Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Kill Switch For IE Confirmed — For More Apps, Too
CWmike writes "Microsoft has confirmed that users will be able to remove its IE8 browser, as well as several other integrated applications, from Windows 7. Jack Mayo, a group program manager on the Windows team, listed in a blog post the applications that can be switched off. They include Internet Explorer 8, Fax and Scan, handwriting recognition, Windows DVD Maker, Windows Gadget Platform, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, Windows Search, and XPS Viewer and Services. He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not actually deleted from the hard drive. The public beta of Windows 7 does not include the ability to 'kill' said apps. But a pirated copy of Windows 7 Build 7048 includes the new removal options, and has been leaked on the Internet." (We mentioned the reported ability to turn off IE8 yesterday as well.)
The killer is that these are all just specialized applications that should be easily installed and uninstalled, just like any other application. It blows my mind that they could be so entrenched that just removing them, or not having them installed to begin with, isn't trivial.
Whale
Other stuff depends on them.
"He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not actually deleted from the hard drive."
Wow, they have a switch to remove shortcuts. Out of sight out of mind?
Better known as 318230.
Which is it? One sentence says that the program can be "removed" and then it's explained that the program can be "turned off" but the files aren't deleted. That's hardly removing the product. It's equivelent to not using it.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.
That is stupid... The idea of removing something, is to reduce clutter on your system and reduce the support burden... If something is installed but not being used it still needs security patches. If it's removed, you no longer have to worry about it at all.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I don't know that that's fair. When I came back to my computer after installing Ubuntu for the first time, I found a whole lot of garbage I didn't and would never want installed, and much of it I wasn't able to uninstall after the fact. But people want to be able to use their computer out of the box and not have to install anything. "People" being most people, not you.
Whale
Having installed IE8 just recently, I find it vastly improved (particularly in speed) compared to IE6 and 7. It is slightly amusing that Microsoft gives us the option to remove it now.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
Does that mean that flaws in IE8 still leave a computer vulnerable if it's been "uninstalled?"
Dude, it's a step in the right direction and you're irritated at them for it?
People have been screaming about this for literally YEARS and when something positive is initiated, they still get blasted for it.
Sent from your iPad.
Not only that, but having 2 apps to do the same thing is ridiculously wasteful and inefficient
Tell that to anybody who plays two MMORPGs, or anybody who uses two file sharing networks, or anybody who has Nano, vi, Emacs, and gedit all installed, anybody who has both Emacs and Lockjaw installed (they both include a Tetris clone), or anybody who actually puts effort into her MySpace profile (need to test on webkit, gecko, and trident). "The same thing" isn't always as easy to define as you might think.
I always figured it was because so many features of the system libraries were wired into IE. The help system, the active desktop, file thumbnail previews, any HTML display object created by application code -- seems like all of these would be wired into the same dynamic library for optimal support and space/memory efficiency.
Given that the user might still expect all that other stuff to work after "removing" IE, what are you really removing? A windowed presentation with some bookmark functionality?
Perhaps someone else can comment on how close Windows is to allowing some other browser vendor to be a plug-in replacement for all that other functionality.
I am fine with this. If I decide I do need the app, it is nice to not have to find the install media or do a download. I am glad they have the ability to some what 'kill' the app. When I go to Windows 7, I will kill everything but IE (I have websites that require it that I need). This is at least a step in the right direction. They also are not installing some applications by default anymore in Windows 7, and you have to get them if you want to from the download site.
Explorer, MMC, Control Panel, just to name a few all use mshtml.dll. In addition, any .NET application that utilizes the WebBroswer class or MFC application that uses the CHtmlView class will need mshtml.dll to be available.
The only alternative here is for Mozilla or another OS browser to reimplement mshtml.dll from scratch - a daunting task of questionable logic.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
There is no need to kill DRM. Just don't purchase DRM protected content and you are good to go. You are looking at DRM as some kind of boogy man. Irrational fear should have no place in computing.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
I don't see the average user uninstalling IE8 just because there's an option to do it.
It's an option that most people won't use, so Microsoft is giving in on something that really doesn't do them any harm.
The smart part is that now that there's an option to uninstall IE8, it's harder to complain about it since the fact that it's still in any given computer is not Microsoft's doing, but the user's lack of desire to uninstall it, so IE8 must be working well enough for the average user. At least that's what MS will say.
Forgive me but from your example this is also true: "switched off != switched off".
Why would they need the installation disk? No disk was required to install IE7 on XP. You won't need a disk for IE9. So there is no reason a disk should be required for IE8.
It's a free program and they already do checks to see if you have a valid installation so why leave it on the system when it can be downloaded? In fact this would be better.
When someone wants to re-enabled IE again they're taken off to the IE site where they have to download the installer and get the latest version rather than some outdated version that's been sitting hidden away on their system.
Since Vista, Windows Update has been its own program and not a web site, which is much nicer and saner.
One man's garbage is another's treasure.
If you are in an office environment and you're at all BOFH inclined, then there are a lot of things that are not necessary, clean as their installation may well be. Instant messaging, bittorrent, games.
Hanlon's razor.
So...Microsoft isn't evil, just unreasonably retarded? Seems like that would explain a lot of their decisions at least since when Ballmer took over. Maybe through the company's whole life, though I don't know much about the time when Gates actually ran the show.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Please do not buy software from Closed source software vendors.
Because you don't OWN a product unless you can MODIFY it.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
There is a real API. All you need to do is properly implement the IWebBrowser interface. No one does though. But then again, why should they make it so you can replace Trident? No one is claiming that Apple should let you replace WebKit or that the KDE project should let you replace KHTML.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The IWebBrowser interface, it's documented in MSDN. All a library has to do is expose that to replace Trident. But like I said before, it's a little unfair to expect that when Apple is perfectly OK to tie WebKit into anything that moves and KDE uses KHTML for a bunch of stuff too. You can't remove (or replace) the rendering engines on those. Well, maybe you can on KDE.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".