Slashdot Mirror
IE7 Released As High-Priority Update
jimbojw writes, "Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning and is available via automatic update or download from Microsoft." And an anonymous reader notes stats on IE7 and FF2 downloads, adding: "Looks like FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5, while IE7 is having a hard time to find followers. Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?" The sans.org stats site will be updated throughout the day, so perhaps we'll get an indication.
Work that monopoly ... yeahhhhhh you like that dont you .. yeahhhhhhh whos your daddy
Installed smoothly, reassigned without giving a choice file types to IE, e.g. xml's
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Not high priority enough for me
Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning and is available via automatic update
If anyone has ever wondered how MS gets those fantastic browser numbers, here's your answer. Just you watch - here in a few months MS will be crowing about how there are more IE7 users than Firefox 2.0 users. As if anyone with a windows box has a choice in the matter.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Uh... did you even read the article headline?
I've heard of people not reading the article or even the article summary, but at least read the headline...
Registered Linux user #421033
Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?
Yes of course it will. Why would the majority of Windows users go out and manually download a web browser? For most of them IE works just fine. When IE7 comes in they will just consider it another one of Windows quirks and happily chug along with it.
One one of my systems, I had previously downloaded and installed a tool from Microsoft which was supposed to prevent the automatic update from happening. Surprise, surprise, this morning, this particular system was prompting me to install IE7 and it gave me big nasty warning messages that I was harming my computer and causing starving babies in Africa to get hives because I refused to install it ... or something like that ... who ever reads those things anyway?
Huh? I thought IE7 was already out and had already had over a million downloads... Have I been hallucinating?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The first sentence in the article summary says "Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning". Seems the GP did read the summary!
:(){
I'm sure since MS says they're now complying with antitrust laws they'll also be allowing Firefox, Opera, and anyone else who wants to, to roll out their own browser as a high-priority update as well, right?
For those of us who manage a large amount of workstation systems; this means we are in for a bit of work. All of my systems are locked down with Deepfreeze (auto thawed on sundays; the time that the updates to windows on our systems are set to occur) What does this mean for the installed plugins such as Shockwave/Flash and Java that the users so dreadfully desire?
Why would the majority of Windows users go out and manually download a web browser?
Oh I don't know. Maybe the millions of people who went and downloaded Firefox did it to...be more secure?
But seriously, every time I have to go and get rid of a virus off of a Windows machine, I tell the user to download firefox. Most of them do.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Clicked the checkbox off and told it not to remind me about it again.
Technoli
Seriously. Of course the Firefox users jumped on the bandwagon and downloaded 2.0 (which is buggy and crash-prone, glad I'm still using 1.5 at work because my home browser is barely useable). If you've gone to the effort of getting a replacement browser you're obviously more up on what's available.
So tens of millions of users didn't swarm to download IE7 as soon as it was available. Seeing as I never once saw a major news report on it, the majority of users don't read technology news, and even most of the users who do don't care what browser they use so long as it works, why is the summary written as if there's a problem that the masses didn't mindlessly rush out and downloaded the latest shiny package from Microsoft?
I find the "forced" update (which isn't really forced) a little worrying, though. It should *at least* pop up a window saying that a new version of IE has been downloaded and is ready to install if the user wants it. It's a pretty major UI shift, people should be made aware of it. Blindsiding them with that isn't going to win MS any fans.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I *want* people to upgrade to IE7. I don't care if they're using IE7 or Firefox. I just want to be able to write sane CSS.
Most people don't feel the need to update unless they see things they need. There is no way people would update to IE 7 unless forced- just like there is no way people will update to Vista until they are forced to.
I did check IE 7 out yesterday- we use IE for internal browsing at work, and my boss wanted me to make sure the new version worked properly. (Web browsing, of course, is done with Firefox). It definitely looks and feels better than IE 6, and they have taken measures to improve security (whether they work or not remains to be seen). As usual, Microsoft makes great improvements to their products as soon as they get competition. That's what capitalism is all about.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
In my company we have at least two programs whose functionality is broken when IE7 is installed, due to menus written using IE6's renderer. Even some of Microsoft's own software -- e.g. the file transfer function in their Xbox 360 DDK -- breaks when IE7 is installed. Pushing this major upgrade as a forced update is irresponsible. This isn't what the Automatic Update system is supposed to be for.
And even when nothing breaks, I suspect a lot of users are going to be pissed that their web browser interface has suddenly changed.
And even better, it seems that the guy who was complaining didn't...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
There's a guy named zefrank who puts out a video blog which is pretty amusing. One recurring topic is a behavior he calls "Rocketbooming" (not to be confused with the company of the same name, wink wink), which he explains as using really bad metrics to make you look hyper-popular. Of course, this behavior has been used since the business deal leading to the first advertisement on a 2-page town newsletter, but what with the puffy egotistical company name, I kinda like zefrank's term.
Anyway, by shifting gears and making IE7 an automatic downloadable for anyone who has Windows (because you all know that IE is an integral component of Windows), it seems to me that this is just a great numbers-inflating gambit. "We have 100 million* IE7 users (defined as people who left their computers connected to the Internet and didn't crash long enough to download a critical patch update that included it)." Even devoted users of FireFox who happened to fail to aggressively avoid this update will be considered one of the IE7 faithful.
[
Furthermore, the general public is loathe to change. If Aunt Bea is used to her Internet being IE6, she sees little need to move to IE7 unless she absolutely has to -- basically when MS force it on her. Firefox is generally used by more tech-savvy people (and their friends and relatives) who are more likely to update for both features and security even though there's that huge regression hole in FF2.0.
Just because FF2.0 has had 2M downloads doesn't mean two million more people have dropped IE in favour of FF. In fact, the high number of downloads may show dissatisfaction with the earlier version and its memory leaks, whereas IE6 is "good enough". At the end of the day the only meaningful statistic is the tracking count. My blog gets hit by about 20% FF and 75% IE. YMMV.
If you're an admin in any size enterprise, you can mitigate the installation of IE7 using WSUS or SMS. I've got WSUS in place and it works fine for (not)deploying updates. There'd probably be a $#!+ storm here if I allowed IE7 to be installed, what with the new interface. My users have to introduced to changes slowly...
IE7 hasn't managed to get itself installed on any of the SuSE or Solaris based computers on my home network, however . . . perhaps that's why CERT hasn't issued a warning - limited scope of vulnerability to this particular expliot!
They hid the file menu for some reason, so you have to go change a setting to fix it. And then it doesn't work well: the tried-and-true menu motion for File-New to open a new window ends up going to the tabs instead. Why did they have to mess with the menus?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Microsoft sure makes being a web developer hard. Not only did they not give oodles of time to developers to get their current sites updated to IE7, but now we have one more browser to hack js/css for. Then again, who doesn't want to have different hacks for at least three different MS browsers? (IE7,IE6,IE5 for mac)
-Chris
Time IQ - Web Based Time Tracking
Anyone noticed what happens when you open a mapped drive? Try it, run a program/batch/etc from it and look at the loverly "WARNING:- Death to all those who run this program" box that appears. Its causing hell for all those like me who have batches run on startup for workstations (they are on mapped drives, thanks to my MagicCards (hardware deepfreeze)). anyone who finds a secure work around, please let us now! damingo
PAKA will take over the world one
If not for slashdot, I wouldn't have known about the forced upgrade.
I don't use IE except when forced by microsoft- which is about once every 18 months to download the new directx.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Microsoft says they've taken steps aimed at the root causes of IE security problems, as in doing a real redesign.
It's not exactly sandboxed, but it has to ask permission from a "request broker" before changing anything in the rest of the system, and the request broker is smaller, more auditable, and not handling malicious input all the time. Troublesome features like installing Browser Help Objects are off by default.
If we're lucky this could be like IIS 6. If we're not lucky, it should still be better than the malware installation engine everyone's running now.
Don't expect your friends and relatives to report fewer malware installations, though. The bad guys will just shift to a different infection vector if IE7 lives up to its promises.
Who really cares anymore? FF1.5 and IE 6 BOTH allowed sites infect your computer with virii, spyware and adware if you weren't vigilant. FF2 and IE7 look almost identical, function very similar, and both have been working fine for me since I downloaded them. To tell you the truth, rather than running FF2 on high risk sites, I've just taken to logging into a limited account and using IE 7, because I like some of the interface "features" a little better. Right now, while both are pretty new and no major problems are cropping up (at least ones that don't get fixed asap) in either, it is silly to sit here and listen to fanboys argue about how many downloads each has. Your average FF user is on top of the situation with FF and has downloaded the update. Your average IE user probably couldn't give a damn, and will download theirs when MS tells them they should. Who cares what gets downloaded immediatedly after releases?
From the Slashdot post:
Looks like FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5, while IE7 is having a hard time to find followers.
From the linked article:
For isc.sans.org (which is probably not your typical site), 50% of Firefox users already use Firefox 2.0, and 23% of Internet Explorer users use MSIE 7.0.
The linked article is only talking about users of isc.sans.org, and that includes the table in the article (the data comes from Google Analytics, but it's only for isc.sans.org.
Jeesh. Does anyone bother to read the articles anymore?
As a result of this massive upgrade, the whole Internet will be offloaded as all those Internet Exploder clients will be hindering the Microsoft users "internet experience"!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Firefox works very well, if you're looking for an alternate. IE6 works too. It's just IE 7 that is causing this trouble.
Dominant Meme
I installed a trial version of Windows Onecare (fed up with norton) simply because for $50 i can cover all 3 pc's we own. Not being a huge MS fan, I have to admit it's been relativley painless so far. It did show IE7 as a high priority update, and I finally gave in, since I want the little Onecare taskbar icon to be green rather than 'warning yellow' 24/7. The interface looks nicer, but I'm still only going to use it for the MS's IE only websites, I'm simply more comfortable and familiar with Firefox. Haven't yet moved from FF1.5 for the same reason.
I meant the headline on Slashdot, not in the article itself.
Registered Linux user #421033
Maybe you all can help me with something, but what's the big deal about marketshare among browsers. At least from a Wall Street point of view. Every browser I've ever owned was free, so it's not like Microsoft or Netscape or NCSA or Mozilla made money off me downloading it. Besides the technical superiority of one browser over another, why does Microsoft or Mozilla or Wall Street care when one browser gains market share?
For isc.sans.org (which is probably not your typical site), 50% of Firefox users already use Firefox 2.0, and 23% of Internet Explorer users use MSIE 7.0. Overall, we got about a 50/50 split between Firefox and Internet Explorer users.
The stats on the site don't say much at all about the uptake of IE7 (or FF2, for that matter) among the general internet-using population. As you can see in the quote, the article doesn't make any pretensions that they do, either, noting that sans.org isn't a typical site.
Which is obvious, given the breakdown of FF vs IE users. A 50/50 split is obviously not a representative sample.
The second half of this blurb is blatantly misleading.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
I'm dowloaded IE7. Had some trouble connected, but what the heck (I use FF anyway). Started it up, whadjathink? No menubar. Activated menubar. but it's under the navigation bar. I don't want that! Unlocked the toolbars, but can't move location bar. Menu bar can but can't be dragged above location bar. Can't be floated either (Which is a good thing, I think...
:)
Ok. Never mind. Tried to put buttons under navigation bar, not at the botomright position. But I can only move them horizontally, although the mouse cursor indicates all 4 directions including up and down!
AAAARRRRGGG!!! Help me, please!
Most of your comments about my post directly contradict what I said. Are you sure you replied to the right post?
Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?
Yes.
Die, older versions of IE, die!
:before/:after pseudo selectors and the content property!
Finally, I can do mostly sane CSS. Still, there's so much more to ask for...
Ditch VML for SVG.
MNG support.
Border-radius, box and text shadows!
And put some fucking -ie- prefixes on the proprietary stuff, for god's sake.
67.6% Internet Explorer
-> 1.4% Internet Explorer 7.0
-> 91.5% Internet Explorer 6.0
-> 4.3% Internet Explorer 5.5
-> 2.8% Internet Explorer 5.0
24.7% Firefox
-> 53.8% Firefox 2.0
-> 46.2% Firefox 1.5
Looks like IE7 got a bad start...
I dont want 7 on my machine.
Hell I dont want 6 on my machine.
Next hedline
Microsoft requires IE7 to do winbloz update
--
mod me as flaim bait if you wish, you now know how i feel
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Firefox 2.0 has had a couple of problems with JavaScript that can cause crashes.
This only affects you if:
a. You are running a vanilla install of Firefox and have not downloaded the NoScript extension (please do so right away).
and
b. You go to one of those maliciously formed pages.
Failure to follow both of the above steps will result in Firefox not crashing due to either of the JavaScript issues. Which probably explains Firefox's stability on your system, my system, and most of the rest of everyone else's systems.
I received the notice last night through Windows Automatic Updates that the download was available. I clicked Cancel and didn't download or install it. Anyone who wants that level of control over their system just has to go into Automatic Updates control panel and configure it. Or, hell, even turn it off and run WindowsUpdate manually every second Tuesday of the month, with the Custom option that allows you to pick and choose what you want to install.
The only people being "forced" are people who are too dumb to know how to manage their boxes, and corporate end-users who have no say in what is run in their corporate environment.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
First, I think that it's a good idea for as many Windows users as possible to get IE7. It's a good update for a number of reasons. But anyone working support lines is going to have their hands full, because it is different enough (at least the way it installed on my systems) that most Windows users are going to be traumatized. Really, most Windows users don't think of IE as a web browser, IE is the Internet. When IE7 is installed, their "Internet" is going to be broken in ways that will scare and annoy many of them and send them reaching for the telephone.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
``I just want to be able to write sane CSS.''
Well, you're able to do that today. If you do it right, your website will still work if the browser doesn't implement all the CSS features you use. If it doesn't, it's either a bug in the browser (file a bug report with the developers, complain, alert people, fix it), or, more likely, a bug in your code (fix it).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Many people will never update to IE7. The installer passes the WGA, so everyone with a pirated XP copy who do not want to crack the WGA or download firefox will just keep using IE6
This is also why IE7 is not being "forced", like the misleading news comment says. Microsoft can't enforce it, I've heard that in fact they add a "no, and don't ask again" option
Funny. Windows Media Player 10 was pushed out as optional update, but a new version of Internet Explorer is now considered a high-priority update. Does that mean all the security patches for IE6 couldn't secure it, and that we must upgrade to IE7 for safety? Does it mean the adoption rate of IE7 is so low compared to Firefox 2.0 that Microsoft needs to 'make' this a high priority update?
There's just one problem with this scenario, albeit not an enormous one.
I've done this for a long time with MS trying to stuff SP2 through my throat on my old XP machine (which was at that time known to break several applications I was using on a regular basis), only when these applications updated to work with SP2, did I install it.
However what will happen if you do this is that on *every* new update MS sends out, it'll automatically put the hi priority in again and enable it. So with every update you will have to manually disable it. And if you forget once, well, that's too bad then.
You get to the point where you just think ", I already told you, you piece of operating system that I didn't want it!"
Splut.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
When I need to use IE at all I'm still using IE 5.5.
I mean come on, it's hardly the first site most people go to, I would have thought sysadmins and the like that do frequent the site are going to be using (hopefully) the highest patched version of their browser of choice.
Well at least I'll be gaining a tab browser at work now. Since the Air Force considers FF to be a security risk. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
You'll also be able to tell what percentage of Windows users have autmatic updates on.
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
They do offer a "no" option, but the "don't ask again" option isn't working or available, similar to the "yes to all" option
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
. . . supposed to be reserved strictly for security patches and not new functionality?
It couldn't possibly be Microsoft leveraging their monopoly to regain what share of the market they have lost to Firefox, Opera, etc. now, could it? Why couldn't they just FIX security problems in MSIE 6?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If you go to the Microsoft Update site right now, IE7 is listed, but as an optional software update, not a high-priority. Looking at article, I have no clue where kdawson got the notion that it was a high-priority update. All the submitter said was that it was on the AutoUpdate site. Can anyone actually confirm that it is going to be a high-priority update, or did a slashdot editor make an assumption without checking facts?
For the same reason that OpenDocument isn't a part of Office 2007. There isn't a benefit for them to do so. Why support an open standard when you can continue to lock someone into your products?
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Your website may work, but it may or may not look very nice. That's just not acceptable to the majority of web developers. But Microsoft has no reason to comply with standards any more than they absolutely have to, and every reason to keep their implementation broken and generally incompatible with everyone else.
His post worked for me!
Merged the key into the Registry, right-click and display "Menu Bar", and its back to a semi-sane IE.
-ebob9
"Looks like FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5, while IE7 is having a hard time to find followers. Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?
Firefox 2.0 also popped up as update. IE7 is as force-fed as Firefox 2 was. IE7 won't install automatically, it'll first ask for you to agree to the install.
In other news, Google's market share in the web search business has plummeted, while MSN search rose to be the most used search engine.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
stats on IE7 and FF2 downloads
Why would you compare Internet Explorer to Final Fantasy? and that "II" is 11, not 2.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
I'd give it some time to gain momentum, if most users are like me, they've hacked the shit out of the windows registry or moved that little 'reboot now, screw the powerpoint presentation you are in the middle of' box somewhere off-screen. It may simply take people a long time to bother rebooting again or to notice the update, depending on their auto-update settings.
It's optional. "High priority" doesn't mean "forced". The user will see an installer appear and they can choose to install or not install IE 7.
/ windowsupdate/ie7announcement.mspx
There are also several other options from preventing the installer from even appearing. It's not much different from getting automatic upgrade notifications from Firefox or many other applications.
The details can be found here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/updatemanagement
I have to now wonder if we'll see a few dozen retractions in this thread as people realize they jumped to the wrong conclusions.
It *is* a security patch. Jeez.
I just tried doing Microsoft Update with IE7, and it just hung. It's sitting there, blank and unresponsive.
Could installing IE7 be the solution to incessant Windows updates?
m
I realize that slashdot readers don't ever RTFA, but typically they at least RTFS. The summary made it clear that IE7 had already been released and was trailing FF2 downloads. The whole point of the summary was the auto-update push.
Just let me know when they release the uninstaller. kthx =)
Ever done a `man` on `top` ?
Well, since it breaks HP Multifunction Devices (scanning software stops working), in my experience, there are a few million people out there who are going to have real problems with this "urgent security update".
I had to backrev to IE6, and even while it was installed, IE7 was pretty crash prone. Naturally, I run Firefox unless I HAVE to run IE.
He might be using autopatcher. http://www.autopatcher.com/ No IE required
Actually, if you want to merge two identical folder trees (Just as an example), you can simply hold in [SHIFT] and press "No" or "Yes" if it asks you something, which will result in the dialog box assuming a "YES/NO to all".
This, of course, does not work with stuff like "Do you want to register"-boxes and such. Only daily Windows tasks.
The overwhelming majority of Windows XP users never change the default. I am not sure when, but I think the automatic download of patches set as default already came with Windows XP in 2001. But it might have been SP1 or SP2.
So it should be pretty easy to calculate the approximate marketshare for IE7 in december. Take the number of computers running the configuration mentioned above (all computers sold with XP preinstalled and all Windows XP sold since they made automatic download of patches default) then deduct the number of installations that have their defaults changed (that is the tricky part, since large companies most likely will have such a setting), then add the installations that will likely IE upgraded by hand (much smaller number, because people using IE6 most likely do it for a reason. If they wanted to switch they could have already done so to Opera or Firefox) and then you got the magic number.
Either way, I am pretty sure that the number will be huge. IE7 will have a much bigger marketshare than Firefox within the first couple days. If you have not checked if your webpage works with IE7 and it is important to you that people can use your webpage than it is about time to do so.
Don't offer it as a choice, just cram it down their throats and then let them deal with the after effects. Another classic example of customer service by Microsoft. They should change there motto from "where do you want to go today?" to " You're going where we take you so sit back and shut up or your going in the trunk again"
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
"Microsoft Partners With Zend"
itsatrap! BUahahahahaha!!!
"Windows CE 6 Arrives Complete with Kernel Source"
itsatrap!! Hahahaha!!! *slapping knee*
"Vista Gets Official Release Dates"
itastrap! Ooo good one!! Hahahahaha!
"Microsoft Considers Pulling Out of China"
itsatrap! Pulling out!! Hahahahahah!
"IE7 Released As High-Priority Update"
itsatrap! Hahahahaha!
So.. what.. are people subscribing to Slashdot so they can be the first to put 'itsatrap' on every Microsoft story?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and I'm not using Firefox, etc. because many websites I need to access (Banking sites, etc.) REQUIRE IE. And yes, I know about the ad ins, emulators, etc. but choose not to mess with that.
There might be something odd about my rig, but here's a cautionary tale for anyone thinking of installing IE7...
.NET framework, but I haven't had time to reinstall that yet. The best part is the MS System Restore utility flatly refuses to roll back the system. IE7 seems to be a point of no return.
I installed it on my XP MCE box (running the installer as admin on a normal account) and found that it wouldn't connect to the Net at all, although FF and other non-MS apps weren't affected. After trying their troubleshooting (which crashed more or less) and a few other ideas, I uninstalled the mess. Bad idea. Now many of my apps don't work at all. Visual Studio 2005 and many third party apps --all toast. My current theory is that it only munged things that use the
Ask me about my sig!
So that's what ruined my archlinux iso burning process. Nero was fixating when suddenly the "windows will restart in x seconds" message popped up, and the burn process failed (even though all sorts of "protections" - burnproof, etc. - were enabled). I guess that message stops all processes when it pops up. I was enraged of course. Screw MS.
Seconded. Been pining for proper PNG/alpha support in IE for years. This update will make graphic designers very happy.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
...many people have the release candidate version on their machines and very little reason to 'race FireFox' by pulling down the latest release?
How about the people who have removed FF 2.0 in order to go back to 1.5x (as I did) because 2.0 has serious issues?
What is it with people and 'picking sides'? Both browsers offer a great experience. I use both every day.
Loading...
I believe what the parent it trying to say is that regardless of the trailing number of downloads that IE is receiving compared to FF2 that perhaps, just perhaps, MS has actually planned on releasing IE as an update later than the initial release.
Perhaps waiting for feedback from the initial adopters before they dished it out to the general public en mass.
"No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
...which is why I run a relatively low-priority server for my research lab.
Like lots of other bad sysadmins, I saw that headline and said under my breath "Well, I wonder what this is gonna break."
Nice. It doesn't work now *and* one has to register to download it? Pass.
We are using MS:SCE (beta2) and have prohibited this 'update' from doing out to the computers. Our current software packages are not stable with this release, and we cant afford to risk any down time.
"Remember - total number of downloads and total number of users are not the same thing..."
Absolutely correct. I've downloaded Firefox at least six times on several different machines. I do not use it at all, and haven't for a while. I'm almost certainly still counted as a user.
I believe that the article summary clearly says that "Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning and is available via automatic update or download from Microsoft." This is two separate statements, separated by an "and" - "Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning" and "Internet explorer is available via automatic update or download from Microsoft". What the guy was trying to say is that the summary is retarded because it contradicts the headline, and just plain ain't true (Personally, I updated to IE7 on Monday, October 23, 2006.)
Again, all that we the slashdotting public tend to ask is that the editors edit. Too bad they're utterly fucking incapable of doing this.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Honestly, I can't see why more companies aren't setting up Microsoft's WSUS server? It's free of charge, and basically acts like a subset of their commercial SMS Server product. It uses the Windows Auto-Update service built into XP, 2000 and 2003 Server but you simply modify the workstations to get update info from it, rather then over the Internet.
It has a fairly decent web-based administration interface that tracks all the Microsoft updates that are available to deploy, and lets you determine which ones your workstations on your LAN will receive, and which will be ignored. It keeps tracks of the list of updates already applied to each of your machines, and lets you group your systems into arbitrary "containers" for easy reference.
Unlike SMS, it doesn't let you roll your own deployment packages for 3rd. party products, but it handles such things as MS Office updates and SQL Server patches, as well as all the Windows updates themselves.
Personally, I found SMS too difficult to set up and maintain as a one-man I.T. department where I work, yet WSUS was perfect for our environment of roughly 50 PCs.
I have to run Firefox via a USB flash drive at work, because IT won't allow FF to be installed on our machines, nor will they install it for us: The logic is that they can only support one browser, and there are many Intranet pages that only work with IE.
So now that a new version of IE is coming out that those IE6-pages probably won't work with, they have the options:
Stick with the less-secure IE6 for the forseeable future
Upgrade to IE7 and break a load of websites
Learn their lesson and stop letting people put important business information/applications in a form that only one version of one application can access.
I won't throw away my USB drive just yet. . .
So.. it has come to this
you're a [i]douchebag[/i] I have firefox 1.5.0.7 on my windows install at home which i rarely use. I tried my hardest but it kept telling me there were no updates. Therefore, my friend, you're a liar. You were NOT forced to get 2.0. Go troll somewhere else
Microsoft has not updated IE for years (other than security fixes). If that's their idea of a high-priority update, how long would a low-priority update take? (still waiting for Y2K support in Microsoft BOB)
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
At work I have to connect to a service which, thanks to underfunding, is fragile in the extreme. You have to have the right version of IE and a specific version of Java to run the service. There's no choice about the matter. Those who have tried to use IE 7 found it broke the service. It's terribly fussy and getting a PC back to where it will work with the service can be very touchy. This attitude of Microsoft's to automatically "upgrade" your browser is the very height of stupidity and arrogance.
I've sent out an email to tech staff warning my computer is not to receive anymore automatic updates for the foreseeable future and have turned off auto update.
This is my reality. I don't expect everyone else to suffer like this, but there's a lot of us in this boat.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Mozilla has not yet pushed 2.0 out via auto-update, and even when they do, it will ask permission.
Throw the bums out!
The first thing I do on every Windows PC that I touch is disable automatic updating. I let it TELL me about updates, and then I decided if and when to install them. Windows is geared toward end users who don't understand about security patches or don't want to be bothered by them. There's no sense getting angry at MS when they provided you a means to prevent what enraged you.
If you want to get angry at MS, be angry that IE7 is just as buggy and full of security holes as EVERY OTHER version of IE. I use FF2, but installed IE7 the day it was released so I can test my webapps on it. Most of them don't work, even though I haven't had to change 1 line of code for FF2 to work with them.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
They're going to release an update to the 1.5 branch that will make a pop-up box asking users if they want to upgrade to 2.0. So no, it hasn't been forced and won't be. People who have 2.0 now, have manually downloaded it themselves (like me!). And personally, I am very satisfied with 2.0. Gotta love the spell checker!
There's no place like ~/
..shout all the windows 2000 users (like me).
After a 2.5 hour download, the IE7 installer promptly started downloading updates from Microsoft with no estimate as to the size of those downloads nor how long it will take.
Major thumbs down on being honest about the size of the update.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I hadn't heard this. My wife has to run an XP machine on our home lan and must use IE for on-line apps (CaseMap) related to her job which FF can't access. She would have serious problems if things started breaking because of IE7.
I question why this was released as a Critical Update. That will make it be auto-selected every time you use Windows Update or Microsoft Update, even if you deselect it. You have to deselect it and check a "Do not remind me again" box, which will make the update harass you every time you log on stating that you have hidden critical updates and how this might cause kittens to die, and it's all your fault.
Again, what's critical about this? Are there critical security holes in IE5, 5.5 or 6 that won't be fixed? Or are Microsoft misusing the Critical section to push something they want you to have to reduce the chance of you going to the competition?
Regards,
--
*Art
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=243
The quote in question comes from the leader of the "Vista RSS platform, IE UX, and IE setup teams."
Personally, this is about the behavior that I would expect if I asked a second year college student on a summer internship to write the feed detection logic, and even then, if I was on the team I would have thrown it away and had someone else rewrite it. To see the RSS team lead not only acknowledge without a hint of embarrassment this as an intentional design decision, and on top of that to suggest with a straight face that stuffing your XML documents with unnecessary comments is a valid solution absolutely blows my mind.
Microsoft has learned absolutely nothing from 6 years of experience with Internet Explorer 6. Sure, they fixed a lot of long standing bugs, but they also completely ignored a lot of bugs that were not only known, but documented on their own site. For example, http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/r
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I have a site that gets fairly decent traffic numbers, mainly from a comic book fan site. So it's skewed a little bit towards technical, but it's still running 71% IE and 21% Firefox, with the balance made up of Safari, Opera, and a bunch of smaller browsers.
I ran some stats on Tuesday for most of October, and found a huge disparity between IE7 uptake and Firefox 2 uptake.
During the RC periods, IE7 hovered at around 2% of IE visitors, and Firefox 2 hovered around 3% of Firefox visitors. 12 days after IE7's release, it had climbed to... 4% of IE users. Firefox 2, meanwhile, had jumped to 8% of Firefox users the day of the release, and after 6 days, it accounted for 22% of Firefox users!
Reports I've seen at various news sites suggest that raw numbers of downloads have been comparable, or at least within an order of magnitude. But percentage-wise, I saw nearly a fourth of Firefox users had upgraded within a week.
I attribute this to three things: First, Firefox users tend to be more enthusiastic about their browser than IE users. In my experience, the most enthusiastic IE users get is "It works." (Not counting genuine Microsoft fans.) Second, Firefox users have already downloaded and installed a browser once (or gotten someone else to do it), so they're more comfortable with the idea. Third, because Internet Explorer is so tied to the OS, upgrading it is more likely to break something (like Microsoft Developer Studio). A lot of the more tech-savvy IE users are actually holding off out of caution.
You think they would have learned when the included IE4 in NT4 Service Pack 4 and broke all kinds of things - like Netscape's dominance in browsers.
(In fairness though, IE4 was better.)
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Windows Mozilla Software Removal Tool
CSS allows me to mark up XML as well as HTML. If it doesn't work in IE, historically there has been no recourse. You just get crap on the page. Submitting a bug gets you nothing.
I'm with the parent poster on this one. I want to be able to write sane CSS that most people can use. I haven't played with IE7 much, but I'm not encouraged by the fact that it is still missing table support for CSS. At the moment, I'm forced to use XSLT to transform my XML into XHTML. But this is really suboptimal because I can't let users choose which XSLT transformation to use (leading me to jump through many hoops to get the functionality I want).
Good luck. IE7 fixes enough CSS to make it not work with the old IE 6 hacks but not enough to allow you to use one sane standard CSS template. Sorry.
Indeed. "So much software gets downloaded all the time, but do people actually use it?"
So Microsoft sends you IE7, forcing you to choose between "Yes" and "No" on a dialog box. Even if you choose "Yes, install IE7," nothing about the install process compels you to use it if you prefer something else.
After downloading the High Priority Update, you get this: "Microsoft recommends installing Internet Explorer 7... blah..." Buttons on the bottom are "Ask me Later", "Don't Install", "Install" You still have a choice not to install it.
We already recieved the message that came down from corporate. No IE7 and NO Vista on any company machine, or any machine that might connect to the network. (That last includes all my home machines). They will get back to us when testing is complete. That comprises over 100,000 machines right there.
It's obvious that FF users would upgrade to the latest version much quicker, since that crowd is much more likely to follow the devellopment. I'm willing to bet 75% of FF users who have not yet upgraded to 2.0 are only using FF because a friend/relative installed it on their PC.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I'm a web designer, so even though FF is my primary browser (and occasionally Opera), I have to download IE7 to see what it breaks. After installing it, I've noticed some rather odd issues with applications not keeping my personal settings -- everything from Dreamweaver's remote info for the sites I manage being wiped-out and unable to save them anew, to "Recent Documents" lists in a number of non-MS programs being zeroed out. Adobe's updated for Dreamweaver fixed that problem, but it does IE7 seems to be even more tightly coupled with the OS and causing shenanigans as a result.
Also, on an unrelated note - the IE7 interface is complete crap! Who the hell puts in a menu bar that is disabled by default (breaking Windows interface guidelines) and then not allow you to move it *above* the address bar! I've hated IE for many years because of its intrusive nature and poor standards support, but the only the that IE7 seems to have given me is more reasons to hate the damn thing.
This may be the one instance where I agree that the term "douchebag" is insightful.
Mike
Inverted Mind: Useless stuff to read when you should be working
http://www.invertedmind.com/
I installed it yasterday then rebooted my computer... and it rebooted again... and again... and again.... and again.... (even when trying to go into safe mode) Somehow the installation of IE7 corrupted the boot sector. I had to go into the recovery console and fix the boot sector for it to work. Obviously my impression of it is quite low even before trying it. I think Ill stick with firefox.
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
To echo what others have been saying... It was released last week as *an automatic update*. I've had it a week now but there's no way i'd actually go and manually download it.
oh great, yet another subset of standards to accomodate when designing for the web.
Okay I can understand pushing IE7, I occasionally still run into XP SP1 machines out there that people are just now updating to SP2... so forcing SP2 and Forcing IE7 are good steps to keeping everyone on the same page.... Now.. if I could only get MS to force the install of .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 I'd be a happy camper! I'd finally be able to have people use my .NET programs without telling them to go download and install the framework they've never heard of, but more and more programers in the windows realm are using.
Go to the Control Panel, then open Add or Remove Programs. Look for "Windows Internet Explorer 7" and uninstall it. (In the unlikely even that you can't see it, you might have to check the "Show updates" box.) Uninstalling will leave the system with IE6.
Sorry, were you expecting something more complicated?
IE 7 *is* a response to people filing bug reports with the developers, complaining, and alerting other people. The web development community has been doing all three for years.
The problem is that IE 6 deviates extremely far from web standards. CSS code usually works the same in KTML (Konqueror & Safari), Mozilla Gecko (Firefox, Mozilla Suite, Camino, etc.) and Opera. However, that same code often renders incorrectly on IE 6. Basically, my code good, IE 6 code bad.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
What would they buy?
They could buy the trademarks.
They could buy the offices.
They could buy the Mozilla Corporation or the Mozilla Foundation.
They could hire the developers.
But they can't buy the product. The entire codebase is out there, and already licensed such that even if Microsoft bought all the rights to the code, other projects like Flock, Iceweasel, K-Meleon, and such could go right on using it.
I had a customer try to update his system yesterday with IE7. When he launched it, it would lock up his system totally. He had to downgrade to IE6 so his system will work. This is not going to be good.
The above is not worth reading.
you're going to have to be more specific than that. nothing in the parent struck me as being untrue.
ôó
Um, on my corporate PC, Firefox got updated all by itself to 2.0. (and not from an IT push.)
I didn't think that the auto-check for updates would force a complete version change on me.
Luckily nothing broke as far as extensions that I use.
"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
I don't use their browser, but I know how integrated it is into Windows along with its supporting DLL's, so it's probably an important update for Windows really.
it's no longer an issue of Grammar Nazism. This is just sheer idiocy, and let it be a lesson learned for all those who think mastering language is unimportant. For all we know, this guy may be able to factor complex quadratic equations in his head, but he sounds like a drivelling idiot, so nobody cares.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Yeah, I had the same experience when it was released, unofficially, last week. I assumed that, since I already installed 7b6, it was trying to install over the previous installation and kept failing. I went to uninstall 7b6 and it informed me that I had installed it with a different user account and that I would have to log in as that user in order to uninstall it... Yeah, like that's going to happen... like I have all this time to close my current projects, figure out which user it was installed under, then log in and uninstall it, then relog into my current account and install the current release.
So maybe you installed a 7b version as well? Let me know if this actually has nothing to do with the install failure for you.
Gracias,
Brandon
"The Borba"
Link http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1816 mentioned has not been working during some hours. It will open only a blank page with 'Previous' and 'Next' links to other SANS Diary entries.
...with IE7. I have both running. With FF you can middle-click a link on the browser bar containing the bookmarks toolbar folder (analogous to IE7's "Links" folder) and it opens the link in a new tab. With IE7 you have to manually open a new tab by clicking the corner of an existing tab, then clicking the link on the "Links" toolbar. Firefox does this very common task with one less click than IE7, and that's why I use FF now -- even though the presentation of IE7 is a little more slick, and comes up quicker. It's only one click difference, but I use that feature quite a lot.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
No user will be forced to install the update. According to this page, the user will ALWAYS be notified (even if the user has "automatically install updates") that IE7 is ready to be installed.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
IE7 ONLY shows up on the Windows Updates if you have installed an alpha or beta of it. If you are still running IE6, it does not force IE7 on you. We tested this here in our IT department after I noticed that my automatic update at home installed it.
I rushed out to buy a car MP3-CD player when they first came on the market... I never bought Ford's version of an MP3-CD player.
No, I will not work for your startup
Seeing as how I use this machine primarily for gaming, I use windows XP Home.
When it was announced that IE7 was available for download, I did so. It installed well, transferred all my previous IE6 settings/preferences without fail and, in general, performed reasonably well. As with any new product it does have some aspects I am not too happy about. My biggest gripe is the delays in loading pages the "Phishing filter" causes. I got to the point that I was disabling it when viewing pages that I already trusted.
Not long after, Firefox 2.0 was released. I viewed the changes made and wasn't surprised to see that, on the surface, pretty much ALL of the "new" aspects of FF2.0 are included in IE7. I waited a few days and then began reading reviews of FF2.0. I then compared them to reviews of IE7. VERY surprisingly, I was beginning to see that FF2.0 wasn't all that it was purported to be. Even in the area of stability, it seems it was lacking.
So why use FF2.0? To be blunt, I see no reason to do so.
But thats not the basis of this thread. The "update" method of "offering" IE7 is the issue. Since I downloaded IE7 and had it installed already I assumed that I was done. So it came to me as a bit of a surprise when Windows Update informed me that one of the updates was actually an installation of IE7. Umm, I already have it. Why would I want to download it again? I saw no reason to do so. Just out of curiosity, I did it anyways.
I really couldnt tell any difference at first glance. But as I used it more I noticed a difference. The "Phishing Filter" no longer slowed my browsing to dial-up speeds. So basically, my biggest complaint about the browser had been "patched".
In short, with the release of IE7 via download, I think Microsoft rushed out a browser to beat Firefox2.0 out of the gates, while it still had some shortcomings. The "update" release was basically, as far as I can tell, just a means to release IE7 to the public (in a manner that pretty much assures that Windows users are aware of it being available) while at the same time "patching" the previously downloaded browser.
As far as being "force-fed", I see NO evidence of it being so. BOTH times I installed it, I had the choice not to. I fail to see where its shoved down your throat.
As far as my choice between FF2.0 and IE7, I simply went with what worked best. When it boils down to it, thats all that really matters to me. If FF2.0 fixes the problems in a timely manner, like MS appears to be doing with its product, then maybe I will change my mind.
Thats absurd.
So your saying that making things EASY TO DO, for their existing customers is a BAD thing? I see NO reason why MS should resort to the same "handicapped" distribution methods that the Firefox is pretty much stuck with.
If Firefox had the means to offer FF2.0 to users of FF1.5 as an "update", they more then likely would offer that OPTION.
> FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5
I thought they were already up to like FFXII or something, although I can see why they'd want to restart the Final Fantasy numbering before it grew too large, and include decimals this time to give them more breathing room.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If I get this from Windows Update, is it going to go all "Windows Genuine Advantage" on me? Inquiring minds, just, um, want to know. Purely out of curiosity...
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
The download counter is now useless. Firefox+Windows users are going to now download IE7, even if they aren't going to use it....
I think, like most people who consciously chose to use Firefox, this update is good. It replaces IE 6 and most of it's security holes. However I'll take the update and continue using Firefox. I think that the number of active users may spike a bit for IE, but the trend to using alternative browsers (Firefox) will continue-- a minor impact at best.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
I think that time has proven that the majority of (non-slashdotters) will click yes to just about any prompt. I know my parents would. So would the majority of my co-workers. So, I do expect MSN traffic (IE7 seems to have reset my homepage!) and search to jump.
The answer I've seen from MS engineers is that Windows will almost certainly crash if you update key components and don't reboot, so they make it reboot to prevent people from complaining about it crashing. Somehow they seem to think a reboot is better than letting you take your chances...
What's all the ruckus about? Haven't we learned enough about M$ to know that they would do this?
If the past is any guide, there will be another anti-trust suit in the works by X-mas.
As for the news on FF 2.0, it's a shame. Not a tragedy, just a shame. Of all browsers, FF2 is the most promising for a secure, standards-compliant browser.
The tragedy with IE7 is that most of the world is waiting for it to FIX its predecessor. If you don't think it's broken, then you haven't been on the Internet. If M$ can work things out with IE7, look for IE6 to be dropped faster than Windows ME.
With Firefox 2.0, we can wait. There's no hurry, guys. Take your time and get it fixed. FF 1.5 is working just fine in the meantime.
In the end, there's no comparison. If you want to browse the net worry-free, dump the big, blue "e".
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
Why the hell don't they just unpack the updates during the next boot up? Hell, even if it's one of those "Please wait while Windows installs updates..." and reboots again when it's done, what good is it to wreck a running environment/session? If replacing some component will knock the house of cards over, why not just change the deck as the machine's starting up the next time?
Read my stuff.
I never claimed otherwise. :)
Throw the bums out!
Then it was installed by midnight, mozilla loving zombies, because Mozilla has not pushed it out via auto-update.
Throw the bums out!