Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to Force IE7 Update on February 12th

Z80xxc! writes "InfoWorld is reporting that on February 12th, Microsoft will roll out Internet Explorer 7 through Windows Server Update Services to all systems - regardless of whether or not the update had been requested previously. The piece also mentions ways to prevent the update from occurring, for sysadmins who do not want to use IE7 on their systems. Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'."

12 of 480 comments (clear)

  1. Good in some ways... by dyefade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least now there is only IE7 to support - IE6 should quickly fall from use.

    1. Re:Good in some ways... by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not so good -- Win2k and 98 will still be affected. And they're quite widespread -- Win2k in bigger corporations, Win98 in smaller businesses. Private computers tend to use XP, mostly of questionable legality. And of those who run XP, a vast majority seems to have updates disabled.

      And even if everyone switched from IE6 to IE7 overnight, it's still a steaming pile of crap. Sure, it may be mere bullshit instead of military-grade toxic sludge, but either version makes me glad I don't have to do webmonkeying for a living.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Good in some ways... by nevali · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, that's fine. You keep using IE 6 all you like. Just bear in mind that once your preferred broken browser is in the minority, us web developers will stop spending hours or days at a time going out of way to make our sites not look and work like complete and total ass in it.

      The standards were created so that we didn't have to do that for every site that gets built, and by and large they apply--except for IE 6 and IE 7 (IE 7's so much better than IE 6, though; it's a breeze in comparison).

      So yeah... you use IE 6. Then you'll discover how its rendering engine really copes with standards-compliant mark-up (hint: it's not pretty).

    3. Re:Good in some ways... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's why you don't implement for IE at all. You build for Firefox, Opera, Safari, or something else that supports standards, and then make little tweaks to fix IE displays. Doing anything else puts you in a world of hurt.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Good in some ways... by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn straight Active X is solely responsible for what percentage of viruses in the past 9 years since it's introduction? 50-60% more?

      Coding for Active X is stupid because it is a virus magent. poorly designed, lots of buffer overflows, etc, etc.

      design to standards and you will won't have nearly as many problems.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Good in some ways... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In software development Implementation is the phase where a system is being deployed, it is not a phase where you develop the system.

      That really depends on where your culture got its vernacular.

      In research and academia, you implement a design or algorithm by writing code. You then deploy your implementation when you install it for your users.

      In marketing and some production groups, "implement" is a synonym for "roll-out" or "deploy". Near as I can tell, they don't have a word that makes a distinction between designing software and actually coding it up. This causes no end of confusion in meetings between marketing groups and research groups.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  2. Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IE6 is a huge pile of ******. These days, whenever I write a website, the procedure is always like this:
    1. Test website in Firefox initially.
    2. Verify that it works in Opera.
    3. Verify that it works in Konqueror.
    4. Verify that it works in Safari.
    5. See it totally break down in IE6.

    IE6 has too many rendering bugs. It's the sole cause of hours and hours of lost productivity. It's about time that it dies. IE7, although not as standards compliant as... uhm... pretty much every other browser on earth, is orders of magnitude better than IE6. People should be forced to use IE7 (or Firefox, or Opera, or whatever; just not IE6).

  3. Re:Firefox! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah, except that in its current incarnation Firefox is a bit sucky too. It's better than IE on many levels, especially security, but it's no longer the snappy and lightweight browser it once was. Memory usage is terrible, I find the UI sluggish, render times are far from ideal and the whole thing just feels... not what it was.

    Hopefully 3.0 will fix that, but for the meantime I'll stick with Safari.

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  4. Re:Tsk Tsk by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They must be pretty damn bad applications in the first place if moving from IE6 to IE7 'breaks' them!

    1. Get spec: Must work on IE6
    2. Design methodology: Hack it around until it looks right
    3. Test methodology: Click around in IE6

    If you have paid no heed to standards or alternative browsers, it's trivially simple to make a site that breaks on IE7.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. Talk about innacurate by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IT still needs to approve the update via WSUS for IE 7 to get deployed. If its not an approved update you don't get it.

    Of course this is Slashdot, you are allowed to spout all the innacurate crap you want, as long as its crap slung at Microsoft.

    If people had bothered to read they would have noticed this in the "warning" from Microsoft: you have configured WSUS to "auto-approve" Update Rollup packages (this is not the default configuration), Windows Internet Explorer 7 will be automatically approved for installation after February 12, 2008 and consequently, you may want to take the actions below to manage how and when this update is installed

    Thanks again Slashdot for proving the Linux camp really are full of a bunch of anti-Microsoft loonies who read only what they want to read.

    1. Re:Talk about innacurate by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IT still needs to approve the update via WSUS for IE 7 to get deployed. If its not an approved update you don't get it.

      ...because everyone knows that every house and SOHO computer install has WSUS and an IT department, right?

      (you know, those places where the bulk of MSFT's cutomer base can be found?)

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  6. Re:Firefox! by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I've said before, the problem is that we can never seem to recreate the problems users complain about. When we ask for a detailed set of steps to reproduce the problem, we almost always either get none or we cannot reproduce the problem. You can't fault developers for not fixing problems, when hardly anyone can seem to point out any. You need to report the bugs first, and then the developers will fix them.

    I do not seem to experience these problems you refer to. Others I talk to in the MozillaZine forums do not, either. When people come into the forums complaining about problems, we point them to the Knowledge Base, and when they follow the instructions there, they seem to quickly fix their problems.

    If you are unwilling or unable to report or fix problems in Firefox, you should probably switch to another browser. There's no sense putting up with problems, as there are many good browsers out there. And it's even more pointless to keep complaining about vague problems such as "shoddy coding and bloat in general" when you cannot point out even one specific problem, no matter how trivial.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.