop making out that Windows is all integrated, mixed and muddled and therefore less secure because Mr. Virus can seep across borders. It just isn't like that.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[master_p]

Why does the HTML rendering engine Microsoft provides is considered part of IE? it should not. HTML is used for many things today, and it is not only about web pages from the internet.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

People like to dump on AOL but they and other early ISP surely had a hand in getting the public Internet off the proverbial ground.

Re:Lied to the EU?

[HalAtWork]

Um, how could it apply to Windows 95 when IE wasn't integrated into Windows 95? You had to upgrade to Windows 95 OSR2 or Windows 98 to get IE built in. Remember the Quicklaunch bar? That wasn't in Windows 95, it was added when you updated to IE 4.0 which integrated into Explorer. Before that you could never enter an URL in "My Computer."

Re:Lied to the EU?

[cyber-vandal]

Not quite rains CDs but PC mags have been giving FF away on coverdisks for quite some time. Also I know that your country is very backward but in my country we have things called IT fairs where you can get hold of stuff like FF on a CD. A true geek would get it via FTP in any case.

Re:OMG!

[__aaclcg7560]

Uh, no. The Mac people were right! :P

Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

wow

Sad

[Eightyford]

Another divorce. Why can't Americans just stay together for the kids?

Re:Sad

[springbox]

Because staying together would actually be worse for the kids. Since the relationship between the parents is already bad, this would create a hostile environment in the home. It's funny how this also applies to Internet Explorer. It would actually be better for the user if IE "divorced" the rest of the operating system.

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, IE was just shacking up with windows explorer. Though they went through great pains to make it look like a legitimate marriage to the in-laws (justice dept).

Re:Sad

[eclectro]

Why can't Americans just stay together for the kids?

Because this marriage produces a kid every other day that has three eyes or extra limbs??

On XP

[Moby Cock]

This is great news! However, will IE7 on a Win XP box simply be an add-on (a la Firefox) while maintaining the status quo for Windows Explorer and IE being linked?

Re:On XP

[gunnk]

Yeah, I think this is exactly the case.

That said, if installing IE7 also keeps Windows Explorer from accessing the web, it is still a big step for security on XP.

Re:On XP

[pizpot]

I'll say. Two days ago, I wanted ran IE6 from XPSP2 for the first time in a while instead of Firfox1.5, and wham, I get this big attack. Suddenly my background is a message saying click here. I was able to do a rollback and AVG and Spybot fixed everything but now my wife knows why we do everything possible from Ubuntu.

Okay, but...

[babbling]

Will Windows Explorer still be able to function as a web browser once IE7 has been installed separately on XP?

I imagine a lot of users are quite used to typing webaddress.com into Windows Explorer, now. I suppose that should respond by launching the user's default browser with the command line argument webaddress.com, but is that what it will do, or will WinExplore still function as a browser?

Re:Okay, but...

[Moby Cock]

I fear that IE6 will still be 'under-the-hood' and that IE7 will be unto itself on an XP box. As for a Vista box, perhaps they are banking on people developing new habits for a new platform (unless it does spawn a new browser, but that would confuse some people).

Re:Okay, but...

[wrfelts]

Will Windows Explorer still be able to function as a web browser once IE7 has been installed separately on XP?

it's a VERY simple programming trick.

if (web-type url typed into location bar) {
CallRegisteredBrowserEngine(typedURL,windowSize,Wi ndowPosition);
}

As long as the registered default browser has the same interface calls published in the registry, it should work fine, and would allow for alternative browsers to cleanly interact with the OS.

On the other hand, this is Microsoft we're talking about. It will probably be more like:

if (web-type url typed into location bar) {
CallMostCurrentMSBrowserEngine(typedURL,windowSize ,WindowPosition);
}

Re:Okay, but...

[PFI_Optix]

I would expect MS to simply change the behavior of Windows Explorer to launch IE (or whatever other browser you set as default) when you type a web address in a WE bar. It wouldn't be that difficult.

Re:Okay, but...

[digitaldc]

No, I think you will get this popup error message:
"Windows cannot find '(null)'. Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again. To search for a file, click the Start button, and then click Search.

[ OK ]

Re:Okay, but...

[freakmn]

I think that a bigger question is the reverse. If typing c: into an IE window does not bring up the c: drive, then it breaks compatibility. This usually isn't too big a deal, but I did have one time that some spyware caused explorer to crash every time that it tried to register itself as the shell. Before reinstalling windows on his PC (Company policy) he wanted to get his data off the computer. The easiest way to do that was to run iexplore, and then put in c: to get to the c: drive, and start another for the network drive. Without that information, his data could not be easily retrieved. I know that I could have also run cmd, but he wanted to do it in a familiar interface.

On the other hand, if it simply opens up explorer, then what is the point of seperating the two? The security risks would still be there, so it would be pointless to seperate them.

Finally, what about the "in-between" areas. For instance, a network drive. It could be thought of as a network share, and therefore brought up in internet explorer. A mapped drive would almost certainly be in Windows Explorer. Would the network share be in IE until you mapped it, where it would then be in explorer? Or would it all be under Explorer? What about if it is referenced by ip address, like \\127.0.0.1\c$? Though it is quite possible to seperate the two technologically, the mental link in the user's mind is still there. I think this could be messy.

Re:Okay, but...

[TheDormouse]

Currently, if Firefox is your default browser, you type a URL into the Explorer bar and it opens in Firefox. I assume the same behavior will work for IE7.

Re:Okay, but...

[doofusclam]

>>it's a VERY simple programming trick.

No it isn't. Most of the problem is that ActiveX and other MS native components on a webpage aren't supported in other browsers, and for good reason.

Windows Update for example always calls IE and uses ActiveX. Changing the default browser is going to break WU.

Re:Okay, but...

[insane_machine]

Gee it doesn't do that on my computer. Typing google.com in the my computer window still brings it up in internet explorer. FireFox is my default browser, I checked too.

Re:Okay, but...

[Kaetemi]

Umm.. you can get IE7 for a while from here already:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/ie7betared irect.mspx

And when I type a HTTP url in Windows Explorer here, it opens FireFox now :D

Re:Okay, but...

[babbling]

You don't know that for sure. If they were rewriting Windows Explorer from scratch, fine, but they're going to be modifying it or leaving it as it is.

It's not simple because you need to ask: how well can Windows Explorer function when you take Internet Explorer out of it? The dependence isn't necessarily one-way. It sounds like the two are thoroughly one program, at the moment.

Re:Okay, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It opens Opera, my default browser, if I type an adress in the "run/adress" field i have in my taskbar. If i type an adress in an Explorer windows adress field it surfs in that window.

Re:Okay, but...

[insane_machine]

Oops, my bad. I thought people were talking about explorer windows only, and it does make sense it affects the run command as well, which does indeed open it in FireFox.

Re:Okay, but...

[MooUK]

I'd assume that they've thought of that and will have unlinked windows update from IE.

Re:Okay, but...

[kimvette]

Worst case, you might have to specify the filesystem by typing a string along the lines of file:///c:/ (or is it file:///c/ ?)

Re:Okay, but...

[InvisiBill]

\\127.0.0.1\c$ is a network shared resource. It has nothing to do with the internet or a web browser. If you want to access it in a web browser, the proper way is file://///127.0.0.1/c$ (two slashes for the protocol, two more to indicate a network resource, and one more to indicate the root filesystem there - file:// + // + /).

Re:Okay, but...

[xWeston]

Confirmed on my machine as well. I have IE7 as well as Firefox and it opens Firefox when I type a web address into Windows Explorer

Re:Okay, but...

[jrumney]

the proper way is file://///127.0.0.1/c$ (two slashes for the protocol, two more to indicate a network resource, and one more to indicate the root filesystem there - file:// + // + /)

A webserver is also a network resource, did you type http:////slashdot.org to get here? And what are you doing indicating the root filesystem before you've indicated what server the network resource is on?

Try file://127.0.0.1/c$

Re:Okay, but...

[japhmi]

No, no, no. This is M$

if (web-type url typed into location bar) {
if(DefaultWebBrowser = IE){
CallMostCurrentMSBrowserEngine(typedURL,windowSize ,WindowPosition);
}
else
{
wait 600;
CallRandomNextProgramCrasher;
CallRegisteredBrowserEngine(typedURL,windowSize,Wi ndowPosition);
}
}

Finally!

[noamsml]

Next thing you'll know, maybe they'll realize that running executables out of the browser is a bad idea, and that an arbitrary execution flaw on CD insertion is NOT a feature.

Re:Finally!

[Crussy]

You're referring to Autoplay as a flaw?

Do you think that anyone back during the conception of that feature thought that a decade down the road companies were going to distribute executables on music cds that install rootkits a la DRM? Outside of that whole fiasco there's no possibly reason why autoplay is not a feature. Nearly everyone knows that programs launch when they insert their cds and most the time this feature saves them the time of loading it. Anyone who really needs to do anything besides run whatever the default program is should know to hold down shift anyway. It's not like the cd-rom is a vulnerable part of the computer where unapproved information is readily inserted, it's a piece of hardware a foot away from my leg - I know if anything malicious is going to be placed in there.

Re:Finally!

[BlackWyng]

Not necessarily true. Until you insert the CD and run the default program (if you're not educated in the ways of the shift key), you don't know what was put on that cd. Malicious code inserted right under your nose!

Re:Finally!

[croddy]

You're referring to Autoplay as a flaw?

Do you think that anyone back during the conception of that feature thought that a decade down the road companies were going to distribute executables on music cds that install rootkits a la DRM? Outside of that whole fiasco there's no possibly reason why autoplay is not a feature. Nearly everyone knows that programs launch when they insert their cds and most the time this feature saves them the time of loading it. Anyone who really needs to do anything besides run whatever the default program is should know to hold down shift anyway. It's not like the cd-rom is a vulnerable part of the computer where unapproved information is readily inserted, it's a piece of hardware a foot away from my leg - I know if anything malicious is going to be placed in there.

yes. autoplay is a security flaw. merely inserting a removable disc should not allow the execution of arbitrary code. at best, it's an incredible annoyance to have some program window pop up and start eating memory and CPU just because you wanted to read some files on a disc. at worst, it is an attack vector for malware (e.g., sony).

the claim that you "know" if anything malicious is going to be inserted in there is kind of strange, considering you have acknowledged that audio CD's (which we would all expect to be free of files and certainly free of executables) were used as an attack vector exploiting this very flaw.

the existence of workarounds (such as holding shift or disabling the flawed subsystem) is helpful, but it does not change the fact that arbitrary code execution on disc insertion is an attack vector which offers very little value in return.

Re:Finally!

[hackstraw]

You're referring to Autoplay as a flaw?

No, we are talking about AutoRun. And it is a design flaw. Every and any program that automatically runs arbitrary code or programs without user involvement is flawed. The past decade+ of exploits should be enough evidence for even a novice programmer by now.

Do you think that anyone back during the conception of that feature thought that a decade down the road companies were going to distribute executables on music cds that install rootkits a la DRM?

Nah, but lets implement the feature just in case.

I worked with a "senior" programmer who was so smart that he reinvented the CGI gateway specification using his own delimitators and syntax and other clever stuff. I was amazed at his insight and lack of knowledge of web applications (this was about 1999). I was even more impressed when he did pseudocode like:

/mypath/url/data1=foo^data2=baz

where ^ was the newly invented symbol to replace the standard &

OK, here is where it gets better:

select * from $data1
where something = '$data2'

with _no_ check on $data1 or $data2

Now, if some moron like me that has never had a CS class, and was an entry level programmer (my first and second to last development job) could figure this out, why couldn't this "senior" programmer or a software company like, say, Microsoft?

Re:Finally!

[kimvette]

Autoplay is not a flaw. Heck, even some Linux distributions support a similar mechanism (autorun.sh)

There is a key difference though: the Linux distros which support this prompt the user before actually executing the script.

I'd say the feature should stay, but the user should be prompted first, e.g.,

"The CD you inserted is requesting permission to run d:\foo.exe. Do you wish to continue?"

[Yes, Run the program] [Do not run the program]

[ ] Do not prompt me again (go to start -> Settings -> control panel -> AutoPlay to reenable this prompt)

Re:Finally!

[pizpot]

Autoplay is a big flaw. Here is why: I run a game from the icon. It runs, but says put the CD in please because we want to make sure you own it. Then the Game is running all choppy because it is going twice. Blame the game all you want, but it happens all the time. If Windows had a top or ps command then the game programmers would be to blame. But there is no command, just an IDE hack to a windows.dll that may even be illegal to call.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you REALLY think that there is no way to get a list of running processes in windows?

Re:Finally!

[drsmithy]

If Windows had a top or ps command then the game programmers would be to blame.

Yes ! That would be great ! They could call them something like Task Manager and tasklist...

Re:Finally!

[pizpot]

If Windows had a top or ps command then the game programmers would be to blame. Yes ! That would be great ! They could call them something like Task Manager and tasklist.. Ok, how is that accessed programmatically? Does MS say you are allowed? Or does your program belong to them if you do?

Re:Finally!

[pizpot]

If Windows had a top or ps command then the game programmers would be to blame.

Yes ! That would be great ! They could call them something like Task Manager and tasklist..

Ok, how is that accessed programmatically? Does MS say you are allowed? Or does your program belong to them if you do?

(Can someone make a WYSIWYG for /.?)

Re:Finally!

[Viol8]

To paraphrase a well know film line:

They were so taken up by what could be done that they didn't
stop to think if it should be done.

Also there seems to be a culture at MS (from an outside coders
point of view) of We Can Do No Wrong and any idea no matter
how crap will be praised if it seems bleeding edge and cool
(which autorun probably did 15 years ago).

Re:Finally!

[ThePeeWeeMan]

Let's see, there's the ToolHelp32 API and PSAPI, at the very least, not counting WMI... It seems like a real stretch to conclude that documented Windows API calls (that aren't illegal to call nor a hack) are somehow a bad thing.

Why not just buy a mac-mini?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you could run Safari and forget about IE7.

Re:Why not just buy a mac-mini?

[PFI_Optix]

Cheapest Mini I see is $600 without a monitor.

You can buy/build a much more powerful PC for $600, install a Linux distro of your choice, and run Firefox.

for that matter, why not just install Firefox?

Re:Why not just buy a mac-mini?

[Nevenmrgan]

Well, not that you were really asking, but because it'll be loaded with awesome software out of the box, require little or no setup, and do pretty much everything most people need a computer to do. Plus, you'll get some absolutely unparalleled OS features. Oh and yeah, it really does look nicer.

Re:Why not just buy a mac-mini?

[PFI_Optix]

loaded with awesome software out of the box,

Yeah, that's what Dell said, too. (I kid...but seriously, not everyone likes an OEM's choice in software)

require little or no setup ...for use as a standalone system. My experience with trying to put OSX on my network has yielded somewhat different results.

and do pretty much everything most people need a computer to do.

Heh...define "need". I "need" it to run the games I play on weekends. Oh...

Plus, you'll get some absolutely unparalleled OS features.

Don't guess I've ever seen those. I certainly have found a particular benefit of any given OS outside the obvious: Windows has the largest commercial software library and the easiest administration; OSX has the shiniest UI, better stability through better QA, and security through obscurity; *nix has the best stability, highest level of control, and a massive open source movement.

(obviously many of these points are arguable, my point is no OS really outshines the competition on all points...if it did, it would be the only one on the market)

Oh and yeah, it really does look nicer.

No argument there. Though I'm not a fan of the Mini's form factor...I think I like the new iMacs better.

Re:Why not just buy a mac-mini?

[Stormwatch]

I'd choose Camino over Safari. The interface is a bit worse, but it's more stable.

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, for once slashdot has a more insightful writeup than the actual article.
I actually feel stupider for reading the same article twice (once on slashdot, once on businessweek)

- A

WOW!

[wrfelts]

Is Microsoft actually going to add some stability to Windows? The whole ie==explorer thing has been a security and stability plague since it was introduced.

Re:Wow!

[rajafarian]

Maybe next year we'll see Internet Explorer CDs at Best Buy for $39.99

ha ha ha

That explains it..

[creepynut]

Perhaps this would explain why when I type a URL in Windows Explorer it launches my default browser (Firefox) rather than opening the page in IE in the same window...

Re:That explains it..

[frankm_slashdot]

HAHAHA.. NO. that doesnt explain it. but i can. because that same thing FUCKED ME hard when i tried uninstalling firefox from my work machine....

in any event, firefox sets itself as the default browser in a very unfriendly way... hah. if you dont believe me you can even play along at home. try uninstalling firefox - IE wont work right anymore. ok, now that youve tried that reinstall firefox.... i think it stems from using the old deer park alphas and then upgrading to firefox 1 without uninstalling first.. my mistake...

but whats odd though is this - nothing i could do in IE would reset IE to be default browswer.. even trying to do the file reassociations by hand failed for me. in the end, the only thing that restored IE for me was through installing the IE7 beta. funny but im kinda getting used to ie7... its not as bad as i figured it would be.

Re:That explains it..

[JebusIsLord]

I'm running the IE7 beta, and yeah... if you type in a URL in Windows Explorer, it now launches a separate IE7 window (instead of just opening the URL inline).

I actually prefer the old behaviour, but whatever.

Re:That explains it..

[Crizp]

Weird, doesn't do it for me. I get the page in the explorer window. Perhaps you've enabled the "launch each folder window as a separate process" thingy?

Re:That explains it..

[Nef]

Check Program Access and Defaults(under Add/Remove software I believe) in Win2k/XP and you'll easily be able to set IE back to being your default. AFAIK, Firefox does EXACTLY what MS recommends as best practice for setting itself as your default browser. FYI, file associations have NOTHING to do with Program Access and Defaults.

In addition, I just verified in IE 5.5 and 6.0 that there's a checkbox under 'Tools\Internet Options\Programs' that will tell IE to check at startup whether or not it's the default and prompt you for the appropriate actions.

HTH

Re:That explains it..

[Foofoobar]

Now try opening a URL from a WORD or EXCEL doc. Or try any launcher program developed by a lazy programmer who doesn't want to check for other browsers(ie. City of Heroes). Gee, it's amazing how easy it is to blow a hole in your theory.

Re:That explains it..

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to stop Firefox being my default browser, and I managed to do it...almost. In a strange twist of irony, MSN Messenger is now the only application that will launch Firefox when I click a link or something!

Re:That explains it..

[creepynut]

Oops, that was it. :)

My bad, Thanks.

Re:That explains it..

[assassinator42]

What happens when you type c:\ or something in IE? Same thing? Or can you have it in another tab?

Re:That explains it..

[mingot]

Spawns a shell window now instead of showing it in the browser. IE7 Beta 2 Previw with XPSP2 at least.

Re:That explains it..

[frankm_slashdot]

ok im a little pissed but this is slashdot and i have karma to burn...

1) old versions of firefox did NOT unset itself correctly after an uninstall... new versions may but only if you didnt upgrade and they are the first installs.
2) that little checkbox you talk about - which is there - does NOT properly set/unset the file associations. i'll repeat this for you.. DOES NOT unset the firefox file associations. in fact, when you click it and hit "ok" it IE doesnt even ask you on next startup if its default or not because that doesnt check things like .htm and .html file associations... or urls etc...
3) why the fuck did my original comment get modded troll? was it because i said something that most people dont like? yeah - fuck them.
4) i love firefox, this wasnt a bash or a troll against it. i was offering my opinion based on my experiences with a similar problem. but thats what i get for telling someone to try the IE 7 upgrade on fucking slashdot.

GAH, fucking slashdot... getting me worked up at 8am. i need a life.

Re:That explains it..

[Nef]

No need to be pissed man, you shouldn't have been modded troll, but you're right, fanbois love that kinda slam. Was just trying to help you and any others that may have encountered similar problems.

1.)You're right, build's prior to .7 or 1.0 Alphas, didn't handle this as gracefully as they should have. But every thing I've used since 1.0 final has worked just fine, including restoring file associations.
2.)Again, see my original comment, default browser has NOTHING to do with file associations. In a perfect world, they'd be inextricably tied, same with any type of file association/default program pair, unfortunately thay are not. And yes, I've been bitten by that bug too, was just telling you that one has nothing to do with the other as far as windows is concerned. As far as IE not asking you to set itself as default, sounds like you have another issue. I tried it on both my work and home machines, and it worked fine. As well as then starting up FF and having it reset itself as default. Not sure what the issue is there, but it sounds IE related, not FF.
3.)Agreed. Don't listen to the asshats man.

HTH

Re:That explains it..

[frankm_slashdot]

thanks bro, i wasnt really pissed at your reply more at the fanboys killin my karma. i'll have to check out some of the newer builds. the last time i used a fresh install of firefox was the .5 alpha or something like that, i've always just directly upgraded from there since i never encountered any problems... ah well.
TFTH.

Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Kelson]

I'm sure I'm about to burn karma with this... but in KDE, Konqueror acts as both web browser and file manager. At least it's entirely userspace, but does anyone know how closely the file managing and web browsing aspects of Konqueror are tied?

IE7 is on the Rebound

[digitaldc]

Did you hear IE7 Separated from Windows Explorer?

Yes, I also heard she is now dating some new guy Winslow Vista.

Re:IE7 is on the Rebound

[EraserMouseMan]

Yea, it figures. The chicks always go for the handsome guys that claim to offer more stability.

Re:IE7 is on the Rebound

[PFI_Optix]

Yeah, I heard he got all into Scientology and had to divorce her when she called it a cult.

Re:IE7 is on the Rebound

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard they both f***ed a lot of people when they were together, so maybe it's for the better.

Re:IE7 is on the Rebound

[mickwd]

Yeah, I heard.

She wants them to get hitched, but he's not ready yet.....

Re:IE7 is on the Rebound

[OldManAndTheC]

...she is now dating some new guy Winslow Vista.

Someone should tell that guy about her past. She let every Tom, Dick and Harry.com run their nasty code in her and then passed on the infections to her boyfriend. And then she had the gall to claim that the two of them were inseparable!

Run like hell, Winslow.

Re:IE7 is on the Rebound

[ceeam]

Even if it weighs 4 tons and require the chick to install new boobs?

meh

[popeguilty]

Will anyone who isn't currently using MSIE6 use MSIE7 on this news?

Re:meh

[RobertB-DC]

Will anyone who isn't currently using MSIE6 use MSIE7 on this news?

Yes, sort of. I have to run IE for a handful of brain-dead web sites (including several banks and my company's intranet) that malfunction under a standards-compliant browser. So I'll use IE7 when it comes out -- but Opera will still be my browser of choice.

Re:meh

[jb.hl.com]

No, but it's likely to make me want Vista.

Good news

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

IE was integrated because the same kind of display used to show files and directories could be used to display web content, and it made sense to integrate the same technology in order to save on system resources.

Today, with people having more horsepower in their computer then they know what to do with, same goes for hard drive space, having a tightly integrated web browser / file browser doesn't make sense, and it has been a source of Microsoft's security problems.

Yes, you will still be able to type a web address in the file explorer in Vista and have a web page display . While explorer and internet explorer are no longer integrated, Vista will transparently switch between the applications and maintain the same window view.

I am sure that I.E. components will still be launched at system startup, to give Microsoft and edge over 3rd party browsers for quick browser launching, but by removing the integration with the file explorer, this will definitely be a welcomed change that should offer better security in the long run, which Microsoft desperitely needs.

Re:Good news

[blamanj]

IE was integrated to get by monopoly restrictions.

It's possible to share code without making an application part of the operating system. They're called DLLs.

Re:Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

A plus 5 interesting Troll? Come on moderators.

IE was integrated because the same kind of display used to show files and directories could be used to display web content, and it made sense to integrate the same technology in order to save on system resources.

This was done with Windows 98, not 95. We had alot more resources then. Your statement fails. IE was put in there to kill Netscape after Mark made the comment about "Navigator and Java" killing Windows. Go read the trial transcripts sometimes.

By your logic, Progman.exe in Win 3.x should have came with a dialup terminal because browsing a text file and an ASCII BBS is no different.

Re:Good news

[truthsearch]

IE was integrated because... it made sense to integrate the same technology in order to save on system resources.

Since when has Microsoft cared about saving system resources? There are thousands of other things they could do to save far more resources.

Re:Good news

[Tim C]

It's possible to share code without making an application part of the operating system. They're called DLLs.

Yes, and the one under discussion currently is called mshtml.dll. IE/Windows Explorer is essentially just a wrapper around that. You can use either interchangeably, the only real difference is the set of default buttons, views, menu options, etc. For example, you can open Windows Explorer, type "slashdot.org" in the address bar, hit enter, and surf slashdot. Or you can open up IE, type C:\ in the address bar, hit enter, and browse your C drive. If you do one after the other, you can use the back and forward buttons to navigate between the two.

It really isn't that different (for the user at least) to the way that Konqi works; there's nothing really special about it. One big difference is that a lot of third party apps use mshtml.dll to render HTML, as it's a standard system component (but then, that's the entire point of standard components).

Re:Good news

[NullProg]

Are you serious?

IE was integrated because the same kind of display used to show files and directories could be used to display web content, and it made sense to integrate the same technology in order to save on system resources.

Your telling us that combining a program that parses/renders in-memory HTML takes up less resources than a program calling ReadDir()/OpenFile() ? Do you live in some kind of Bizzaro computing world? Are you a Microsoft employee or stock holder?

Riddle me this, Microsoft stated (under oath) IE was a core Windows component and couldn't be removed. So why can they remove it now? The Hal hasn't changed. Win32 hasn't changed?

Enjoy,

Re:Good news

[drsmithy]

It's possible to share code without making an application part of the operating system. They're called DLLs.

Which is basically what IE *is* (strictly speaking it's a COM component, but the principle is the same).

Re:Good news

[drsmithy]

Riddle me this, Microsoft stated (under oath) IE was a core Windows component and couldn't be removed. So why can they remove it now? The Hal hasn't changed. Win32 hasn't changed?

The *shell* has changed. The shell being a rather important part of an OS.

Re:Good news

[NullProg]

The *shell* has changed. The shell being a rather important part of an OS.

Your "shell" prevents someone like you or me from acessing directly I/O location 0x330. What shell are you talking about? Oh, you mean the stupid one that can't display backgroud JPEGS on the desktop without ActiveX/Active Desktop.

Stop being silly.
Enjoy,

Back in the Day

[under_score]

I thought that integrating IE with Explorer was a great idea. I talked about it with other techie friends. We all agreed that it would be a "cool thing". Truth be told, it still is a cool thing. I'd love Mozilla to be my official interface to my hard drive as well as the web. Unfortunately, security in such a situation really is tough. In our networked world, there is too much malicious and flawed software/content out there. And so we go backwards feature-wise in order to secure ourselves. Unfortunately this is happening in a lot of places, not just in technology. I'm taking this way beyond the original context, but "The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established." We can't truly be secure anywhere until we can trust others. And we can't trust others until we have justice. And we can't have justice until we all recognize at a deep level that all human beings are equal. This recognition of the unity of humanity must acknowledge our diversity. Living in harmony is a goal, not a means. The means is the recognition of the unity of humanity.

Re:Back in the Day

[CastrTroy]

It isn't really the tieing together of IE with Explorer that causes the security problems. As another poster mentioned, Konquerer can be used as both a file manager and a web browser. What causes problems is that IE is able to start executable(activeX) without user intervention, and the fact that IE is integrated so tightly with the Operating system.

Re:Back in the Day

[Hal_Porter]

Isn't unity a security risk, since you'd have a single government? If evil or incompetent people took over, you'd be screwed.

E.g. compare China in the 19th Century and Europe. China was unified, and the government decided to cut off the outside world, lest it's people got subversive ideas. Europe was split into multiple states, and people were free to leave the ones that tried this sort of thing. So Europe surpassed China in terms of technology, science and military ability.

And the number of people killed in conflicts was probably a small price to pay for this, in the sense that more would have died of famine and so on under an autocratic but incompetent central government.

And you can't trust people in general, it would be almost suicidally risky to do so. You need to authenticate them with recommendations from other people that you've already authenticated.

Ok, I admit I'm just writing this to make you reconsider your prejudices.

Re:Back in the Day

[weave]

What causes problems is that IE is able to start executable(activeX) without user intervention

Tools > Internet Options > Security > Custom Level.... > "Run Active X controls and plug-ins" > click "Prompt"

I use firefox most of the time when on a PC but when I gotta use IE for some reason this setting has proved to be very useful and comforting.

Re:Back in the Day

[CastrTroy]

I'm pretty sure there are ways around that security setting. Either by buffer overflow or some other means. The fact that the activex module exists and the number of exploits out there makes me very uneasy, even with little checkboxes for security.

Re:Back in the Day

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe your chain of reasoning is essentially solid. Unfortunately, your chain is also anchored in the premise that humanity is ultimately good. Given our history (all of it), this is not a safe premise to hold. Specifically, humans are interested in domination and not so interested unity unless through domination.

It's incredibly frustrating that, if we just stopped trying to murder each other, we could actually atain real, global happiness. But the reality of our situation is that humans are a fatally flawed race. Hence, I'm always interested in news of better security for my computer ;-)

Re:Back in the Day

[ffflala]

Wow, that's quite a leap. If an IE7 discussion leads you so quickly to subjects like "the means to living in harmony is the recognition of the unity of humanity", I'd love to hear where you go when talking about things like media player applications. Do file systems suggest to you the ultimate nature of reality? Musings about what contained the universe before the big bang?

Re:Back in the Day

[vishbar]

That's right! Trust others! Yeah!

By the way, I have a Nigerian banker on line 2 who wants to speak with you. Something about a money transfer. ;-)

Re:Back in the Day

[drsmithy]

[...] and the fact that IE is integrated so tightly with the Operating system.

Please expand on what "integrated so tightly with the Operating system" means to you.

Re:Back in the Day

[CastrTroy]

According to MS, it's so tightly integrated that it's impossible to remove it from the OS. Since it's not open source, I can't tell you how tightly integrated it is, but based on statements like that, i'd say it's pretty well integrated.

Re:Back in the Day

[drsmithy]

According to MS, it's so tightly integrated that it's impossible to remove it from the OS. Since it's not open source, I can't tell you how tightly integrated it is, but based on statements like that, i'd say it's pretty well integrated.

You do realise that by "OS" they mean the *entire package* and not just the kernel, right ?

Rather large chunks of the shell - not to mention numerous third party applications - depend on IE. If it is removed, then those things break. Hence, the OS breaks. Just like if you rip, say, glibc or any of a dozen other libraries out of the typical Linux distro, the OS breaks.

Architecturally, IE is basically identical to KDE/Konquerer.

So this explains the delay?

[Billly Gates]

Microsoft mentioned it was due to security designs in Vista.

I doubt though that something so integrated into windows explorer can be seperated and reprogrammed into a seperate application within the extra 2 months.

Its alot of work not to mention may break many applications. For example cdroms that use autoplay sometimes display html and javascript in the windows explorer menu in a seperate pane. I suppose you could reprogram windows explorer to just call an IE7.dll to display it.

But Microsoft was found guilty of merging IE into a million libraries so third party apps would not function without IE and infact required it. Even a command prompt program that uses strings requires IE as a result.

Thank god I am not on the windows development team.

Re:So this explains the delay?

[RandomPrecision]

Quote:

Billly Gates (198444)

Thank god I am not on the windows development team.

No comment.

Re:So this explains the delay?

[Bertie]

They seem to be broken anyway. Macromedia Dreamweaver's help system uses IE to display pages, and seems flaky at best once you've installed IE7. Frequently it just doesn't display the help you've asked for at all.

Re:So this explains the delay?

[Jugalator]

Yeah, this is something I don't understand about this change. How the reliance on mshtml.dll for IE integration for many apps out there will work (or if they simply won't). It should be easy enough to test though; just install e.g. TopStyle and check its IE preview. :-)

Re:So this explains the delay?

[PintoPiman]

Thank god I am not on the windows development team.

That's like feeling sorry for contractors on the Death Star (appologies to Kevin Smith). They deserve what they get. =)

~p

Re:So this explains the delay?

[drsmithy]

I doubt though that something so integrated into windows explorer can be seperated and reprogrammed into a seperate application within the extra 2 months.

IE is not, and never has been, "integrated into Windows Explorer". It has *always* been a bunch of separate components that Explorer loads when necessary to display certain types of information. It's just like KDE/Konquerer/KHTML.

What about Konqueror?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean kioslaves should be gotten rid of? Or is GNU open source software just so superior in all respects that the comparison is irrelevant.

REALLY...Then....

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is apple switching to intel....? Yeah.. . How right the MAC people are.....

Re:REALLY...Then....

[__aaclcg7560]

By that graphical logic, Microsoft should bring out IE7 for the Intel Macs. Not!

So in other words...

[moochfish]

So in other words, now that they've won the browser wars at the expense of OS security, they'll unbundle it now.

Damnit

[hackstraw]

It was so much nicer here in hell before it froze over.

Re:Damnit

[Bros]

Yes, and all those flying pigs are annoying... ;-)

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Doctor Crumb]

You are correct in noting that Konq is entirely userspace, which is why they can make it browse whatever they want it to. If you don't like it, you can use Nautilus or firefox or midnight commander or any number of other things. This is only a big deal for IE/Explorer because it is tied to the OS, and because it is really your only choice for many things.

As for how tightly tied konqueror is to itself, that's pretty much moot. Much of Konqueror's capabilities are provided by kioslaves, which are another layer entirely, and could theoretically be used by other apps. *Shrug*

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[KingJoshi]

Why would anyone want to separate them? Konqueror is my favorite file manager for that reason. I can have one tab with my web folder, another tab using ftp or sftp, another tab viewing the page on localhost, and another checking the page through the internet. That's how it should be. When I open a file in Kate, I want to be able to open a file remotely or locally. Should be no difference.

The problem with MS's version was that the whole freaking system crashed if IE crashed. And holes in IE left system critical holes in the kernel. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Summary is misleading

[Shimmer]

and will be able to replace IE6 even on XP machines

You've always been able to upgrade IE on its own. Heck, I remember installing IE4 over IE3 on NT ten years ago. This is hardly a new feature for IE7.

Re:Summary is misleading

[Broiler]

You've always been able to upgrade IE on its own. Heck, I remember installing IE4 over IE3 on NT ten years ago. This is hardly a new feature for IE7.

You are correct. This is posted from IE7 on Windows XP.

Re:Summary is misleading

[SydShamino]

If I recall correctly, previous announcements had indicated that IE7 would only be available for Windows Vista. In other words, users of Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows ME, etc., who use IE6 and wish to upgrade would be SOL.

Today, Microsoft's announcement indicated that Windows XP users would be able to upgrade to IE7. Thus, this is a "new feature" for IE7 that IE7 did not have before today - backward compatibility with older operating systems.

Re:Summary is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Today, Microsoft's announcement indicated that Windows XP users would be able to upgrade to IE7. Thus, this is a "new feature" for IE7 that IE7 did not have before today - backward compatibility with older operating systems.

May I be the first to welcome you to yesteryear: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/02/28/382054 .aspx

Assuming you don't keep up with IE news beyond Slashdot, you should still have caught one of the many dupes that talks about IE 7 being available for Windows XP.

Re:Summary is misleading

[SydShamino]

I only read this story because IE and Windows integration was a major part of the antitrust story.

I don't read developer stories about IE or Vista.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Taevin]

This was my thought too. However, I seem to recall that Konqueror is little more than a frontend for KIO slaves. Could be wrong though, so I guess we need some one knowledgeable to respond or head to the repository. :)

Well, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they did this in the first place was to circumvent an antitrust case. Now the antitrust case is over, so they no longer need the web browser in the OS. End of story

Re:Well, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. I was starting to worry that I was the only one old enough to remember that.

Re:Lied to the US DOJ?

[beemishboy]

They also lied to the US DOJ with the same reasoning. It's suddenly possible when they *want* it to be.

Re:OMG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell me the linux people were right again!

KDE and Gnome, both eager to please to unwashed masses by obediently emulating every error Microsoft has made, both integrate webbrowser-components into their file-browsers.

Of course, now that Microsoft separates them, the imitators will shortly afterwards do the same and proudly claim that they were the first to do so.

Didn't we...

[Anusien]

already hear about this? This is old news. Microsoft is a little Dutch boy sticking his finger in a flood.

Re:Didn't we...

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that. I've known about this for over 3 months. And the news has been out there for even longer.

I'm Sure That

[Nom du Keyboard]

I'm sure that this isn't the only security warning Microsoft received -- and ignored -- at the time. Will this convince them that they don't know everything while the rest of the world knows nothing yet?

Well, don't know....

[sgant]

But considering that I'm actually using the Beta for IE7 on XP now, it seems to be working.

Or are you talking more that it will be tested on XP and all, but the final version won't be available?

By the way, you can download and run the beta now. It's open. Even has an uninstall on it.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[GweeDo]

Actually if I recall correctly Konquerer isn't either of those. In fact, it is just a holder for Kparts. In turn, there happens to a be a Kpart for file management and one for HTML rendering (KHTML in this case). So...konquerer can also be a music player (there is a Kpart for that), an RSS reader (again...another Kpart)...

So, konquerer really can be anything you want. So this isn't the best example.

Konqueror is neither

[brunes69]

Konqueror is not a file manager or a web browser, in the strictest sense. Konqueror is just a container that runs KParts. That's all. There is a file management KPart, and a Web Browsing KPart, which is what most people use by far. But really konqueror is just a shell that loads whatever you want it to. The KHTML KPart is no more 'integrated' into KDE or the OS than the PDF KPart is, or the MPlayer KPart.

Re:Konqueror is neither

[drsmithy]

Konqueror is not a file manager or a web browser, in the strictest sense. Konqueror is just a container that runs KParts. That's all. There is a file management KPart, and a Web Browsing KPart, which is what most people use by far. But really konqueror is just a shell that loads whatever you want it to. The KHTML KPart is no more 'integrated' into KDE or the OS than the PDF KPart is, or the MPlayer KPart.

Congratulations, you have just described how Windows works, as well.

Re:Konqueror is neither

[brunes69]

I never said otherwise - all these grandoise claims about IE being 'integrated into the OS' is pure bunk.

Anyone who actually thinks this hasn't been using Windows since the 3.x / 95 days, because the same old trick can still be used tto change your shell. In fact I know several people who use Litestep as their windows shell, total commander as their file manager, and Firefox as their browser, and never see IE/ Explorer *at all* on Windows.

Sure, it is a pain to uninstall, but that's just because lots of DLLs link with it. Ever say "hey, I neve rwork with pngs", and try to uninstall libpng on a linux system? You can't, cause everything links to it. Same deal with IE on windows.

Re:Konqueror is neither

[drsmithy]

Thank you for restoring a tiny bit of faith in Slashdot for me.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox will do the same thing in XP

konqueror

[eledu81]

So, should Konqueror listen to the advice too?

Re:konqueror

[Anonymous Coward]

So, should Konqueror listen to the advice too?

Will a bug in Konqueror cause your kernel to be rooted?

I could swear I remember

[DaveV1.0]

Didn't MS say something to the effect that IE was so tightly bundled into Windows that it would be impossible to remove?

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[toadlife]

IE and explorer run entirely in userspace too.

Uninstall

[Locarius]

Microsoft has decided that when IE7 comes out with Vista it will no longer be a component of Windows Explorer

Yes! I can finally completely uninstall it from my system!

Actually, I'll just stick to my Mac.

Re:Uninstall

[Ash-Fox]

Then this should be nothing for you, mac users have been able to uninstall IE (if installed) from their macs for ages without much effort.

Re:Is ActiveX gone too?

[Hal_Porter]

I think so -

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/featuretab le.mspx

Disables nearly all pre-installed ActiveX controls to prevent potentially vulnerable controls from being exposed to attack. You can easily enable or disable ActiveX controls as needed through the Information Bar and the Add-on Manager.

From here
http://forum.pcstats.com/showthread.php?t=35534

The beta of Internet Explorer 7 is neat to play with but it has one quirky feature where it does not allow users to install unsigned Active X controls. Unfortunately since it's still beta, virtually all Active X addons (like Shockwave, Flash) are unsigned which means they cannot be installed by default. Trying to do so causes IE 7 to spit out an error message.
Not all is lost however, if you load up the Internet Options (Tools -> Internet Options...), click the "Security" tab and in Internet security settings click the Custom Level... utton. In the "ActiveX Controls and plugins" section, find the "Download unsigned ActiveX Controls" option and change it from "Disable" to "Prompt". After that's done click the OK button and you're set!

He he, "one quirky feature". Way to miss the point. Note that you can disable Download Signed ActiveX controls too, or make at least make it prompt you.

There's a best practices document here
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/IETechCol/cols/dnexpie/activex_secu rity.asp?frame=true

I think the basic problem is that they still want to avoid breaking websites that rely on ActiveX as much as possible. You can see lots of stuff in that document which means that some ActiveX controls will still automatically on a webpage. If anyone develops and exploit for them and you run it on XP as an admin, you have a problem. Of course, if the user knows what they are doing they can make it secure, but the default setting is more geared to compatibility than security.

Hilarity!

[scoser]

Now what are the odds that this security-increasing effort manages to introduce some more fairly blatant security holes?

FTP Evidence

[beavt8r]

I installed IE7 (let me explain) and the FTP functionality in it is just like directory listings like Firefox has. I use IE for ftp just so I have the ease of a Windows Explorer-like interface for FTP. So I can't do that with IE7. But, if I open windows explorer or any folder, I can put an FTP address in that address bar and it works just like IE6 with the explorer interface. Unintentionally, I found out when I installed that it kept it separate. Interesting...

What about windowsupdates

[Anonymous Coward]

So does that mean that it will be possible to run windowsupdate from within Firefox (or from any other non-native browser)?

Re:What about windowsupdates

[springbox]

I'm pretty sure they said that Windows Update is now going to be run inside of a separate application, which makes more sense than updating critical system components from your web browser

Re:What about windowsupdates

[Anonymous Coward]

Windowsupdate should be an app like the rest. If you think about what it's doing, it has no purpose being browser-based. It smells like someone is pushing an agenda. Making IE indispensable? Showing off the security levels in IE? In any case, giving a web browser the capabilities to modify system files isn't comforting, even if it's within a security permission framework.

Re:What about windowsupdates

[ocdude]

windows update uses ActiveX controls, so basically that means that, no, you won't be able to run it from a non-IE browser.

Re:What about windowsupdates

[tst4eko]

Unless M$ has changed it, my understanding was that WindowsUpdate will be a new applet within the Vista Control Panel, totally separate from IE. You would no longer use any browser to update from. Since it needs an internet connection just to download those updates, I'm not sure what kind of backend Vista will use.

Re:What about windowsupdates

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Update will be an actual application or control applet within the control panel under Windows Vista. There will no longer be a need to access the traditional windows update website.

Re:What about windowsupdates

[peterfa]

That's actually a major reason why I uninstalled Windows. The updates wouldn't work. I had to use IE and due to some ActiveX thing, it wouldn't. I couldn't enable ActiveX and I searched everywhere. I talked to the bloody M$ service reps and they gave me all these little things to do and none of it worked. It sucked. I ultimately never rebooted into Windows, forgot the password, tried to crack it, realized I screwed it up, and deleted it.

Re:What about windowsupdates

[heri0n]

You can actually run windowsupdate through Firefox (unofficially) here http://windowsupdate.62nds.com/

Someone has to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're a fucking idiot.

You can run WInXP explorer without IE right now

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not new. Windows Explorer in Windows XP works just fine if you remove IE and IECore. Just go get www.nliteos.com and customize your windows installation to not even install IE or IECore to begin with and you will see Explorer works just fine without it.

Bout Friggin Time

[Foofoobar]

Gee, how long did it take them to figure out what people knew from the beginning? Security and IT professionals have flogged this as a major security risk from day 1.

All I can say is that now that they have done this, I'm beginning to believe that they want to build a decent and secure product for their customers.

Re:Bout Friggin Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, how long did it take them to figure out what people knew from the beginning? Security and IT professionals have flogged this as a major security risk from day 1.

Micro$oft knew it all along. It's just that their business and antitrust reasons were more important than your security concerns. You are only a user.

All I can say is that now that they have done this, I'm beginning to believe that they want to build a decent and secure product for their customers.

You must be new around here.

Re:Bout Friggin Time

[Foofoobar]

You must be new around here.

Nah... just hoping that they can change. I know they will eventually have to change their tactics since everyone is now bringing all of their weight against them; countries, corporations, schools, etc.

They will have to change their tactics eventually and this may be the start. Though I am with you in the boat of 'I'll believe it when I see it'. :)

it already has

[minus_273]

I downloaed the IE7 beta 2 for XP yesterday and you can see that explorer is no longer tied at all to the web browser. Going to slashdot.org in an explorer window starts the default browser now.

Re:it already has

[Anonymous Coward]

so they made a minor change and this makes news on slashdot? wow

Re:it already has

[night_flyer]

its no different than the reporting on Firefox 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3... etc...

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[cmacb]

This was the first thing I thought of too. When I use KDE I still prefer Firefox as a browser, yet, telling KDE this, it seems to reluctantly give up control of URLs because they seem to have their own URL syntax for things. I typically delete parts of KDE I don't want to mysteriously get launched, but Konqueror (as a file browser) is not one of the things I want to do without.

KDE is one thing, but for GNOME...

[Ayanami Rei]

The web components built into GNOME are only good for rendering simple HTML and XML and do not have any active scripting features/plugins etc. Think of it more as a preview for web documents, like image thumbnailing.

Re:From my source

[brix_zx2]

By the time IE7 is released 2000 will be unsupported. Atleast that's what I was told.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what's funny about slashbots. IE resides entirely in userspace. In fact it's just a collection of ActiveX controls that are embedded in a number of areas. The IE container for web browsing, the explorer container for filesystem browsing, the help container for browsing help files, etc. There is no real problem with using IE with the desktop shell, that isn't a problem with every other reuse of IE. The problem isn't the way IE is used, it's that it's a buggy piece of shit.

Good for web devs?

[ruiner13]

In theory, if it is decoupled, you could run multiple versions of IE on the same machine to test compatibility. This will save QA departments from having to use virtual machines or seperate machines to test each version of IE. Granted, if IE stuck to standards, you wouldn't have to test in every browser known to man, but at least this is a compromise.

Re:Good for web devs?

[tom_jaimz]

You already can run stand-alone versions of IE. Evolt has a good repository for this, and the very excellent QuirksMode has a great guide to implementing it (basically, you just create a seperate directory for each IE manually, such as C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer 5.5\, and install to there).

Impossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

And we have the court documents to prove it!

They are separate.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to keep in mind that Konqueror is nothing more than a very thin wrapper around various components. One such component is the HTML renderer, and another is the file manager component.

Each of those components is completely separate. In fact, one could easily write two separate applications (ie. a window with menubars, toolbars, etc., which embeds only one of each component). However, as is often the case, it is better to reuse the common code between the two, and that is what is done.

In effect, the Konqueror file manager is already a completely separate piece of software from the actual web browser (KHTML). They just are accessed together via a common wrapper.

Re:They are separate.

[dedazo]

And this is different from IE/Windows Explorer how exactly?

Re:They are separate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you can drop in a different rendering engine if you wanted to. There is (or was) work to get Gecko working as a Kpart for Konqueror so you could use Gecko instead of KHTML for web browsing. Presumably it would also be possible to have a Kpart for a different file manager as well.

I don't really like Konqueror as a web browser anyway, so I use Firefox. I couldn't really care less that Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are so integrated, aside from all the security issues that IE has.

Re:They are separate.

[drsmithy]

The situation in Windows is exactly the same.

Re:Lied to the US DOJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They also lied to the US DOJ with the same reasoning. It's suddenly possible when they *want* it to be.

I'm starting to agree with the poster claiming that Slashdot sounds like Fox news and friends sometimes. Repeating vague popular opinion sound bites without merit when you dig below the superficial. If we keep this going we will be the most FUD-based side.

1) It is a fact that old Windows implementation is broken without IE html controls present. They are expected to be there by some applications because they were part of the platform. This has been detailed ad nausam for people really interested in the technical facts and details, but see this post just above mine. So they didn't lie. But poor design decision? Certainly.

2) Vista, and only Vista, seperates this. Did you attempt to read the article or anything else about this outside of Slashdot comments?

3) It's amazing, but you can actually change things when you develop a new OS..

Glad to hear it

[Bertie]

Just the other day I went to open an HTML page I'd made in IE7, to check that it rendered properly. After fumbling around for a few minutes wondering where they'd hidden the menu bar (yeah, clever one, Microsoft, give your most-used program a UI that flies in the face of 20 years of convention, and don't tell anybody you need to hit the ALT key to bring it up, that'll go down a treat with Joe User), I selected "open", browsed to the file... ...And IE7 opened the page in Firefox, my default browser!

Clever, eh?

Re:Glad to hear it

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute, IE7 has a built-in page editer now?

Re:Glad to hear it

[AJanuary]

The interfsce, I'm pretty sure, isn't final. Far from it.

Re:Glad to hear it

[Bertie]

No, I was just looking at the page to see how it rendered it. I didn't have a clue whether it displayed pages correctly, or carried on IE6's bad habits, or a bit of both. I mean, call me crazy, but when I go to open a file within an application, I expect that application to open it, rather than sending it to another app.

It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter...

[lessthan0]

What really struck me about this is that Microsoft can make a horrible design decision, at least from a security point of view, continue making that mistake for 10 years, and it doesn't dent their market share.

Tomorrow, they could decide to leave IE and Windows Explorer integrated. But it just doesn't matter.

The early reviews I've read on Vista have been lukewarm, but it just doesn't matter. Vista is delayed again, and again, features are pulled out, then it is delayed again, but it just doesn't matter.

No matter what Microsoft does, 90% of the worlds PCs will be running their new OS at work and at home in a few years when their PCs are cycled.

Even those of us that replace Windows with some kind of Linux are still paying for the Windows license. The only way to not pay Microsoft is to go Mac.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with MS's version was that the whole freaking system crashed if IE crashed. And holes in IE left system critical holes in the kernel.

This is so incorrect I don't even know where to begin. SLASHBOTS: how can you mod such blatantly wrong shit up so high?

Re:Lied to the US DOJ?

[Bert64]

When the antitrust complaints were first made, IE was not integrated into the OS and apps did not depend on it. That came later, and the level of integration was significantly increased during the trial.

Why do I not trust the security fix of this?

[gelfling]

Why do I have this nagging feeling that this will fix exactly NOTHING from a security perspective and instead is meant to drag us evermore into MS's tentacles? I honestly can't imagine MS ever doing anything just because it's a good idea. MS first and foremost thinks of what's good for MS. You are a side effect. That is their business model. Mod me down as a hater but prove me wrong first.

Burning karma

[metamatic]

I agree with the parent. Wanting to use a web browser as a file manager? Yeeeesh.

just laugh at 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

The original post was a troll for the apple fanboys.
They bit.

And then some

[SkimTony]

Not to mention the confusion it causes for users.

All it means

[rsilvergun]

is separate dlls and registry entries, I'm sure they'll still use lots of code from IE in Windows Explorer. Don't get me wrong, I love this. It means when IE takes a dive I don't have to shell to a command prompt to get it fixed (and deal with MS's lousy command line tools). It's never been that hard to separate the two (you just dupe the dlls and reg entires).

Podcasts. Oy vey.

[bluephone]

Why the hell can't these folks give a WRITTEN transscript along with the podcasts? Podcasts are just audioblogging, and audioblogs suck. Let me read the damn thing, please.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[geekoid]

Security wasn't a customer hot button 10 years ago.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[nuzak]

The integration is actually tighter between Konqueror and KHTML than it is between Explorer and IE. Explorer can only embed IE as an OLE server, which accounts for all your menus flipping around depending on whether you're viewing local files or a website with http. Konqueror embeds KHTML as a kpart, which would be more analogous to Explorer embedding IE as a COM component. Except Explorer can't do that; in fact, the only generic COM container that windows comes with is ... Internet Explorer! Sort of a chicken and egg problem. There's plenty of apps that embed the IE COM component, so it's certainly possible. Just that none of them are decent file managers.

You certainly don't need KHTML to browse files, and as Safari shows, you don't need Konqueror to use KHTML. Whether IE's OS integration is considered "userspace" or not is sort of a matter of whether you consider the HINTERNET part of the win32api to be userspace... technically yes, but then again, libc is userspace too...

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Bender0x7D1]

When I open a file in Kate, I want to be able to open a file remotely or locally. Should be no difference.

Yes and no.

Yes:
A file is just a collection of bytes that needs to be sent/received to/from an application to a storage location. File operations are file operations whether it is on a local file or a remote file.

No:
There is a big difference between the two when you examine the bigger picture. First, a remote file gets transmitted over the network and, depending on the method used, may be in the clear. Opening a confidential read-only file on the machine it is stored on may not be a big deal, but transmitting it across the network is. If you have a file at home that you want to FTP while you are at work, you may not want it to be visible to anyone sniffing the network.

Also, there are some details that might cause problems. If you edit a file with Emacs and save it, you create a file with a '~' at the end of the filename. If it is a remote file, where do you create that? Locally, or remotely? If locally, how do you guarantee enforcment of the permissions on the file? The local admin may be a different person. If remotely, what if you don't have permission to write to that directory? This problem might cause applications to crash.

Sure, used properly it is a very convenient way of viewing/accessing files. Unfortunately, everyone makes mistakes. Did you select the wrong tab and accidentaly send something in the clear, or to the wrong location? What if you can't undo your mistake? (Permission to create a file, but not delete it.) This is one of the dangers of integration - if it is handled the same, and looks the same, how do you avoid mistakes?

Personally, I like idea of handling files that way. However, I know I make mistakes, especially when I'm rushed, so I use different applications to do different things and access different locations. I may lose track of different tabs or windows, but I have yet to mix up what application I am using.

Another story posted by people that don't get it..

[TheNetAvenger]

Another story posted by people that don't get it...

How many of these stories a day are we now going to get?

IE7 replace IE6? WTF, That has always been possible.

Also Explorer uses the IE 'rendering' dlls, it doesn't use Internet Explorer.

There are so many things wrong with this post and story I don't even know where to start and won't.

If you don't get it, don't post it.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look in /usr/kde/3.x/lib/kde3/ and you'll find various libraries beginning in "kio_". Those handle things like "file://" and "http://". There are other ones for handling mime-types like text/html and inode/directory.

Konqueror's web browser/file manager functions are just a side effect of this design. You can remove the HTTP libraries and it'll stop being a web browser.

Too bad it won't be out in fall

[Mr. BS]

Too bad it won't be out in fall like the article/Podcast reports.

Just another inconsistency by substandard reporting.

You don't quite understand

[althalusprime]

IE7 will do a lot of great things for Windows XP, but it won't remove the IE subsystem from the OS. Doing that would require almost a complete rewrite of XP (which is what Vista is moving towards) as everything from the aforementioned file manager to the built-in help file viewer relies on the IE subsystem to render to the screen. What IE7 DOES do for XP is basically implement a lot of the security bonus of using FF, like blocking activeX controls, etc. from automatically running, fixing the stupid BHO (browser helper objects) model, attempt to prevent phising and so on and so forth. The true power of the new approach will be evident when Vista comes out. In Vista, IE7 will now run only in user mode (seperate from the kernel), only allow file access to the temporary internet files folder, and more (which can be found easily by googling for IE7 info). It will truely be a godsend to people who have to deal with the consequences of the stupid way IE is now (read: spyware whore). I've had the beta version of IE7 installed on my XP machine for over a month now and it's actually very nice, of course it is still not as secure as using FF, but it doesn't have the FF memory leak feature, and in terms of functionality it has most of the features you use FF for. It just doesn't have the theme/extension architecture that FF does, which sucks, but will probably change (well the extension part, MS seems to have a penchant for denying user customizable UIs). And yes, you can rollback to IE6 just fine whenever you want.

Re:You don't quite understand

[Ash-Fox]

Now I've seen a OS/2 subsystem, Posix sibsystem, win32 subsystem, but never a "IE" subsystem under the windows kernel. Sources?

Re:You don't quite understand

[Anonymous Coward]

The IE7 beta 2 actually rendered my laptop mostly useless. It ran fine for a little while. While I didn't like the UI at all I was okay with it. Later that night my entire system became unstable. IE7 ran perfectly. explorer.exe was having quite a fit, more than one of my programs simply wouldn't run, and killing explorer.exe did *not* result in a respawn. I had to reboot just to make it half usable again. Since uninstalling IE7 the system has been responding just as expected.

About f#$!ing time! I never needed IE, never will

[Anonymous Coward]

I got along quite fine with Windows 95 and NT without ever "upgrading" IE, and avoided its rogue dlls like a plague. For every program that claims to "require" IE, I always find vastly superior alternatives that do not (e.g. Firefox in place of IE, Nero in place of Adaptec, etc.)

And ever since Shane Brooks created LitePC, I can safely run Windows 98 and 2000 without a trace of IE, its dlls, or its rendering engine.

With the news of IE being separated (as it should), I might even consider looking at Vista, but I'll probably be 100% free of Windows by that point, as I gradually transition to Linux.

UI latency

[marcovje]

Hmm, good, could decrease 2k/XP UI latency maybe?

Like the -lite series of products.

Re:UI latency

[Ash-Fox]

Internet Explorer is not responsible for the UI.

Re:UI latency

[marcovje]

explorer.exe is, and parts of IE are integrated.

The ability to display html on the desktop background (as introduced by win98) proves this.

Re:UI latency

[Ash-Fox]

You don't have to use explorer.exe as your windows shell either. And still, acitve desktop does not mean internet explorer handles UI elements in windows, it was just a component stuck fullscreen in the background any how.

It has nothing todo with the UI, such as GDI or GDI+ in Windows.

Re:UI latency

[marcovje]

I don't have to use windows either ? What kind of an argument is that? And yes, I know the difference between a window manager, a widget set and the final renderer, but in practice, except for some amateur stuff they are pretty inseparable on Windows.

I just want to be able to use windows with a bit less latency and a bit less memory use. (IE is 40-55 MB, though only about 25MB of that is part of "the system" that I hope to get rid off)

Re:UI latency

[Ash-Fox]

Then I suggest you use xplite to get rid of IE. Although you won't really see any performence increase, if any.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[pandrijeczko]

Even those of us that replace Windows with some kind of Linux are still paying for the Windows license.

This is NOT true - there are plenty of vendors who sell bare machines; or rather, they give you a PC installed with one of the free DOS variants.

In the UK, I bought a blank PC for my home Linux server from Novatech - Windows XP was available for about £30 extra.

You may need to hunt around but they are available.

That woudn't be so bad...

[jd]

...but have you seen where the eyes are?

Re:Yet again...late

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the moderation system on Slashdot means that unless you fall entirely in like with Slashdot's beliefs, you get modded down.

Slashdot's Belief's:

1. Windows sucks, linux can do no wrong
2. Science owns all, religion is to be lambasted
3. If you're not using the most technically cumbersome method to do anything, you're not doing it right

beta

[cg0def]

I am currently running the latest beta release from 20th of March on windows xp and I DO NOT have IE installed at all. Apparently when you install even the beta of IE 7 you are allowed to uninstal IE compleatelly. Now this might only seem to be the case so I am not claming that MS have really removed the IE explorer linking. IE 7 shows up as a windows update just like Media Player and all the security updates. Also since I removed IE from the system components I experienced an IE crash for no apparent reason and some other weird behavior like after the crash the reboot and system load took forever. Since then everything seems to be working fine. Well it is a beta so bugs are expected and I am really not complaining. Just letting you know what my experience has been so far. Also the latest beta seem to be a slightly polished version compared to the previos one but clicking on links that open in new window is sometimes a problem.This is apparently not the final verion of IE 7 and some of the features are likelly still missing so if you decide to use it keep that in mind. It is a step in the right direction though and will give Firefox some very stiff competition as the quality of the software seems to be somewhat better.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[vialation]

One way that i am sure many slashdotters avoid the windows tax is buy building your own computer...

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The problem with MS's version was that the whole freaking system crashed if IE crashed.

This isn't entirely correct. EXPLORER.EXE, which is tied in with IE and is largely responsible for the GUI, can be crashed by IE. This mucks up the GUI to the point where the system is apparently hung. However, the NTOSKRNL.EXE almost never gets faulted by these kinds of crashes and, in reality, continues to run even though the interface is completely hosed. This is analogous to crashing XWindows in Unix in the sense that X can be completely hung but system processes underneath it continue to function normally. The difference is that a Ctrl-Alt-Bksp will kill X and give you a command prompt, whereas Windows has no such option. There has been talk in the past of Microsoft releasing a command-line version of Windows Server (i.e. the GUI is optional), but AFAIK, that's just been talk with no real action.

Note that crashes that do fully lock up a Windows box are almost always caused by faulty drivers, usually video drivers because these run in kernel space. Linux is just as susceptible to faulty drivers as Windows is. I've had a number of servers up and croak with a KERNEL PANIC because of a faulty RAID driver. Dodgy hardware, poor cooling, overclocking, etc. also locks up boxes but this isn't a Windows-only phenomenon by any means.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Klivian]

Sounds like you don't tell it the correct way. Controll Center->KDE Components->Component Chooser->Web Browser and set it to Firefox.

When other applications get launched it's not mysteriously, but based on MIME types. Left click on a file of the type that "missbehaves" select properties. Click on the little wrench and edit the Application preference order to show your preferred application at the top of the list.

Ulterior motives, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to sound cynically anti-Microsoft here, but... I'm surprised to be the first to say this -- doesn't anyone else see that MS is probally decoupling IE from Windows not so much for the security reason as it is to proliferate its own brand of standards in AJAX similar to the way in which it gives people a headache in CSS and the way in which it tried to kill off / take over Java?

If IE adds its own JavaScript specs for AJAX via its new AJAX-creation software, supports the corruptions in IE 7, and gets people to adopt it buy suckering them into installing IE 7, then won't the problem of standards become an issue once again? Sure, IE might be more standards-compliant in HTML and CSS, but MS obviously is banking on the trend of AJAX becoming more important and making the old HTML & CSS combo less relevant. MS obviously knows that web apps are the next frontier in computer applications, and controlling AJAX is one way they could maintain their monopoly. It's interesting how IE 7 is going to be able to be installed on older systems running XP. I find that, too, to be curious and worth noting -- wasn't it MS that tried to lock IE 6 to Windows XP only? My hunch is that MS is preparing for the short term where not many people will see the necessity to upgrade from XP to Vista, but again, the transition to web apps means that the OS that people use is not as relevant as the way they access the web.

Of course, this is all my speculation, so feel free to enlighten me if I'm off base here.

Re:OMG!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a good idea, at least the way KDE does it. KHTML is just an embedded KPart. It's not really "tied into the operating system" and thus doesn't lead to the same security holes and issues you have in Windows. I, for one, hope the KDE folks leave everything the same.

IE7

[scharfshutze]

I dont trust Microsoft and I wont be using IE7. I've already removed any traces of IE6 from my XP pro system. Mozilla firefox is here for good =)

Re:IE7

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've already removed any traces of IE6 from my XP pro system"

No, you haven't.

Re:IE7

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget the distinction between the browser and the renderer. THOSE are separated...but you can't get rid of the html rendering dlls in the Windows system since it's used for stuff like the HTML help. Isn't a separate browser/renderer what people have been bitching for all this time?

Re:IE7

[Ash-Fox]

Windows can operate just fine without mshtml.dll and the activex ie component guids.

Re:IE7

[scharfshutze]

If you say so...

Re:IE7

[scharfshutze]

I thought that IE hasn't been intergrated into the core of Xp?

Wow.

[baudbarf]

Didn't they just tie Windows explorer and Internet Explorer together so they'd win that antitrust battle?

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[KingJoshi]

My mistake. When all you remember is the computer being inoperable, one can forget the distinction. Though to be fair, when I upgraded to Ubuntu Dapper and for some reason Xserver wouldn't run properly and hog the system where I couldn't kill it and had to restart several times (and install lynx to find a solution) I considered it as the upgrade crashing my system.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Doctor Crumb]

See where you used the word "embedded"? That's the problem. It's embedded in outlook. It's embedded in word. It's embedded in Help. It's embedded in *the desktop*. That is what people mean when they say "integrated"; IE is embedded so far into windows that it actually runs certain things with admin permissions. IE is a buggy piece of shit, *and* it can royally fuck up your machine.

Even *if* Konqueror were every bit as buggy, the worst it would do is fuck over your particular userspace. It can't ruin /etc; it can't wreak havoc in /usr/lib. This is what is meant by "userspace"; it means encapsulation, it means *not* embedded in everything. IE most certainly doesn't meet that requirement.

Good news

[panic911]

It's about time. This should help with security, I would think. I wonder if they'll be able to keep the functionality the same across the board... whats going to happen when you type C:\Windows into IE - or www.google.com into Explorer? eh n/m I'm sure they thought of that...

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[mattyrobinson69]

plus, apparently gecko is being ported as a kioslave, so you'l beable to choose between khtml or gecko

Seperated?

[MimsyBoro]

Internet Explorer is made up of lots of DLL's almost all of which will stay in windows:
* mshtml.dll -- Handles all the HTML rendering, is needed by lots of shell components
* jscript.dll -- The Javascript engine -- like vbscript is part of Windows Script Hosting
* wininet.dll -- The API that handles the communications on the Internet -- gotta stay!
* urlmon.dll -- Implements the IMoniker interface to retrieve things via the Internet -- stays.
* shdocvw.dll -- Implements the shell (what's inside explorer.exe) and also IE (what's inside of iexplore.exe) this they might actually seperate. But I doubt it, or even if they do there will be a shared library or lots of cross calls.

Anyway...

What were we talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everytime Slashdot posts something reguarding Microsoft, hundreds of people rush to make Microsoft bashing comments here - no matter what the article is or how much it has to do with the company. This is another attempt by Microsoft to make its software more secure. To those bashers: would you rather them not try? They do the work to redesign their OS and browser integration, and all I see is people ranting about problems in IE6 and how great their Macintosh is. There are plenty of other websites where you can say the same things over and over. Why infect this one?

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

>The difference is that a Ctrl-Alt-Bksp will kill X and give you a command prompt, whereas Windows has no such option

Actually pulling up taskmanager.exe by way of Ctrl-Alt-Delete will allow you to start a command shell.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't need Konqueror to use KHTML

And the converse is true: You don't need KHTML to use Konqueror. In fact, if you do not plan to use Konqueror as a web browser (and you do not plan to use other applications that rely on KHTML, such as Amarok), you do not need to install KHTML in the first place.

Unfortunately, Explorer has, for 11 years now, tied HTML rendering with the shell itself -- meaning that unless you use a completely unrelated shell (like BB4Win), you cannot remove this component of Explorer. It actually is possible to use KHTML to render the KDE desktop, but it is neither required nor default.

Wave my magic wand to turn your door into a jar

[tepples]

There is little technical reason why things such as the OS update code should rely on HTML rendering code, actually only MS's version of HTML rendering code

Other than that HTML is actually a decent language for specifying page-like user interfaces, right?

(much like there would be little technical reason for BMW to run the ignition circuitry through the stereo).

Unless "shut your door" and "go get some gas" [fuel low] and "you left your lights on last time" [battery low] and "I need a checkup pretty soon" [service engine soon] and especially "buckle up!" were spoken through the car stereo as well.

Re:Wave my magic wand to turn your door into a jar

[FatRatBastard]

Other than that HTML is actually a decent language for specifying page-like user interfaces, right?

It is, but why did Microsoft insist it was only *their* HTML rendering engine that could be used? That was sort of the whole point, wasn't it. You couldn't remove IE and use Netscape (or any other rending library) to achieve the same outcome.

Unless "shut your door" and "go get some gas" [fuel low] and "you left your lights on last time" [battery low] and "I need a checkup pretty soon" [service engine soon] and especially "buckle up!" were spoken through the car stereo as well.

Sorry, that is incorrect. What does the ignition circuit have to do with any sort of notification system?

So, what are the technical merits of running a car's ignition system through the car stereo? And if its so good, what does exactly zippy cars work that way?

So, what are the techincal merits of making an OS update program wholy dependent on one version of an HTML rendering engine? And if its vital that is does, how come almost every other OS with an update mechinism does it independently of an HTML rendering library?

Trying...

[dhasenan]

Somehow, it doesn't seem to want to install under WINE.

Re:Trying...

[popeguilty]

"ERROR: I refuse to install this piece of shit. Seriously, what the hell are you thinking? Press OK to launch Firefox. Here, I'll even open up some porn for you, just please don't ask me to install that shit again. Oy."

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Tim C]

Because it reinforces the party line, and is a commonly-held belief around these parts. IE being integrated into the kernel is one of those things that everyone knows, although no-one I've asked has ever been able to provide any proof.

Ultimate minority

[Anonymous Coward]

A left-handed lesbian albino midget eskimo.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[jZnat]

Userspace has no distinguishable meaning if it also has full root privileges.

Some pages have a legitimate reason to require JS

[tepples]

The web components built into GNOME are only good for rendering simple HTML and XML and do not have any active scripting features/plugins etc. Think of it more as a preview for web documents, like image thumbnailing.

Unless those web documents need ECMAScript in order to render correctly. Before you flame me about principles that ECMAScript should never be necessary, think about documents written in languages not supported by major operating systems.[1] They need to be transliterated at view time from an ad-hoc character encoding into a stream of <img> elements that refer to glyphs representing the characters of the language, and it's a lot more bandwidth-efficient to do this using a script at the client side than at the server side, even with gzip transfer encoding.

[1] "I want to make sure everyone understands that we (Microsoft) don't add characters to Windows unless they are in characters that are in Unicode." (Citation) Unfortunately, not all scripts in existence are encoded.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[JahToasted]

Honestly, who the hell cares about /etc or /usr/lib? I can just pop in my install cd and get all that stuff back. All of my work is in /home/me. If that gets hosed, I lose everything I've done since my last backup.

Yeah keeping stuff in user space is good idea. But when you only have a single user on a computer it makes absolutely no difference.

The real problem isn't having an integrated web browser / file manager. Its allowing the web browser to run scripts that are allowed to modify files. Even if you only allow it to modify files in /home/me its still as much a problem as if it could change files anywhere.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

no, that's not what userspace means at all

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[massysett]

Honestly, who the hell cares about /etc or /usr/lib?

Um, I do? It took forever to get all that stuff configured correctly, and now I want some rogue program to come along and wipe all that stuff in /etc? Moreover, I want some rogue program to come along and add its own /etc/init.d/spyware-deluxe script?

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[DerPflanz]

The difference is that a Ctrl-Alt-Bksp will kill X and give you a command prompt, whereas Windows has no such option.

You can always use [WinKey] - [R] for a run dialog, and type in 'explorer' there. Or, use ctrl-alt-del to get to that system menu (reboot, etc), which has a 'Run command' option. I had explorer crash many times and in this way I had it back without rebooting.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[AnyoneEB]

You misunderstand his point. The only way to get a command shell in Windows XP is to have a GUI window with a command shell. (Sure you can full screen it, but it is still dependent on the GUI.) On Linux, this would be like needing X running to get a terminal. Older versions of Windows were based on DOS (95, 98, ME) and had a boot to command-line option which did not load the GUI. In Windows XP that option boots to a GUI with a big cmd window.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Actually pulling up taskmanager.exe by way of Ctrl-Alt-Delete will allow you to start a command shell

or
1) ctrl-shift-esc brings up task manager
3) applications tab | New Task... button | type "cmd"

if explorer is hung
1) ctrl-shift-esc brings up task manager
2) process tab | right click process "explorer.exe" | end process
3) applications tab | New Task... | type "explorer.exe"

"IE cannot be separated from Windows"

[rumcho]

AFAICR Microshaft told the justice dept they couldn't separate the OS from the browser when they were pretty close to getting their ass split. Now all of a sudden this seems to be possible.

Re:"IE cannot be separated from Windows"

[hacksoncode]

All of a sudden?

You're *way* more optimistic about the Vista release schedule than even Microsoft is...

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[rrohbeck]

to the point where the system is apparently hung.

Yup. Happens to me every few days. It is also caused by working with too many (slow) network shares on a WAN (at least XP doesn't BSOD like Win2k in this case.)
Easy fix: Ctrl-Alt-Del, go into Task Manager, kill all explorer.exe and iexplore.exe processes, then File/Run explorer.exe.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

you're obviously retarded.

How it works in Beta 2.

[7grain]

To answer your questions, at least as far as the beta version is concerned:

Presently, with the IE7 beta 2, you can uninstall it. After installing IE7 beta 2, it appears in the "Add/Remove Programs" list (you have to choose the "Show Updates" option at the top). When installed, there seems to be no way to get IE6 on your machine. After uninstalling, IE6 "returns", if you will.

Also - the beta does not seem to work inside Windows Explorer. If you enter a URL at the top of Windows Explorer, it launches in a new tab in IE7, or as a new instance of IE7 if it's not currently running.

Cheers.

Re:Lied to the US DOJ?

[ischorr]

The thing that's always bugged me about #1 is that no one ever seemed to seperate IE the application and IE the HTML rendering/display engine. Most of what the DoJ was looking for could have been remedied by getting rid of iexplorer.exe and making small modifications to any part of the system that expected it to be there.

It'd be similar to saying that Safari can't be removed from OS X because a number of applications and system utilities rely on Webkit. Of course you can get rid of Safari without getting rid of the libraries - just drag the userland app to the trash.

Personally, I think that saying that there was no way to get rid of IE, the application, without breaking Windows was not true at all. People still don't seem to make that distinction.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Jon.Laslow]

There has been talk in the past of Microsoft releasing a command-line version of Windows Server (i.e. the GUI is optional), but AFAIK, that's just been talk with no real action.

Actually, there is a .iso on Microsoft Connect (the new Beta site for MS) for Vista participants called "Longhorn Server Core", which is a naked versions of the server (no GUI, no add ins, no apps, etc...). I don't know if they're actually going to release it when everything goes RTM, though.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[kimvette]

It's not tied to the kernel however a good bit of it and user.exe are interdependent, IIRC.

The closest *nix analogy I can come up with is:

Konqueror would be integrated as a component of X and would run under the root account, and while users' access through the GUI to forbidden files would be handled correctly, undocumented API calls and of course critical bugs would enable malicious code to interact directly with filesystem modules.

I know I know, not entirely accurate but that's the closest thing I could come up with to Windows' architecture.

IE7 Beta 2

[thejynxed]

You can remove IE7 Beta 2 from Windows XP via Add/Remove programs with no ill affects. The IE7 installer caches the installation files automatically so that this is possible. Kind of like being able to remove SP1 (no way to remove SP2 without a format or reinstall of WinXP, no matter what Microsoft claims, try it and watch Windows get hosed). I installed and uninstalled it last night, before installing it again, just to try this theory out.

Re:IE7 Beta 2

[OldCrasher]

I didn't bother with the re-install. But yes, the uninstall works just fine. What I was miffed about was that IE6 disappeared while IE7 was on the machine. Won't they learn that we want our cake and eat it, allow multiple browsers, please.

Anyway, Firefox 2.0 (alpha) is still a better product than IE 7 (beta). It's just so much more together. The IE useless, sorry - USER - interface, is 'orrible, just a mess of random UI thoughts.

Re:IE7 Beta 2

[toadlife]

"no way to remove SP2 without a format or reinstall of WinXP, no matter what Microsoft claims, try it and watch Windows get hosed"

I've done it multiple times - the first time with a RC version of SP2 - and had no problems. But I guess your mileage may vary.

No, that's simple

[CarpetShark]

That's just an API. Any browser that implemented a compliant API could provide the same features. For instance, there is a mozilla add on that actually does replace embedded IE activeX objects.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try finding a bare laptop in the US. Good luck. You practically *have* to pay for Windows.

RE: java and architecture neutrality.

[jackchance]

I worked for a software consulting company that won a large ($3 Million) contract to created a client-server package with a Java Applet as the client. The main selling feature of this was that it was platform neutral since the customer had a base of macs and PCs. Then we started coding the gui and the GUI stuff would always break on Macs and it would only work with the microsoft java plug-in, not the sun java plug-in in certain browsers. In the end, my company essentially forced the customer to abandon their Macs. I quit before the lawsuit.

Actually I think its something else.

[Midnight Thunder]

Actually I think its something else. First the question to be asked is whether when we are talking about IE we talking the engine (think equivalent of KHTML, WebCore or Gecko) or the browser. If we are talking about the engine, then it would cause a lot of issues for the system, since a lot of the system actually seems to make use of that engine. Components using it include 'Windows Explorer' and the 'Add or Remove Programs' control panel. If we are simply talking about the browser then that would be easy to include optional. I can't imagine trying to replace the engine used by Windows with anything else, but the one provided by Microsoft. The system has enough issues without being dragged down by pluggable rendering engines. Where they did go wrong though, is not seperating the execution rights provided by IE and the engine used by the system.

Re:Actually I think its something else.

[NutscrapeSucks]

If we are talking about the engine, then it would cause a lot of issues for the system, since a lot of the system actually seems to make use of that engine.

Right, so it's very likely they will not remove the "engine".

More likely they just made a copy of IE7 and called it "Windows Web Browsing Services" or something and it's just as integrated as always.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[ClamIAm]

Others have noted that you can build or buy a computer that is not subject to the Microsoft tax. It's also important to remember that there are vendors who sell laptops bare or with Linux.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[toadlife]

Very true, but I don't run my windows machines as an admin.

Er... just use shared libraries?

[Ignominious]

IE was integrated because the same kind of display used to show files and directories could be used to display web content, and it made sense to integrate the same technology in order to save on system resources.

If there was a lot of shared functionality, that's precisely what DLLs are for. Now I'm no Windows expert but I'm pretty sure Windows 95 had DLLs.

Apart from that, reusing a file manager window for a web browsing window might save windowing memory (assuming the web content was simple otherwise this would probably dwarf the file explorer), but in that case, why not have reusable windows for all windows programs?

Great news

[binkzz]

Although I think it is a good move for increasing security in IE7 from Microsoft and deserves kudos, I also believe it's great news for FireFox and Opera.

Microsoft will no longer be able to claim that the browser is inseperable from the system, so anti trust laws can be used to force MS to supply Windows without IE, or with FireFox and Opera.

equality != security

[Ignominious]

Even if justice worked perfectly, some people would still commit crimes, even intentional crimes. You still could not assume you could trust everybody.

And how can we have a perfect system of justice without the system unjustly violating things like privacy etc.

I agree that there is much more that unites humanity than divides, but seriously, what does that have to do with web browsers?!

SharePoint ??

[n1_111]

how will this work for "Explorer" view in SharePoint world, according to which they sold 73 million licenses already?

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

But his point is wrong.

Explorer is not an X Server equivalent. When it crashes, other GUI apps (including terminals) can and do continue to run. If the whole GUI does crash (which is usually caused by the video driver hanging) then this isn't explorer's fault, and is nothing to do with explorer/IE integration. In this situation a non-GUI terminal doesn't help; once the graphics driver has fucked itself in the ass you can't change the graphics mode. Of course, if the driver is permanently fubared it can be helpful to boot into a non-GUI mode; which is why XP has the recovery console.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[rebootconrad]

The difference is that a Ctrl-Alt-Bksp will kill X and give you a command prompt, whereas Windows has no such option.

That isn't true at all. When I am forced to use IE and it does actually hose my EXPLORER.EXE process, I can hit the three magic keys and restart EXPLORER.EXE through the run utility [in WinXP].

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Actually pulling up taskmanager.exe by way of Ctrl-Alt-Delete will allow you to start a command shell.

While this is true, it's almost impossible to recover the GUI using this method. At best you can get the box to shut down gracefully for a restart. What would be really nice is if MS would provide a method to re-launch the GUI after it's crashed. Then we'd really have Windows more or less on equal footing with *nix/XWindows at least from a crash recovery perspective.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Jesus_666]

Hmm. That gave me an idea: Take a couple switches/buttons, solder them together in such a way that you can hook the whole thing up to the RS323 port and write a driver that checks whether a switch/button was triggered and then executed user-definable events. You could not only use the thing to remotely control your XMMS/Winamp, but also put in switches/buttons that automatically kill X/EXPLORER.EXE (make sure that the dangerous switches are under cool protective covers like in fighter aircrafts). If you're ambitioned you could put a USB chip into the thing (as RS232-capable PCs are getting rare).

I used a similar device as a remote control for Winamp when I was still a Win user; if I was capable of writing a driver for the thing I'd also use it under Linux... Does anyone know of a similar device, maybe even one that fits the first paragraph?

Tabbed Windows Explorer??

[adachan]

Is there any chance of getting nice tabs in Windows Explorer? I love the tabs in firefox, and I would love to have them in Windows Explorer as well. Does anyone know if this will happen?

Re:Tabbed Windows Explorer??

[pedrotabrar]

no idea but a good replacement to windows explorer is a product called xplorer2 which you get from www.zabkat.com. It allows tabbed views plus a host of other features.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

From the case you describe it doesn't sound like your machine is hung. Instead it sounds like either it's taking a long time to get the data or it's timing out in some fashion. Again, Windows will give you the appearance that it's hanging because EXPLORER.EXE (which runs the GUI, File Explorer, and a whole lot of other things I wish it didn't) gets hung up. Restarting EXPLORER.EXE will work in some circumstances, but it has some nasty side effects (task tray items are killed, for example).

Re:Yet again...late

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Science owns all, religion is to be lambasted

This is where you're wrong, my friend. You only get bashed if you're a Christian. All other religions are OK and should be tolerated even if they do murder people with a different religious point of view.

Isn't it great? So much for those who claim that it's only a handful of extremists!

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[SuperMog2002]

I do that all the time. Simply run explorer.exe from the run dialog in the task manager. Also, usually if you manually kill explorer.exe via the end process button, Windows will automatically restart it. It's been a long time now since I've had Explorer crash and take the whole machine down with it.

Ignition interlocks may become required by law

[tepples]

What does the ignition circuit have to do with any sort of notification system?

Unless the law requires that the driver be notified in a given situation before the engine can be turned on: "Slide your license." -- "Blow into the alcohol detector." -- "Buckle up!"

And if its so good, what does exactly zippy cars work that way?

Because federal and state legislators haven't put such a notification requirement into law. Yet.

Re:Ignition interlocks may become required by law

[FatRatBastard]

Because federal and state legislators haven't put such a notification requirement into law. Yet.

So please point to the Federal law that states the Microsoft had to integrate their OS update mechanism into their HTML rendering engine (and only their HTML rendering engine... others need not apply).

Re: java and architecture neutrality.

[Krach42]

Yeah, I actually took a graphics class where we had to write a bunch of programs. Java provides no defined behavior for drawing a single pixel on the screen. You could use (and we were told) to use a drawRect() with width and height of 0. (using 1 for both results in a 2x2 rectangle by definition)

The problem is that some OSes and implementations don't draw anything at all. So, on Windows and Linux, you get a pixel, on Mac OSX, and Sun, you get nothing. (I mean, it's a 0 width, 0 height rectangle, that means draw nothing, right?)

The frustrating thing is the first Lab went out, and I designed it on a Linux machine, and I turn it in, and the TA for the course, who was grading them, was grading them on a Sun machine. So the response comes back "Your program doesn't draw anything" Aw... thanks Java.

I've actually written a POSIX compliant web-server that supported CGI/1.1, and enough HTTP/1.1 to be at least useful, and it was far more compatible at the source level than Java was at the binary level.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[JahToasted]

Well, /etc should be backed up if you've made significant changes. And you are making a lot of changes in /etc you're probably a sysadmin and know the importance of making backups.

And a rogue program can come along and infect your gnome/kde session files (or .bashrc) and start up spyware as soon as you log on. Not need to have access to /etc/init.d. Running stuff in userspace protects the sysadmin's work, but doesn't make any difference to the end users.

What do viruses, worms, spyware, etc, need to work? The ability to modify and execute files, and network access. Any user account that has the ability to do those things is vulnerable. Viruses and worms don't need root to spread and cause a lot of damage. "rm -rf ~/" will screw up anyone's day.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[pizpot]

or build your own computer, or buy one with no OS.

IE7 Separated from Windows Explorer?

[RiffRafff]

Now if they could just separate Windows from most machines sold in the U.S.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[paving-slab]

...All of my work is in /home/me. If that gets hosed, I lose everything...

Well, you could do what I do.

Have a seperate user for internet related activity, say "webuser" for example.

This user has no shell so no one can log in as "webuser".

My browser (Galeon - better than Firefox IMHO), IM, p2p cients etc. are all run as webuser and accessed via sudo using the no password option.

This means it is all completely transparent to the user, of course. I click on the browser icon or whatever and up pops Galeon running as webuser. The good thing is webuser cannot access my home dir, so if something goes horribly wrong all I lose is my bookmarks (which I have backed up anyway).

The only downside is that when I download stuff it's in webusers home dir so I have to manually move it if I want it in mine. Still, thats no big deal as I have access to webusers home dir as my normal user.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[drsmithy]

I'm sure I'm about to burn karma with this... but in KDE, Konqueror acts as both web browser and file manager. At least it's entirely userspace, but does anyone know how closely the file managing and web browsing aspects of Konqueror are tied?

IE and Konquerer are basically identical, architecturally speaking.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[drsmithy]

I know I know, not entirely accurate but that's the closest thing I could come up with to Windows' architecture.

The "closest thing you could up with" would be "IE and Konquerer are basically the same".

IE does not run with elevated privileges. It does not not have secret hooks into the kernel. It does not have magical powers to circumvent OS security. It's just regualr old user-space code. IE does not let a user - or anything they run - do anything they/it would not otherwise be able to do.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[drsmithy]

This is so incorrect I don't even know where to begin. SLASHBOTS: how can you mod such blatantly wrong shit up so high?

Because the fact every major platform (KDE, GNOME, OS X) has gone on to copy Windows's "browser component" design causes a segfault in their tiny "Windows sucks, not Windows rules" logic centres.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[drsmithy]

Userspace has no distinguishable meaning if it also has full root privileges.

Not in unix, true - but Windows is not unix.

that's what sftp is for, konqueror helps.

[twitter]

If you have a file at home that you want to FTP while you are at work, you may not want it to be visible to anyone sniffing the network.

That's why you should be running sftp instead of ftp. Konqueror works with sftp:// very well.

If you edit a file with Emacs and save it, you create a file with a '~' at the end of the filename. If it is a remote file, where do you create that? Locally, or remotely?

That's not an issue specific to the browser. If the user has permission to look at the file, they have the ability to create a local copy. The only real solution to the problem you raise is to keep untrusted users off your local machine.

everyone makes mistakes. Did you select the wrong tab and accidentaly send something in the clear, or to the wrong location? What if you can't undo your mistake? (Permission to create a file, but not delete it.) This is one of the dangers of integration - if it is handled the same, and looks the same, how do you avoid mistakes?

Once again, this is not a browser problem but a browser can help. Konqueror is an excellent tool for moving files across machines. Split screens avoid the need to ever drag to tabs. The easiest way to move files around is to split your screen with the localhost and the targethost on the same tab. When things are done this way, it's harder to make mistakes. That's all a good tool can do.

Once you start doing things this way, it's hard to go back. I still use find and tar for archiving and will often sftp by hand, but one day I'll figure out how to do that graphically with konqueror. If I ever figure out how to use konqueror's built in scripting for routine updating, well, things will be much easier. My life is not that routine yet.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[drsmithy]

What really struck me about this is that Microsoft can make a horrible design decision, at least from a security point of view, continue making that mistake for 10 years, and it doesn't dent their market share.

What's really struck me over the years is how KDE, GNOME and OS X all went on to copy the same design, yet Windows is the only one that gets criticised for it...

Do not need to split File/Web browser for security

[spaceturtle]

Truth be told, it still is a cool thing. I'd love Mozilla to be my official interface to my hard drive as well as the web. Unfortunately, security in such a situation really is tough.

Actually, under the the current Linux (and Windows etc.) security model, seperating the web browser from the file browser does not gain much security. Although firefox doesn't need to read or write large numbers of random files across your home directory, this does not mean it cannot if someone takes control of it using a buffer overflow.

We could constrain firefox using a utility such as Plash. If Konqueror were designed with the Principle of Least Authority in mind we could run as a seperate process, each constrained in a different Plash environment, having only the rights that that particular tab needed (web access or file access, not both). This would allow us to have an integrated UI and enforce the Principle of Least Authority as well.

Re:It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter.

[RunningGeek84]

The only way to not pay for MS Windows is to order your hardware components and custom build your PC, then install your OS of choice. But not too many PC users do this and most, I suspect, of those that do are gamers. Gamers will, of course, run Windows since that's what most video games are written for. So yeah, as long as MS Windows comes preinstalled on all the major brand name prebuilt PCs MS will maintain that 90% desktop market share. This will only change when companies like Dell offer customers the option of prebuilt PCs with SuSe (or some other Linux distro) preinstalled.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't entirely correct. EXPLORER.EXE, which is tied in with IE and is largely responsible for the GUI, can be crashed by IE. This mucks up the GUI to the point where the system is apparently hung.

What? Since when? Explorer is responsible for the shell, ie the desktop, taskbar, and of course explorer windows. And if it crashes, you can just fire up task manager and restart it.

This is analogous to crashing XWindows in Unix in the sense that X can be completely hung but system processes underneath it continue to function normally.

Sort of, I guess... but Explorer crashing doesn't really affect other applications' UI.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[jrumney]

This isn't entirely correct. EXPLORER.EXE, which is tied in with IE and is largely responsible for the GUI, can be crashed by IE.

Right. I usually have a copy of Emacs running, which works perfectly fine through these Explorer crashes, and when Explorer fails to restart itself (which used to be most of the time on Windows 2000, but is less frequent now on XP SP2) I can always manually restart it from there.

Eheh

[nnn0]

integrated or not - IE is the worst browser ever, and should be avoided at all cost :)

IE7 standalone?

[Samah]

Great!!!
I'll still use Firefox.
=P

like HTML+TIME features....

[cheekyboy]

Those features although MS IE only, are in effect, still cool and achieve really nice
effects and features.

Yes it would be nice to make html so graphic rich that it could replace flash and powerpoint. But
then the standard would be darn hard to support. Still nothing stops it from being 'optional addons'
but not plugins like flash.

Perhaps like C++ addon libs or templates. OpenGL isnt C++ standard but its an optional library addon.

Think about it this way

[ajs318]

The difference between tightly-integrated and flexible, modular construction is probably best illustrated by an analogy from another domain.

If you want a hi-fi system, there are two approaches you can take. Either you buy a ready-built system in a box; with a radio receiver, turntable, CD player, cassette decks and amplifier all in one package. You just connect the supplied loudspeakers, plug it into the mains and you're ready to listen. Or you can go for separate components: a radio receiver, turntable, CD player, cassette deck, amplifier and speakers, each in its own box requiring its own power supply and audio signal connections.

Now, with the all-in-one option, you're fine as long as it all keeps working perfectly. But then if, say, the cassette deck packs up and you have to take the thing in to be repaired, you lose the use of the entire system. With the separates, you can take any component {except the speakers or amplifier, obviously} in for repair and still have the use of the rest of the system.

There's no reason in principle why modular systems should be any more difficult to set up and use {especially since audio and mains connectors are standardised nowadays}; but "one box solution" vendors like to tout as an advantage the concept that you, the paying customer, might be too stupid to follow a set of simple instructions. It's also quite reasonable to assume that any piece of mechanical or electronic equipment will break down sooner or later.

Re:Think about it this way

[Anonymous Coward]

Working at one of a major audio company's stores, I've learned one thing: people are fucking stupid. Trust me, most people buying components either never get it set up right when they bring it home or they return it. Even with the integrated systems, I've had people yelling at me about not getting any sound from their system after having pressed the FM button three thousand times. 99% of the time the system wasn't plugged into the wall. "Oh, there's a power cord?"

Fucking idiots.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[ergo98]

While this is true, it's almost impossible to recover the GUI using this method.

As the other poster mentioned, this is nonsense. Aside from the rare event of having explorer die on its own, I've intentionally killed explorer.exe and then restarted it myself. The only problem I've ever encountered are system tray icons for running apps that are no longer there (as many apps add the icons on startup), which is a bit of a nuisance. Apart from that there's no downside.

In fact, when my machine was a little less beefy I would kill explorer.exe with the task manager, and then launch games directly by "File/New Task (Run)". Explorer consumes a fair bit of resources, so it eases things up for the game.

Of course you might be talking about something different, as really explorer isn't "the GUI", but rather is just an application that sits behind all others providing a graphical shell. It is possible (usually DirectX game, and even then it is rare) to screw up GDI, and until Vista there isn't a way to fix it. Vista brings a new "reset" toggle for video cards that will clean that up.

It's the browser support libraries!

[Nurgled]

The thing that Microsoft can't remove is all of the support code which sits beneath the browser front end. The browser UI provided by iexplore.exe is really just a thin wrapper around a bunch of system-level components which are leveraged by other applications for services such as making HTTP requests, rendering HTML and so forth. If you remove these, any application which depends on them will break. This includes Outlook, Winamp, HTML Help, Word and many more I can't think of off the top of my head. Several core components use IE components too, such as the "Add/Remove Programs" and "User Accounts" control panel applets, whose UIs are HTML rendered through IE.

Of course, there's no reason why Microsoft can't remove the browser frontend (everything in c:\progra~1\intern~1) and leave all of the components (which live in c:\windows\system32) in there. They were deliberately muddling the two to confuse the court.

I suspect that when they say they are going to separate IE from Windows Explorer they mean that they're going to stop explorer.exe using the underlying IE components to do various things. IE's libraries and front end won't be affected by this decision, you just won't be able to view web pages in an Explorer window any more.

Re:It's the browser support libraries!

[cyber-vandal]

Leverage is a noun you dumb American.

Spin

[ickypoo]

Any media entity can 'spin' news or quotes or intent, not just companies. Spin is what politics is all about. If you haven't ever seen it, check out Brian Springer's documentary "Spin" -- available online here, among other places.

Isn't it already separate in XP?

[debiansid]

I tested an install and then a subsequent uninstall of IE7. Strangely that broke my IE6 install. All my links are caught by Firefox. Even if I type the url in the IE6 address bar a new firefox window opens up to take that link.

Inspite of this Windows Explorer's working fine. Am I missing something?

and how many browsers...

[x2A]

...run under linux 2.6 but not linux 2.4?

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Tim C]

Konqueror would be integrated as a component of X and would run under the root account

Neither IE nor Windows Explorer are integrated into the Windows display subsystem, and neither of them run as the SYSTEM account (the closest parallel to root). It is also possible to replace Windows Explorer as the desktop shell (see for example Aston Shell, although there are others); from memory, there is a registry key that specifies the program to launch on logging in. By default, it starts explorer, but that can be changed.

I know I know, not entirely accurate

Not even close really, but thanks for trying - you're the first to bother :)

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[RexxFiend]

got one right here.
a usb device that can be used to control stuff on a pc, yup. ;-)
seriously tho - most of these things come with extra buttons that you can re-program with the bundled software to control winamp/wmp/itunes whatever. I guess someone could write some drivers for linux to pickup the extra signals and translate them.

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[Doctor Crumb]

Again, missing the point. infecting /etc/init.d/ affects *all users* of the computer, even administrator/root. Let's assume the rogue spyware installs a script saying "halt -n" to be run on startup, before a login. That means that the computer is suddenly a brick.

Now let's let that same spyware infect a .bashrc or a kde/gnome session file. This is at most an annoyance, which can be dealt with by loggin in as root, or sshing in remotely, or any number of things. It's bad, but it is not catastrophic. Even if there is only one user on the system, privilege separation means that J Random Browser can't cause a catastrophe. That's why a fully userspace IE is important; would Microsoft be making this move if they *didn't* know it would improve security?

Re:Great! Now to get Konqueror!

[rrohbeck]

Instead it sounds like either it's taking a long time to get the data or it's timing out in some fashion.

Agreed, but what's the difference? It ain't workin', and I don't feel like finding out if it will recover within some time or not. Since the root explorer has so many UI functions, if it's hung there's not much you can do, especially since any newly started explorers will hang too.

No local folder browsing in IE 7

[Just Another Poster]

Not only do URLs not open in explorer.exe windows, IE 7 won't browse local folders in its own window. I used to run instances of IE 6 as an administrator for this reason, so I could easily access local programs, files and folders with administrative privileges (and yes, I was careful to avoid accessing anything on the Internet other than Windows Update when using IE 6 in this manner).

This new behavior is probably for the best.

Re:Lied to the US DOJ?

[beemishboy]

I can appreciate a difference of opinion, but I believe that they lied to the DOJ.
Sure, if you just haphazardly delete dlls and executables from your system in some sort of black box fashion, yes, you would be seriously screwing up your computer and of course it wouldn't work any more.
However, we're talking about the people who have the source code and have written the whole dumb OS, not an AOL user who needs tech support to change their screen saver. Don't tell me that you can't take out what you just finished putting in. Is it some work? Yes. Did they want to do it? Nope. It would have set them back because of the reworking and the change of direction at the government's request. They were the ones who *chose* to illegally abuse their monopoly power though. They shouldn't be calling the shots.
I think they got off pretty easy in the government case.
This may just be a difference of opinion, which is fine. I *have* read a lot about the anti-trust proceedings and read the final judgment and the reasonings behind it. I just have a different opinion about how Microsoft represented themselves and what was feasible for them to do technically.

Amazingly Insightful Comment

[SeanDuggan]

Sir, as someone who started out with bulletin-board systems and Lynx, I salute you. If it weren't for the fact that Slashdot hasn't given me mod points in months (despite heavy metamoderation), I would be modding you up now. Wonderful dry presentation of wit too.