Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
liqbase
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.
My new blog
So in other words, now that they've won the browser wars at the expense of OS security, they'll unbundle it now.
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).
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.
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?
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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.
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
I agree with the parent. Wanting to use a web browser as a file manager? Yeeeesh.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
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.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.
Not easily translating to not profitable. What is the difference between NT 5.0 and 5.1 anyway?
What is the difference between NT 5.0 and 5.1 anyway?
Twenty months.
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.
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.