Slashdot Mirror
Internet Explorer Drops WGA Requirement
Kelson writes "The Internet Explorer team has updated the installer for IE7. Mostly they've adjusted a few defaults and updated their tutorials, but one change stands out: The installer no longer requires Windows Genuine Advantage validation. Almost a year after its release, IE7 has yet to overtake its predecessor. Was WGA holding back a tide of potential upgrades, or did it just send people over to alternative browsers?"
It's finally clear where Microsoft's priorities lie. You can pirate until they have a dominant place in the market.
I used to work in a tech support callcentre, and even normal home users had the impression that IE6 was insecure and spyware prone. (I even had a pensioner tell me this over the phone)
I think they then switched over to an alternative browser and grew fond of the other features (tabbed browsing etc), so stuck with the new browser.
Those that hate any change just stick with IE6.
Internet Explorer as a whole now has a reputation for being buggy and insecure, and I think this is stopping most people from using it rather than WGA (I reckon most people have legitimiate, OEM/pre-installed versions of Windows anyhow)
Well, I think this is a push to increase security; it's harder to get any of those crappy ActiveX exploits through IE7 because of it's insane "please confirm installing a plugin 3 times" methodology. With WGA enabled you have all your legitimate Windows users using IE7 (or at least having it installed, remember IE7's browser components are used throughout XP - help files, embedded in other apps..) but everyone pirating it still uses the previous versions with no security updates installed.
You could easily claim (and be right) that disallowing the vast majority of pirated Windows copies the latest security updates contributes to the spread of viruses, trojans and generally misappropriation of networks.
After all, until Firefox implements some kind of MSHTML.DLL replacement scheme (would this be so difficult, really?), it is not possible to completely remove Internet Explorer from a standard Windows system (WinXP Lite etc. notwithstanding) and have it still function the same way.
Someone should port the Wine MSHTML.DLL back to Windows.. and have it use Gecko, in order that we completely reduce the requirement of Windows on the obvious things. I think it'd have to be modified to use ActiveX controls though, there was a project for this once, I really can't work out why they abandoned it though (ActiveX security policies may be easily broken etc. but it would have the happy benefit of enabling everyone with IE-requiring internet banking etc. to use those sites, too!)
I basically think if the guys at Firefox were really serious about putting themselves as a true alternative to IE, they would focus a little more on truly replacing IE rather than just being installed side-by-side.
...wouldn't have known it was there. The WGA requirement means that you actively have to log into Windows Update and say "yes, I want IE7" or actively locate an IE7 installer. Your average computer user won't even know which version of IE they're using, much less will have any idea there's a new version out and why they should bother installing it.
If IE7 doesn't have the WGA thing, then presumably it's going to be automatically installed with the rest of the updates whihc most users have set to automatic (since that's how the computer came configured).
So yes, expect the installed base to increase significantly, and I imagine a reasonably increase in usage as well - alot of people will find it better than any other browser they're using (stupid, uncustomisable button layout notwithstanding).
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Good thing my "windows" machines don't run windows. :-)
yeah I know it's cliche to post about running another OS, but honestly, what's the motivation to run windows anymore?
I recently swapped gentoo for ubuntu on my laptop, and out of the box ubuntu booted up to Gnome, had a bunch of useful software installed, was easy to add more OSS to it, it detected my wireless card, and even found my access point right away, sound works, etc. If I take an XP SP2 CD and put it in my laptop, it will fail to find my wireless AND sound. Yet, a free ubuntu CD does that and more. I just don't get what would motivate me to run Windows. This isn't a fanboy issue, it's just pragmatism. Windows is shit by comparison.
As for the issue of IE7, to be honest I'd rather run IE4 than either IE6 or IE7. Loads a hell of a lot quicker, and the interface is a bit more sane. Even without tabbed browsing it's still better than 7.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
That is no excuse. You can load up a computer with all the software you're likely to need without ever paying a single penny for it, and without going against the wishes of the copyright holders.
As an aside, using serious alternatives to Microsoft products will most certainly annoy Microsoft far more than using pirated copies of Microsoft products ever could.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Sometimes it's worth repeating because it's a valid rhetorical question.
You can edit documents, run spreadsheets (even multiply correctly!), design software/hardware, compose music, etc, just as easily in an OSS OS as Windows. And if people stopped worshipping Redmond they'd actually realize that *they* have the power to choose, not the producers.
Why isn't photoshop ported to GNU/Linux? Because customers aren't demanding it enough. Watch people hold up updating CS, demand Linux ports, and you'll probably see it happen. But if you just blindly do what they tell you, you get less options. And in certain cases the alternatives are better. I'd rather use OO.o than MS Office. I'd rather use firefox than IE7. I'd rather use pidgin than the MSN client, I'd rather use lilypond than Finale, I'd rather use mplayer than WMP, I'd rather use a lot of things than their "traditional proprietary" counterparts.
I'd suspect for 99% of computer users out there (home users included) they could get by just as well or better with a good Linux distro than Vista. Certainly my experience with Ubuntu has been such that if you can't figure out how to use/install it, you probably won't get much out of owning a computer anyways. It's just so damn simple to use, not to mention free, and gives access to an entire library of OSS software.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
As a web developer I've been using Microsoft's own VirtualPC doodad which they provided - for free - with a working XP Pro image that had IE6 installed on it. Since you can't really run IE6 and 7 on the same machine this was useful. One IE on my real drive, the other in the virtual machine. The problem was, I really did not want to put IE7 on the real machine.
:-/
So anyway, I figured I'd just download IE7 on the virtualized XP Pro. Imagine my surprise when that copy of Windows, freshly downloaded from microsoft.com, failed to pass WGA validation!
Tredosoft came to the rescue of course with their various clever ways of getting different versions of IE to play (moderately) nicely together, but it still wasn't ideal.
Now I guess I can get IE7 to work on that XP image.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
Almost like that....except it has to be an Xbox360, the Xbox wouldnt pick it up - thats the only way I got it to work. Some College websites require IE and only IE....IE4Linux saves the hassle of windows.
Buying volume license copies and then having to activate each copy, or run a key management server is a pain in the ass. My company still has not upgraded to Vista and does not plan to, unless the draconian activation policies are reversed.
We are, however, buying tons of Macs and only running windows where necessary. Web-based apps and terminal server are dramatically reducing the need for a windows desktop machine in the business world.
Microsoft has everything to lose and little to gain - making products harder to buy, deploy, and use is not a wise strategy.
-ted
The main reason I have IE installed is to make sure my sites work correctly under it. Stupid IE always has rendering problems. Some are due to non-standard compliance, others are just stupid. EG if in a xhtml document you have a <script ... /> tag IE6 will only display the page background, but none of the contents. You have to write it in the html way <script .. ></script> for the contents to show. It has no problem with using the short-cut with any other tags though, only the script one. I hate IE.