Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Offers IE7 to All, Pirates Included
sjdurfey writes "Microsoft recently decided to open up IE7 to all users of Windows, not just the ones with legitimate copies of Windows. They claim it is in the 'end-users best interest'. As a result, Microsoft has decided to mark IE7 as a 'High-priority' update. This is essentially a forced update. Granted, its only a forced update if you are running Windows and have windows update set to automatically install all updates, but nevertheless, it's unnecessary. You can however uninstall IE7 from the Add/Remove Programs menu after its been installed. 'A blocking tool kit is still available for companies and organizations that don't use Windows Server Update Services and want to permanently prevent IE7 from automatically installing on PCs equipped with IE6.'" Update: 10/06 21:19 GMT by Z :Sorry if this seems a bit familiar.
Or was the article just overstating things again?
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I'm inclined to say they're removing the WGA restriction because the popularity of FireFox is now rivalling IE.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with competition... I've got a feeling Windows XP/Vista/etc are so apt to get pwnd by the sheer amount of IE6 and under exploits, MS would rather focus resources moving forward than placing those resources on EOL programs. I know I would... Why spend even $1.00 on yesterdays programs when you really don't care about them, why not make that dollar more useful and productive focusing on now and tomorrow.
Infiltrated dot Net
As a web developer, there's no browser I hate more than IE 6 and 5. IE 7, although not the most standard compliant browser out there, is a step closer to being there. A lot of what works on Firefox works on IE 7. IE 6/5 have to treated in a class of their own. I'm glad IE 6 will soon be gone, regardless of what is going to replace it. More importantly, I've been considering the idea of only support Firefox, Opera, and IE 7 for my new project and this move makes my choice easier.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
This is essentially a forced update.
Yes, if you have configured your computer to automatically download and install "high priority" as well as "critical" updates, and if you haven't installed the well-publicized, one-click tool that Microsoft provides that explicitly overrides any other settings and prevents you from ever accidentally installing IE7, you are "forced" to sit there and watch as your computer does exactly what you've configured it to do.
I had a similar problem with Ubuntu the other day - I have this script that automatically apt-gets any updated packages, and damned if the thing didn't force me to update all my packages that had updates! Commie bloodsuckers won't get my money again.
Why is there a consistent negative vibe around IE7, calling it a "forced update" and so on?
Speaking as a web developer, IE7 makes my life a hell of a lot easier. It's not perfect (it's not even great), but it's definitely better than IE6. If all the people still using IE magically became IE7 users, at least I wouldn't have to worry about some of the retarded things like the lack of alpha PNG support. I can understand that you might not want to upgrade if you're a business with a variety of web apps that rely on IE6--my heart goes out to you--but I would really like to see it pushed on the home user. Another legitimate complaint, of course, is that the GUI for IE7 is not what I would call intuitive; I do wish Microsoft had provided a version with IE6's GUI but IE7's rendering engine.
We should be trying to make the web incrementally better whenever possible, instead of making snide remarks because it's not a 100% solution.
Schlock Mercenary
Windows 2000 users and Windows XP SP1 users are excluded.
When I first saw this, by first thought was, "Yes, Pinkie, but who would want it?"
Good, inexpensive web hosting
they've fixed also the bugs that made it possible to work around the bugs that they have NOT fixed yet! :-/
At every turn you see Microsoft backing down on different things. They backed down (a little, but not enough) on their XP at year's end thing. Now they're backing down on the WGA thing. (That's still confusing to me though... If I ever ran into a WGA problem, I'd install a better release of XP that overcomes that problem.)
Gone are the days when people are excited by the next thing from Microsoft. (I remember lines outside of CompUSA when Win98 was released!) Gone are the days when people just blindly 'upgrade' to whatever is the latest thing from Microsoft. People have learned to mistrust them. Microsoft granting 'concessions' isn't really enough! They've lost TRUST. That can't really be restored with concessions and free stuff. Regardless of whether people actually accept the concessions or not is no indication that trust could be earned back or restored.
I downloaded and installed IE7, but I can not find a trace of the promised 'included pirates'
Excellent point. Think about how new versions of Windows USED to become universally-deployed within a matter of days following their release:
... the Technorati Elite. You know, the people who got bitten by Windows Genuine Advantage for installing a virgin corporate copy of XP Pro on computers that probably DID have a Genuine Certificate of Authenticity, but only came with a dysfunctional "System Restore" disc and tons of crapware from the laptop/pc vendor's Strategic Partners of the Week. The guys/girls with at least 3 computers of their own (usually a high-powered desktop, a laptop, and the limping, scavenged remains of their desktop's previous incarnation -- most of whose components are STILL higher-end than currently-available "mainstream" PCs... and probably one or two more computers that mostly sit unused, but occasionally get fired up for some experimental purpose. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY -- not even someone for whom the cost is almost irrelevant -- is going to go out and blow the retail cost of Vista on computers #3 and beyond. And for these users, installing anything less than "Ultimate" (or at least "Professional") is unthinkable, anyway.
* People bought a copy, and upgraded every computer they owned. And probably their parents' computer, too, if they were feeling particularly masochistic. Even the old, lame, and barely-running PCs & laptops that nobody would EVER spend $200 or more buying a separate copy of Windows for.
* People upgraded their work computers. This made admins unhappy, but it also forced them to deploy new versions of Windows a lot faster than they'd have otherwise liked, because they knew that the longer they waited, the more guerrilla upgrades they'd have to deal with. Most people who'll install a "free" copy of Windows to their work PC won't spend $200+ of their own money to buy a new copy of Windows for it.
In short, by locking down Windows to a single installation, Microsoft has gained very, very few actual new retail sales compared to what they would have had... but they've lost a HUGE amount of mindshare and free PR. Is there anyone who SERIOUSLY believes that Vista's issues with apps & drivers would have dragged on as long as they have if Vista had become ubiquitous overnight the way Windows95 did? By limiting Vista installations, Microsoft has effectively ensured that Vista represents a minority of Windows users. A minority whose wails have thus far been largely ignored by the next group...
THESE are the REALLY dangerous users, because they're the "influencers" who others turn to for advice. And these are the same users who are currently pissed as hell at Microsoft for annoying them with WGA, and want nothing to do with Vista due to its DRM (real or imagined). God forbid, they might even be playing with Ubuntu on one or more machines. So... when Joe Sixpack asks his coworker Joel Aleet what he thinks about Vista, Joel is going to roast Microsoft and Vista, regardless of whether he's ever actually touched Vista. And Joe is going to walk away convinced that Vista is the Spawn of Satan, and when he orders his new PC from Dell, he'll ask to get it with XP. Stir, rinse, and repeat a few hundred thousand times, and you have Vista's current plight.
IMHO, Microsoft had the product breakdown mostly right with Windows XP -- a "Home" edition that's cheap, but lacks networking & management features businesses want, and a "Pro" version with everything else for about 50% more. If they really, REALLY had to, they could add a third level -- "Enterprise" -- that cost a lot more, but with a twist: it would come on the same CD/DVD as "Professional", and simply ask you at installation time which version you had. In other words, enforced purely by legal license rather than by technical means (like a different CD key). Why? Because it's a wonderfully-elegant way of ensuring that TRUE "Enterprise" users pay the higher cost, without burdening or pissing off everyone else. IMHO, the defining trait of an "Enterprise" (vs simply a "business") i