Microsoft Releases Internet Explorer 10 For Windows 7

An anonymous reader writes "Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7 is out. Windows 8 may suck but now you can at least enjoy (most of) that version's Internet Explorer. IE10 for Win7, originally not planned, has seen the light of day after all — four months after it debuted in Windows 8. It is available via Windows Update as an optional update; however, if you've already installed a pre-release version, it will be updated automatically as an 'important' update. IE10 on Win7 requires a platform update to bring some Windows 8 APIs to the more mature Windows, and it will not feature embedded Adobe Flash as the Windows 8 version does (use the plug-in version from Adobe, as usual, instead)."

Comments

Actually... I'm glad.

[Kenja]

I have to do compatibility testing and dont want to have to install Windows 8, even on a VMWare image.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[geminidomino]

Sad to say, but you probably still will.

If you expect the same versions of the same software to behave identically on different OSes, then the shining glory days of your web development career are still ahead of you.

Incidentally, does IE still have a complete mental meltdown when talking to no-cache servers over SSL?

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to do compatibility testing and dont want to have to install Windows 8, even on a VMWare image.

Do you do security testing too? From the fine summary:

and it will not feature embedded Adobe Flash as the Windows 8 version does

Not sure what they mean exactly by "embedded". Does that mean the Flash code is tied even MORE closely to the browser? Wouldn't that just worsen the myriad security issues Flash has already caused? Why would MS do it this way?

If I am reading that wrong and "embedded" means it is more easily sandboxed then that's a good thing. Doesn't sound like it tho. Does anybody know how this works exactly?

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[jest3r]

Does it still have the broken document button that many home users accidentally enable ... making it identify itself and render in IE7 bugs mode?

To me that was / is the most backwards thing about IE ... that users might actually be running in IE7 mode without realizing it.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[BLToday]

I thought the "embedded" Flash of IE is similar to Chrome's embedded Flash. Meaning Microsoft maintains its own build of Flash like Google maintains its own Flash. So it's up to Microsoft to fix any security issues and not rely on Adobe to release a patch to the consumer. So it could be a good thing like Chrome or a terrible thing like IE6.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[infogulch]

I'm thinking "embedded" actually means "included", like how chrome included flash player instead of using the plugin version.

This is a good thing since updates to flash player happens at the same time as updates to the browser (in the case of IE, it's handled by windows update) and it's easier to update and therefore more likely for critical flash updates to be applied.

Not sure how different "embedded" vs plugin is for security.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[filthpickle]

You probably use FF because you just like it more in general. But in case anyone wants to know.

Type chrome:plugins in the address bar to open the Plug-ins page.
On the Plug-ins page that appears, find the "Flash" listing.
To enable Adobe Flash Player, click the Enable link under its name.
To disable Adobe Flash Player completely, click the Disable link under its name.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[t4ng*]

I never understood why Microsoft, with all its code signing, frameworks, and what-not, never opened up an API for Windows Update so there could be a single update system instead of every OEM and software company piling on their own update systems. Seems simple...

1. Register application and its update url with Windows Update API.
2. Windows API checks code signing, rejects invalid and unsigned code.
3. Windows Update updates all code-signed software on system.
4. ...
5. Profit?

Ah! Now I see why it hasn't been done!

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Rude Turnip]

Our intranet looks like shit on standards-compliant browsers (including IE 10) because a lot of shortcuts were taken back in the IE6 days. That button helps to alleviate the problem.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[hobarrera]

Use chromium. Chrome - spyware - flash - branding = chromium.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[hobarrera]

Indeed. A decent package manager is basically what's lacking in windows that's present in almost every other OS. WU could easily be it.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[omnichad]

You mean the Windows 8 app store? They have that. Yes, it's separate from OS updates, but it's centralized and drm-laden as you imagined.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Teckla]

Chrome has flash built in, super annoying, its one of the reason I stick with FF.

That's not a good reason to stick with Firefox. Learn to use your tools. In Chrome:

Settings --> Show advanced settings --> Privacy Content Settings --> Plug-ins

Choose "Click to play" so you can run Flash on demand (by clicking, of course), or "Block all" to make it impossible to run Flash, even if you want to.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[kimvette]

I'm loathe to admit this, but Windows 8 + classic shell isn't terribly bad.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[benjymouse]

I thought the "embedded" Flash of IE is similar to Chrome's embedded Flash. Meaning Microsoft maintains its own build of Flash like Google maintains its own Flash. So it's up to Microsoft to fix any security issues and not rely on Adobe to release a patch to the consumer. So it could be a good thing like Chrome or a terrible thing like IE6.

They are similar. It is still Adobe developing Flash, but they coordinate releases with both Google (for Chrome) and Microsoft (for IE) so that vulnerabilities are not implicitly revealed through one version where an attacker could version compare and reverse engineer to figure out the vulnerability.

Both browsers sandbox the Flash plugin. In the case of IE the Flash process runs under low integrity mode (protected mode).

On top of that, the "embedded" Flash is only available to a Microsoft-controlled white-list of sites. An attacker cannot simply set up a fake site with Flash attack code. IE will refuse launch the embedded Flash for all but the white-listed sites.

On Windows 8 the "embedded" Flash is only available in the Metro^h^h^h^h^hModern version of IE. The desktop version still require explicit installation of Flash if you want to use it. This latter is the situation with IE10 on Windows 7 as well.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[VGPowerlord]

You forget one:
- autoupdating

Heck, it doesn't even have an update UI built into it. Instead, you have to rely on a third-party addon to update it.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[recoiledsnake]

I never understood why Microsoft, with all its code signing, frameworks, and what-not, never opened up an API for Windows Update so there could be a single update system instead of every OEM and software company piling on their own update systems. Seems simple...

1. Register application and its update url with Windows Update API.

2. Windows API checks code signing, rejects invalid and unsigned code.

3. Windows Update updates all code-signed software on system.

4. ...

5. Profit?

Ah! Now I see why it hasn't been done!

Code signed by who exactly?

The problem is this in a nutshell:

1) Bonzibuddy releases version 1, a great clean freeware app with great smileys that everyone wants.
2) Registers with the Windows API and pushes updates regularly
3) Some beancounter at BonziBuddy says we need to include spyware and toolbars to make money so they include it in a new update
4) User uses Windows Update to update Bonzi Buddy, ends with 3 tray icons with notifications, 2 toolbars and changes to home page and the hosts file pointing Google.com to Ask.com and Safari set as the default browser.
5) User blames Windows Update and Microsoft for spoiling their system

Unless Microsoft started inspecting every single update for spyware etc. this won't make sense, but then everyone will claim this is discrimination and talk about user rights to load hundreds of toolbars onto their machine. AKA cluster****.

Now you understand why Windows does not provide an Update API for Windows update except drivers and it's own programs and why they came with the Windows 8 store but pretty much mostly for heavily sandboxed applications that cannot change the rest of the system?

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[recoiledsnake]

I am pretty sure that is for Windows Hardware Certification too, which needs highly skilled people to look at the driver and make sure it doesn't destabilize the rest of the system or contain obvious security holes.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[LordLimecat]

Windows 8 (the underlying OS) wasnt ever bad, I dont think anyone had a problem with it until trying to use it on non-tablet hardware and accidentally hitting the start button.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[jader3rd]

never opened up an API for Windows Update so there could be a single update system instead of every OEM and software company piling on their own update systems.

If an update comes from Windows Update and it does negative things to the box, people blame Microsoft. Why would they increase the probability of this happening? They want Windows Update to only deliver safe and advisable updates.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Merk42]

That implies the user knows which application from Windows Update caused all the unwanted additions.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[sexconker]

You forget one:
- autoupdating

Heck, it doesn't even have an update UI built into it. Instead, you have to rely on a third-party addon to update it.

That's a plus in my book. I'm sick of Chrome's race for higher version numbers and disregard for consistency or stability.

1) Chromium with native, automatic security updates
2) Chromium with cumbersome auto updates
3) Chrome with incessant, haphazard updates.

We don't have option 1 yet, but option 2 is still better than option 3.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[DarkOx]

Simple Microsoft (rightly so) does not trust ISVs to keep control of their private key. What's harder standing up your own update server for $APP working out its protocol (probably simple) and making the DNS point to your rogue box; or breaking in once swiping their private key (probably left on some internet connected machine by and moron or on some code monkeys laptop he left on the bus), pushing your signed malicious update to Microsoft from the coffee shop two states over?

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[davester666]

Well, there is the obvious thing, where they don't want to be a vendor for malware to 80-90% of the desktops around the world. There are a zillion vendors, most of which are likely to be able to be hacked relatively easily. If Microsoft opens up their update system to all comers, suddenly EVERYBODY that randomly downloaded some shareware app to try it out gets an update whose installer includes something extra.

This would become the primary attack vector, because everybody trusts updates from Microsoft, and will install them promptly.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[squiggleslash]

Doesn't happen under Android, why would it happen under Windows? I'd assume that whether Microsoft examines every binary or not, they'd require anyone using the feature agree to a set of terms and conditions (with penalties for non-compliance) anyway.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[recoiledsnake]

Doesn't happen under Android, why would it happen under Windows? I'd assume that whether Microsoft examines every binary or not, they'd require anyone using the feature agree to a set of terms and conditions (with penalties for non-compliance) anyway.

Also, wanted to add, good luck spending a ton of money suing some fly-by-night guy in Ukraine or China for violating ToS.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[rikkards]

Ahem:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=11940
Assuming you are using SCCM and WSUS which would be step 4 which actually becomes Step 1

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Kjella]

Let "Windows Update" be just that, an add an "Update Center" with a warning banner on top that this is all third party software you have already installed on the system and that nothing here is provided by or supported by Microsoft. You have add/remove software in the control panel, why not update software?

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[squiggleslash]

Thank you for not giving a single example of a piece of legitimate software being replaced by a piece of malware from the same company via Google Play.

I'm impressed by your inclusion of the first one actually: not only is it not an example of the type of thing we're talking about, but it's not even installable via Google Play. One might almost think that you simply googled for "Google Play malware" and pasted the first four stories, without actually checking to see if they're relevent.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[recoiledsnake]

I'm impressed by your nitpicking on the first link while failing to address the bigger point.

What is "legitimate" and what is considered not "legitimate" is not even a fine line, it's a complete gray gradient. Even Apple is struggling with the App Store while trying to define it.

For example, newer versions of uTorrent(for Windows) contain ads and contain installations for toolbars etc while the older ones didn't.

As for an example of someone having trouble with updated software on Android, here's one http://androidforums.com/android-lounge/566414-installed-my-update-now-im-bombarded-app-spam.html

I am having a really hard time imaging that you think that this won't be a problem on Windows since a lot of freeware suddenly turns into adware, and worse yet, spyware.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[miknix]

You can also go with chromium..

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[miknix]

You forget one:
- autoupdating

Heck, it doesn't even have an update UI built into it. Instead, you have to rely on a third-party addon to update it.

Rely on a third party addon to update it? Really? I'm really sorry but that's the stupidest thing I ever heard! The main reason why people use chromium instead of chrome is because it integrates better with Linux distributions. That is, you use the distro's package manager to update chromium the same way you use it to update anything else in the system. Using a crappy addon to handle the updates totally defeats the purpose!

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Then you are doing it wrong.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Nerdfest]

Before the Apple 'App Store' came along there was no way developers would tolerate paying the 30% cut they now charge and Microsoft would be sued for anticompetitive behaviour immediately. It's now been made 'palatable'. Valve and other seem to be rejecting the idea, just as Microsoft and others didn't want to pay that percentage to Apple. The odds are against it, but I hope freedom wins and Linux eats both their lunches.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[terjeber]

I have to do compatibility testing and dont want to have to install Windows 8, even on a VMWare image.

Next time you post, if you don't want to look like a childish moron, have your mother read through your drivel first.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Ash Vince]

Our intranet looks like shit on standards-compliant browsers (including IE 10) because a lot of shortcuts were taken back in the IE6 days. That button helps to alleviate the problem.

Well spend some money and get it updated for browsers made this decade then.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Rude Turnip]

We did an overhaul that's rolling out soon, but we're a small business and are flexible enough to make that happen. However, there are lots of larger inflexible companies where that shit will be ingrained for years to come.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[Stratus311]

That's a plus in my book. I'm sick of Chrome's race for higher version numbers and disregard for consistency or stability.

Honestly, once I disabled Chrome's built-in flash/shockwave plugin and just used the Adobe plugin, I've had no instability or inconsistency. In fact, I use it on every one of my devices and have the same experience even across different operating systems. Most times, updates have always been virtually transparent to me as well.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[helix2301]

Microsoft I guess decided to keep Windows 7 around usually Microsoft's first move is always to kill the browser support then come the updates. I think this might be part of Microsoft realizing 8 is not the success they though.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[smash]

What cut do valve take for steam distribution?

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[smash]

Except he does. Or a least who's certificate they are signed by, which he can then revoke.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[smash]

In which case Microsoft expire their certificate and the code stops running.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[smash]

There are also many more regressions.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[hobarrera]

What? Both google-chrome and chromium are updated in the exact same way using my OS's package manager. I've no idea what you mean by your comment.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[VGPowerlord]

What? Both google-chrome and chromium are updated in the exact same way using my OS's package manager. I've no idea what you mean by your comment.

That's funny, because up until now the only OS mentioned was Windows, which doesn't have a package manager.

Re:Actually... I'm glad.

[hobarrera]

Poor windows users. Users with modern OSs (ie: post 2000) won't have any issues though.

mistake in article

[Anonymous Coward]

IE7 on Win7 requires a platform update
should be
IE10 on Win7 requires a platform update I think

Re:mistake in article

[archen]

What exactly is involved in a "platform update"?

Re:mistake in article

[wonkey_monkey]

It's when they do that announcement that has you running halfway across the station because your train isn't coming in where you thought it was.

Re:mistake in article

[t4ng*]

When I hear Microsoft say "platform" I assume they are referring not to actual OS files, but the libraries that could have just as much of a drastic effect when changed as updating the OS. This might refer to C/C++/C#/.Net runtime libraries that most Windows applications rely on. API files might change too, but tends Microsoft add new versions of functions rather than changing the behavior of old functions.

Re:mistake in article

[Your.Master]

Platform update does say "there's a list on our website if you're interesting" right there in Windows Update. The link is http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2670838. It looks like it's mostly imaging and video component support brought back from Windows 8, plus something for XPS documents:

Direct2D
DirectWrite
Direct3D
Windows Imaging Component (WIC)
Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform (WARP)
Windows Animation Manager (WAM)
XPS Document API
H.264 Video Decoder
JPEG XR codec

How is using the term "platform" less insulting to audiences than using the term "bunch of other stuff"? How can the latter possibly be considered less of a "process of handwaving and ignorance with a healthy dollop of disdain for the user". The term platform is used to refer to a collection of things that are incredibly tedious to say together. Much like you say you're a Linux user, or Gnome user or GNU/Linux user or Ubuntu user, but you certainly don't say you're an ssh/bash/Gnome/Linux/OpenOffice/World Of Warcraft/Logitech mouse driver/Generic keyboard driver/PS/2/USB/HDMI/NVidia binary blob video driver/audio mixer/[...] user, nor do you say "I use computers and stuff" as though saying Linux would be an insult to anybody's intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_platform

* I have no fucking idea whether Logitech distributes binary blobs; work with me here.

Re:mistake in article

[wonkey_monkey]

Why the heck have I got insightful for that? It barely deserves +3 Funny, let's be honest.

Re:mistake in article

[smash]

Funny. Considering ie8 shipped with windows 7.

So?

[alen]

last decade when active X came out and the promise of applications in IE, i thought it was cool.
for years nothing happened except for flash

i'm perfectly happy with chrome now and web apps like feedly, evernote and others. IE is still in the stone age of the internet where you have to visit a web site to read the content

Re:So?

[kwerle]

Holy crap! County yourself lucky.

I had to wrangle with websites that used activex controls even though they could/should have been javascript. What a freakin' nightmare. Thank goodness it seems to have come to an end.

Re:So?

[jellomizer]

If you thought Active X was cool, you deserve any of the punishment that you can get.

I am quite happy that Flash kept ActiveX out of the picture. ActiveX was one of Microsoft Knee Jerk reactions to Java Applets. They figured they could make their brand more popular by making it so it runs faster by allowing it to run on one platform, and add more features that Sun decided not to add because of security concerns.

What happened... When we migrated to 64 platforms some Active X apps begin to break, and opened a new slue of security problems. Because the Microsoft Mantra for security it we told you that we are going to install this, anything bad that happens is your own damn fault.

Re:So?

[Opportunist]

Hey, ActiveX changed how my entire industry thought and worked, and it sure was a milestone in our development.

Granted, I'm in IT-Security, but still.

Re:So?

[bahco]

Given our success in the "War on ...", we should declare war on common sense. We sure need more of it.

Signature modded +1, insightful. :-)

Re:So?

[BitZtream]

If you think ActiveX is bad, you don't know what you're talking about.

ActiveX is almost entirely the same as the framework Mozilla uses for Firefox plugins.

ActiveX is nothing more than a system for arbitrary plugins in apps. Its just a way that neither the app nor the plugin have to know anything about each other in advance, yet can still be used together.

ActiveX was not a 'knew jerk' reaction to Java, it couldn't be, it was around years before java, it was known as OLE previous to ActiveX, and something else I can't remember off the top of my head before that.

For security purposes, IE checks the ActiveX for a specific flag that specifics that the ActiveX has been written to be secure when dealing with arbitrary input from the Internet. Don't set that bit, and the ActiveX isn't a threat.

The problem is that IE would automatically install ActiveX objects from anywhere on the Internet by default. If you configure Firefox or Chrome to do the same, neither of them will be any different than the original IE implementation of ActiveX support.

That was eventually changed, because it was clearly a stupid idea. Then the next obviously stupid thing most developers did came next. All developers who figured out how to make ActiveX controls ALSO tagged almost every damn one of them as being safe for use in IE with scripting even though there was no consideration of security. This is neither the fault of ActiveX or IE directly, and is no different than any other plugin exploit in any other browser.

In short, again, if you think ActiveX is bad, you don't understand what you're talking about for multiple reasons.

The whole activex/IE exploit episode was a horrible experience for all, but the problem was never ActiveX.

This is why people hate MS

[h4rr4r]

Artificially limiting what versions of the OS can run their other software is a huge annoyance of windows. There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[vux984]

Artificially limiting what versions of the OS can run their other software is a huge annoyance of windows.

And OS X.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[avandesande]

They are ending support for XP in one year. Does it make sense to port software to XP?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[eagee]

Actually, that's why people hate Apple - though it is why people are starting to hate MS. Windows 8 is great though - releasing 8 helped me build up enough bitterness that I'm installing linux as my main and putting windows on the VM :D.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[baka_toroi]

Is Debian 2.2 still receiving updates? (It's not) Then why are you expecting Microsoft to still provide updates to XP? I mean, I really dislike MS as a company, but this kind of complaint is just plain and utterly retarded.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[h4rr4r]

I can still build software for 2.2 if I want. I could backport any fix I like.

I am not actually expecting them to backport something to XP, just pointing out that until recently they held IE10 from Windows 7 for no good reason.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[operagost]

I'm pretty sure that if you have source code and a compiler for Windows, you can still build things for XP.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[sjames]

The funny thing is that everyone else manages to produce a modern browser without altering the underlying OS to do so. That's why the latest and greatest Firefox, Chrome, and Opera run on anything XP and later but IE versions are segmented.

Yet MS claims that they do not leverage their unique level of control over the Windows OS to benefit their non-OS products. Things like using secret un-published APIs or hacking on the APIs to benefit their other software exclusively...

Re:This is why people hate MS

[dririan]

That may work for third-party applications, but what about the built-in ones? What about the kernel? The simple fact of the matter is once XP goes EOL there's no way to continue supporting it yourself.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind these people are still angry about Stacker and DR-DOS. Their brains simply stopped processing new information circa year 2000, or whatever point they discovered slashdot.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[avandesande]

Does Red Hat or Apple support a 10 year old OS? Do any open distros do this?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[DigiShaman]

From a marketing perpective, it's much easier to just an old product wither on the vine than cut you off completely when a product is scheduled for EOL.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[AmiMoJo]

There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.

Actually there is. With Vista the graphics driver model was radically changed to run mostly in user mode rather than kernel mode, improving stability and security. As such graphics drivers needed major modifications from the XP versions, and DX10 was built on top of that driver model. Porting and maintaining that port would not be trivial.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[DragonWriter]

Is Debian 2.2 still receiving updates? (It's not) Then why are you expecting Microsoft to still provide updates to XP?

Because they won't give me (in the general sense: I don't personally have any interest in doing it myself, personally) the tools and legal permissions to do it myself, that's why.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[amicusNYCL]

There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.

No technical reason, perhaps (although I don't know), but I also would not want to support software that is 10+ years old, and several versions behind, with the latest technology. Sort of the same reason why I, as a web developer, don't want to spend any time debugging IE6 and IE7 issues. It's just not worth it. We no longer even have an IE6 testing platform in-house. How much testing do you think Microsoft really wants to do for their newest technology running on XP? Instead of "hating MS", just get Windows 7, man. XP has nothing on 7, and I was a huge fan of XP and used it for many years.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[CaptSlaq]

Does Red Hat or Apple support a 10 year old OS? Do any open distros do this?

RHEL has a 13 year support window. https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/

Re:This is why people hate MS

[baka_toroi]

This is what you get with proprietary software. Under that kind of software, you don't get the tools and legal permissions to do that kind of stuff. You got exactly what you bought, nobody promised you would get any sort of benefit once they stop providing updates for that product.

I mean, this situation does suck, but that's just the nature of closed-source software. This complaint is out of scope of the realities for this OS.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Opportunist]

Considering how

a) An incredible lot of consumer machines are still running XP.
b) most consumers don't give a damn about updates ("updates? I make updates? Must be some automatic stuff.")
c) Computer games are nearly entirely bought for consumer machines

I'd say yeah, unless you require high end specs for your games where it's likely that the average dufus got Vista or 7 with his new box anyway, you might want to consider supporting XP.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[alen]

that's hot fixes and patches, just like MS

who is writing new software for 10 year old Linux kernels or distros?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than money. It's the same reason game devs don't port their AAA titles to your toy OS.

What are you talking about? People port AAA games to Windows all the time.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Opportunist]

THAT is the main difference. Whenever someone comes along like baka_toroi and asks whether there is still patches for an ancient version of Linux around, this is the answer: If not, roll your own. Or if you can't, fire up the browser of your choice and it's usually easy to find someone who already rolled.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Waccoon]

Right here on Slashdot, I've heard people argue that hardware acceleration is way faster on IE than other browsers. I still prefer compatibility over performance, but, devil's advocate, there appears to be a reason for IE doing what it's doing, rather than the usual case of lock-in.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Opportunist]

Never attribute a blunder to techs when it can sufficiently be explained with marketing. Who is the more likely culprit? The browser division, who has a record of one blunder after another, being privy to the deep magic of undocumented features, or their marketing goons, who have a record of screwing over customers time and again?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[hobarrera]

Artificially limiting what versions of the OS can run their other software is a huge annoyance of windows. There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.

Yes there is. It would mean less profits from Vista sales.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[omnichad]

What about Siri? Apple certainly did restrict older devices. All it requires is a microphone and the ability to upload a recording to a server. And they pretended it used advanced technology on the phone itself. It wasn't even until a later phone that they actually improved the microphone to work well with Siri.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[omnichad]

Yes, I realize that's something they tied to hardware upgrades and not OS upgrades. But Apple doesn't charge for those OS updates. You see a lot of similar things in OS X but I couldn't come up with a clear example.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[omnichad]

Except that MS considers the OS to include the graphics drivers and drawing API and window compositing. IE10 was specifically written around the more modern compositing system in Windows 7 and up. Then they decided not to support Windows 7, because they wrote specifically to a few API's new to Windows 8 (for probably no good reason). And now they are backporting some of the updates that makes Windows 8 an upgrade into Windows 7.

It's not magic to go back and support XP. It's a complete rewrite of the rendering system. XP didn't use accelerated compositing. And to be honest, a web browser needs a speedy compositing system more than the rest of the OS combined. HTML is a complicated mess, but it works nicely.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Nimey]

Or, you know, update to a newer distro. Except in rare cases (RHEL), it's /free/, and if your computer can't run a modern distro then take $35 and either buy a Pi or something better that's used.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[omnichad]

DirectX is a big reason why IE10 wouldn't port well back to XP. It uses a hardware-accelerated compositing renderer. Something that a web browser needs more than most programs, with all the little pieces that have to be combined to make one page. To port IE10 to XP would require writing a completely separate rendering engine, or providing a massive free update to Windows XP.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[rsborg]

Artificially limiting what versions of the OS can run their other software is a huge annoyance of windows. There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.

This is also why people hate Mozilla - because they refuse to support newer FF on older OS's like XP?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Tarlus]

...isn't that exactly what this article is about?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[thetoadwarrior]

Are you surprised that a company that sells hardware and gives its OS upgrades away for free prods people into buying new hardware eventually? I'd rather lose Siri than only get one real update like I got for my Android phone.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Tarlus]

Milking money might be part of it, but there comes a point where it's no longer worth the investment to have technicians developing and supporting legacy software. Eventually, you need to pool your resources with more pressing and current things. I think they've already given XP plenty of extensions and plenty of warning far in advance that its support will officially end.

I don't even think hardware vendors have shipped computers with XP for half a decade, but maybe I'm wrong?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Tarlus]

But how many computer games that explicitly rely on libraries from Vista/7/8 can even run on now-dated hardware from XP's era?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Mattsson]

...you just described what "artificially limited" means in this case.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[vux984]

Wrong.

How is it "wrong"? How is the fact that itunes 11 won't install on Leopard in any way even the slightest bit different from what Microsoft is doing? Both companies just want to move on and not support the old stuff.

Apple doesn't artifically limit it.

Yes, actually they do. Hell there have been OS X upgrades that they have simply DECIDED not to let run on older Apple hardware.

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/26562/leopardassist

LeopardAssist is a simple tool to install Leopard on older, unsupported Power Macs.

"It bypasses the 867 MHz processor check in the Leopard installer to allow systems that don't meet the requirements to complete installation. It achieves this by temporarily faking the clock speed in the device tree, changing it to 933MHz, and then launching the Leopard Installer. No modified Leopard DVD's, no hardware hacks or tweaks, just a one-time run application. (Much like XPostFacto)"

It doesn't get to be any more of an artificial limit than that. 900MHz = "Ok" 800MHz = "No you can't install it".

There are a number of other similar OSX upgrade related jerk moves like this over the years.

What could be more artificial than that?

They make it clear they move on and don't support old stuff because that's what they want to do not because it's physically impossible.

Same as microsoft.

Microsoft doesn't want to support directX on XP. They said so. Nobody ever claimed it would be "impossible". Ditto for Internet Explorer. They could support IE10 on XP but they don't want to, and said so. But at least in those cases it would be actual work to get them running on the older system.

Apple is the only one that completely artificially blocks you from running new software on old OSes, or new OSes on older hardware. Safari 5 was artificially exclusive to Tiger. Itunes restrictions have also been pretty artificial. I think my favorite is itunes because you needed the latest itunes to support new iphones, but itunes only supports the latest macs.

My brother got burned by an iphone, forcing him to update itunes, forcing him to update his OSX, forcing him to buy a new computer. And he wasn't running a decrepit old computer either; it was meeting his needs just fine.

It was rather ironic that itunes supported Windows XP PC which came out years before his Mac computer. (Granted it required XPSP2... but XPSP2 is a free upgrade that worked on any computer that ran XP. vs OSX updates which were not free and which do not run on any Mac made in 2002 onwards with nothing more than a (optional) ram upgrade.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[sjames]

Firefox, Chrome, and Opera manage to run on XP, Vista, and Win7 just fine.

Fully agreed that the deep integration, particularly the way they did it was bad. That doesn't explain why a newer browser that's not doing any of that won't work when everyone elses' newer browser that doesn't do that works just fine.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[VGPowerlord]

You forgot one detail, most likely the most important one:

DirectX 10 relied on a completely new device driver model for video drivers.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[0123456]

As such graphics drivers needed major modifications from the XP versions, and DX10 was built on top of that driver model. Porting and maintaining that port would not be trivial.

No, they didn't. The only part of our graphics drivers that needed major modifications was the kernel driver, which was already a small fraction of the code.

There was no reason for DX10 to be Vista-specific other than a lame attempt to push people onto an OS they didn't want.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[LordLimecat]

To be fair, you could make that argument for every feature each new version brings, until youve just backported the entire new OS.

You do realize that MS has a business model because theyre a business, right?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[LordLimecat]

For the record, "10 year old kernel" would be 2.4.

So "yes, but only embedded folks".

Re:This is why people hate MS

[vux984]

The funny thing is that everyone else manages to produce a modern browser without altering the underlying OS to do so.

Everyone else? Apple's Safari 5.1.7 requires 10.6.8 and Safari 6 requires 10.7.4...

I'm just saying its not "only Microsoft."

Re:This is why people hate MS

[sjames]

Everyone else on Windows. I'm not familiar with windows 10.6.8.

Apple does manage to make Safari work on all modern versions of Windows.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[sjames]

Just rename the new browser and leave the old one in place for legacy apps (makes sense, legacy browser for legacy apps).

They did manage to excise the IE6 stuff for Vista and beyond.

They pissed the bed, now they need to wash the sheets.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[yuhong]

These APIs (DirectWrite, Direct2D, etc...) are not secret.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[vux984]

Good point. Thanks for noting that Apple can make a single version run on all Modern versions of windows, but can't manage it on their own operating system.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[sjames]

Actually, I'm like the maid, I don't do windows.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[sjames]

But apparently, IE has a special in to getting them changed to meet it's needs.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[sjames]

That is an amazing fail on Apple's part.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[DragonWriter]

This is what you get with proprietary software. Under that kind of software, you don't get the tools and legal permissions to do that kind of stuff.

Yes, not being able to do basic support yourself or contract it out to an independent third-party is a limitation that comes with closed-source software. That's why it is reasonable to demand greater support (both in terms of scope and lifetime) from closed-source vendors.

You got exactly what you bought, nobody promised you would get any sort of benefit once they stop providing updates for that product.

The question wasn't about whether or not Microsoft broke the purchase agreement with their EOL decisions, the question was about why people on Slashdot held Microsoft to a different standard as to when they should EOL an operating system than is applied, by the same people, to open-source OS vendors.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[shutdown -p now]

There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.

Except that, you know, cost. Someone would have to work on that project (and no, it's not at all trivial), and people generally don't work for free. Would you buy IE10 for XP?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[mcl630]

If you need to run your "15 year old VB6 apps", there's always XP mode in Windows 7 Pro & Ultimate, or you can just run XP in VirtualBox or VMWare.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[micheas]

Or a paid update to XP. XP service pack 4 $99.99.

It would be fun to see Balmer decide that the future of the employees that worked on windows 8 depended on them outselling XP service pack 4. (Well if you are the type of person that enjoyed the war of the roses anyways.)

Re:This is why people hate MS

[smash]

Could they? Sure. But xp is a dead platform and Microsoft have a clearly fined product support life cycle. Which Xperia is well past the end of for mainstream users. Supporting it costs money.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[jawtheshark]

most consumers don't give a damn about updates ("updates? I make updates? Must be some automatic stuff.")

They might have turned it off for some reason, if it actually was automatic. Just last week, cleaned up a "Metropolitan Police Virus" (a certain local variant) from the computer of an acquaintance. I normally don't check whether automatic updates are on but Windows 7 kept telling me there were updates to be installed. I checked in the Action Centre, and there were over 1GB of patches to be installed. The "installation history" showed that it never ever had installed any patch.

Then I found out that Windows Update was set to "notify me only". They couldn't tell me why they set it that way. Anyway, I turned it back on, and told them to leave the machine on overnight. This was Windows 7 without any service packs.

So, yes... Point #2 is true and a big bad problem.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Opportunist]

None, but care to give me a good reason those libraries don't exist on XP? I can't really think of many libs that are impossible to backport due to limitations of the OS.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Opportunist]

IIRC you get asked when you install 7 how you want to handle it, maybe they wanted "more control" over their machine.

But may I ask you something that REALLY bugs me? Any chance I can convince 7 that I do NOT want it to restart at arbitrary times just 'cause I can't get to the machine in the nick of time to keep it from restarting after installing a patch? It's quite annoying when you find out that huge job you started over night got nixed 'cause the system thought it's a great idea to restart itself a few seconds before completion...

Re:This is why people hate MS

[jawtheshark]

Yes. While I stopped using Windows years ago, I know that when it does that, you just go to services and stop the update service. Don't disable it, just stop it. It will stop nagging you to reboot, even when it's already nagging(!). When you reboot (on your terms), everything will be back to normal.

So, in your case, with the overnight job: stop the service for that night.

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Opportunist]

This also disables the installation of updates, afaik. What I'd really love is that it would INFORM me that a restart is in order, but lets me decide when the time is right.

But this will at least work for those night jobs. Thanks a bunch!

Re:This is why people hate MS

[jawtheshark]

True, if you do it pro-actively then it will stop Windows from installing updates. If it started nagging you, Windows installed the updates as far as it could. What you wish, Windows cannot do. This is evidenced by the fact that it installs updates on shutdown (and on startup, sometimes). I think, but I'm not 100% certain, this has to do with the way the NTFS filesystem works. It has much stronger locking policies. You notice that when you want to delete a file and it won't let you, and you have no idea why. On Linux, you can replace and delete files that are used. What happens is that a new file with a different inode is created, and the references to it (in directories, etc), are modified. The original inode, though is locked and keeps being active as long as a program has a lock on it. That's why Linux (Unix in general) can update files in active use.

It also can produce strange results that you delete a multi-gigabyte file and no disk space seems to be released. (The deleted file is still in use by a program, but not referenced in directories any more)

Re:This is why people hate MS

[Opportunist]

The question that puzzles me is WHY it cannot do that. I mean, it's a given that the system is not fully done updating and that I should let it finish at my earliest possible convenience, but since it already HAS a nag screen that lets me delay it for 4 hours (and another 4 hours, and another 4... if, and only if, I happen to be at the screen when it does so), why not go all the way and let me delay it until I decide it's time for reboot?

Re:This is why people hate MS

[jawtheshark]

Because some users would tell it never to bother them again and the updates won't install. (Assuming users that never shut down and put their machines to sleep, which was the idea since Vista... didn't really pan out that way) But, yeah, that is stupid... forcing a reboot.

Perhaps it should just nag occasionally: "Hey, I need a reboot... click here whenever you want, mmmkay?".

I don't know, I could give you a technical explanation about the reasons why it needs a reboot, but I cannot tell you what the designers of the system thought when forcing the reboot.

Can we have the story with the additude?

[jellomizer]

Ok you guys dislike Windows 8, we know. You guys hated Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 when it came out too. When windows 9 comes out you guys are going to go why change Windows 8 windows 9 add whatever features that makes my life so much harder. This will be the version people will finally shift to Linux in droves.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[squiggleslash]

No. Most of those versions of Windows were not hated "when they came out".

Win 3.1 was massively groundbreaking at the time, a huge improvement on 3.0, itself the first version of Windows to be taken seriously. People started to seriously dislike it as time went by, with its major memory problems, and as systems that had superior UIs but inferior featuresets (such as Mac OS) started to catch up, but at the time it was launched? It was loved.

95, ditto.

98? I thought it was meh, and by that point the Microsoft vs Netscape war was on, with Linux starting to get taken seriously. Still, people who liked Windows liked it.

Me? Yes. That one you're correct about, people hated it when it came out.

2000? No, that was widely loved. XP? Mixed reception, as it was the first consumer version of NT (good), but also introduced everything from the ugliest UI since Windows 3.1 to "Product activation".

Vista. Yes, That one you're correct about. But that was based upon user reviews. (Personally I didn't think Vista was that awful, but...)

7? No. Widespread rejoicing as almost everything that was wrong about XP was fixed. There were even die-hard GNU/Linux users who were willing to run it. Even I like 7.

8? Yes. That one you're correct about. But that's based upon user reviews.

So, basically, out of the eight versions of Windows you mention, three were panned "When they came out", three were widely praised, and two had mixed verdicts. Even on Slashdot.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[jest3r]

Don't most Slashdotters who have to deal with Windows actually like Windows 7?

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[JDG1980]

Ok you guys dislike Windows 8, we know. You guys hated Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 when it came out too.

Actually, Windows 7 was fairly well-liked when it came out. As for XP, the reason it was disliked at first is because it wasn't really fully mature when released, and its hardware requirements seemed too high – remember, this was 2001. However, the first two Service Packs fixed most of the bugs and glitches and made XP a bit more secure by default, and Moore's Law meant that the specs that seemed outrageous in 2001 were nothing by the middle of the decade. So it wasn't that the original impressions of XP were wrong, it's that maintenance and better hardware made XP actually a better product as time went by.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[sjames]

They probably comment on it because it's impossible to open a trade rag or even just watch TV without MS commenting on Windows 8. Fair is fair.

Meanwhile, up until this announcement it was looking like MS was trying to cram Win 8 down people's throats.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[unixisc]

He is still the Chairman of MSFT - I'd hardly call that retired. Yeah, Ballmer is CEO, but that doesn't mean that Gates has no inputs into what goes on

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Runaway1956]

Actually, no.

I thought Win3.11 was pretty cool. 95 mostly sucked at blue screens. 98 was better, but 98SE was almost good, as long as you were the only user. Multiple users kinda screwed things up. ME sucked donkey balls. 2K was good stuff - my first exposure to the NT system. XP was great, and each service pack was better. Vista sucked dog's balls. Win7 isn't bad. If I weren't firmly entrenched in the Linux world, I would say that I like it. Win8? It sucks something. I just haven't figured out what it sucks yet. Maybe it sucks hyena's ass? No - that would be Ubuntu's Unity, the Hairy Hyena. Dang, I'm stumped - what is it that Win8 sucks? Got it! It sucks the black off the 8-ball! Ohhh, I'm so witty!

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[jdastrup]

8 Yes [sucked].

Really? Have you guys even used Windows 8? It's virtually exactly the same as Windows 7. Even the hated "start screen/new UI/Metro" performancs exactly the same as the Win 8 start menu for the majority of people that use it

1. Click the lower left of your screen (Windows 7 and 8)
2. Type the first 3 or 4 letters of the program you want to run (Windows 7 and 8)
3. Hit Enter to launch it (Windows 7 and 8)

In addition, I'm the only one that runs Windows 8 in my office because everyone else hates it. Yet they all come up to me and say "See, even you're still running Windows 7." I tell them to look closer, it's 8, yet they couldn't even tell the difference because the desktop is the same, which is where I spend 100% of my time.

Ignore the stupid Metro UI if you don't like it. I do. Was there nothing you ignored in Windows 7? You played Purple Palace all day? Or you like Windows 7 inspite of Purple Palace? Get over your complaining about an OS you haven't even used.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Runaway1956]

"If people hate Windows 8 so much, why do they even bother commenting on it, "

Apparently you have failed to notice, that the things we hate the most about Win8 are also being adopted by OTHER operating systems.

We bitch, we moan, we threaten and cajole, we even develop new desktop environments in rebellion against the metro-cloud thing. Not only are we not going to use the damned thing, but WE WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHY!!

Does that help you to understand?

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[jonadab]

> Most of those versions of Windows were not hated "when they came out".

Several more of them were than you want to admit. Windows 95 and 98 both got a lot of negative press at the time, and Windows XP was almost universally panned as *horrible* until SP1 came out. (Granted, it got better press than Windows Me. Art Modell got better press than Windows Me.) As for Seven, all the people who had upgraded to Vista jumped on Seven like college boys on free pizza, but among the overwhelming majority who were still using XP, reception of Seven was rather tepid for the first few months.

The bottom line is, a lot of people don't upgrade to new versions of Windows while they're still new. This hasn't changed, and it likely won't change in the near future.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[DragonWriter]

Really? Have you guys even used Windows 8?

Yes.

It's virtually exactly the same as Windows 7.

No, its not.

Even the hated "start screen/new UI/Metro" performancs exactly the same as the Win 8 start menu for the majority of people that use it

Assuming you mean Win7 start menu (there is no Win8 start menu), this is just wrong. It doesn't work at all the same.

1. Click the lower left of your screen (Windows 7 and 8)
2. Type the first 3 or 4 letters of the program you want to run (Windows 7 and 8)

The vast majority of people I know that use the Start Menu don't use click-and-type; the majority use click-and-click, and the minority that type use Start-key-and-type. But, yes, on the level you describe, there are similarities.

The difference is that the Win8 UI mechanism is visually different in a distracting way (and it goes beyond the menu, since for many tasks you end up using a mix of Win8 UI and traditional desktop UI apps, including for basic configuration.) I was a fan of lots of the principles of the Metro UI design language when it was published, but the actual Win8 implementation -- especially the way the desktop and Win8 UIs are combined on desktop systems -- is a big loss from the more consistent UI of Win7. Its possible that its a waystation on the road to an improved consistent UI in Win9 or later, but that remains to be seen.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[squiggleslash]

I didn't say it sucked, I said it has been widely panned (based upon user reviews) since it came out. That's objectively true. Whether it's fair or not I can't judge, I don't have the OS and don't plan to upgrade to it in the immediate future.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[shugah]

I don't hate Windows 8, I just don't see any compelling reason to switch from Windows 7. In fact, the lack of compelling reasons to upgrade is probably Microsoft's biggest business challenge going forward.

I do consulting work and have to work with, and share files and working environments with clients. My previous laptop was a Dell XPS M1330 which I downgraded to Windows XP Professional. I hated Vista and continued to use Windows XP until last June when I replaced my laptop with a Lenovo W520 running Windows 7 Professional. I've played around with Windows 8 a bit - my son's computer has it, but I don't see anything that would cause me to update my laptop that is less than a year old. Likewise with MS Office. I used 2003 for the longest time, and quite frankly, would have been content to continue using it except for 2 reasons. 1) Clients started providing materials in MSO 2007 formats, and 2) I upgraded my old versions of Visio and MS Project to 2010, and it caused instability and incompatibility when embedding Visio and Project objects in Word 2003 and Powerpoint 2003 documents.

The switch from Windows XP to Windows 7 was relatively transparent. The switch from Office 2003 to Office 2010 wasn't too difficult. I don't find the ribbon quite so annoying anymore and it it nice to be able to Save As PDF rather than printing to a virtual PDF driver. I don't know what or when the next MS Office release is, but I can't see myself upgrading unless they change file formats again, and client documents force me to upgrade. Windows 8 is a whole new UI, and from what I have seen of it, I'm decidedly meh on the whole thing. I don't have (and have no plans to get) Windows Surface tablet - I have a Samsung tablet and an iPad2, so I don't see much benefit in a unified UI. Windows 9 is due in 2015 (if not delayed) - that is probably about the time frame I will need to replace my laptop, so I'll defer the decision until then. Hopefully by then, third parties will have a Windows 7 compatibility shiv for Windows 8 as I am usually loath to adopt versions of Windows prior to the first service pack.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[WaffleMonster]

Ok you guys dislike Windows 8, we know. You guys hated Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 when it came out too. When windows 9 comes out you guys are going to go why change Windows 8 windows 9 add whatever features that makes my life so much harder. This will be the version people will finally shift to Linux in droves.

I wish people would stop making these lame arugments. Seeing as they can be applied equally to anything with *total disregard* for merit including hypothetical absurdities like Windows for abacus or a future Windows only supporting CGA displays unless you willingly sign away your first born.

If your argument cannot be falsified I recommend thinking twice before making it.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Opportunist]

It's not so much hate, it's simply "why bother?" At the very least, very, very few of the Windows versions that came out were a "must have" the day they hit the street. Most matured first, and after much maturing they became useful.

Win3.1: It was something new, and it was something very useful to people who couldn't memorize CLI commands, but face it, it gobbled away a lot of the very precious 640k most programs NEEDED to run. It wasn't even useful as a launch platform, but programs written for it went ... well, they went. I almost said went fine. Still, for its time it was serving the purpose, but it was of little use to me.

95: 95 sure WAS a step ahead, but again, in the beginning, it was mostly a "what for?" thing. Few programs were "for 95", but it sure did run Windows programs much smoother than 3.11 did. Since I had few 3.11 programs, my use for it was pretty limited, considering that I had to boot into the DOS-Mode it (luckily) had more often than not. Still, over time, it became very useful, but only after programs appeared that made use of it.

98: 98 was the working version of 95. Especially in the networking area it sure was a huge leap ahead. 98 was actually one of the few versions that I didn't ask "what for?" but got it instead. Funny enough, its big advantage over 95 was mostly "invisible", because what set them apart was not the surface but actually the inner workings.

ME: ME was a solution desperately looking for a problem, and in their infinite wisdom MS made ME the problem so people could start looking for a solution instead. This was the true "what for?" moment in the development of Windows, because not even after it was out a while it became more useful than its predecessors.

2k: 2k was groundbreaking. It was, as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY OS MS ever made where there was simply no reason to ask "what for". It had its right to exist right from its inception. It combined the stability of the NT line with the compatibility of the 9x line. Seeing how this was also the time when security actually started to become an issue, there was no reason to tardy.

XP: Another initial "what for" that gradually earned its right to exist. In its early stage, it was pretty much 2k with little useful add onto it. Its useful features only became more prominent as they became more widespread.

Vista: Vista is IMO still waiting for its reason d'etre, as is 7 (and considering how I deem 7 the final version of Vista, I will lump them together). So far I couldn't identify any features in Vista or 7 that XP didn't provide sufficiently, aside of arbitrary compatibility issues that could easily be backported if MS so pleased.

And finally Win8 may be useful on a tablet, but so far I didn't see any features that would convince me that I'd want it on my desktop. It's not "worse" than 7, mind you, but the eternal MS question applies to this one as much as to nearly every version before:

"What for?"

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[recoiledsnake]

GP is talking about summaries and +5 insightful Slashdot posts.

7? No. Widespread rejoicing as almost everything that was wrong about XP was fixed. There were even die-hard GNU/Linux users who were willing to run it. Even I like 7.

Perhaps you missed the FUD campaign with faked benchmarks that Slashdot lapped up against Windows 7?
Or the stories about how it was horrible?

A refresher, go read the summaries and comments:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/2259257/draconian-drm-revealed-in-windows-7
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/11/1735210/anti-piracy-windows-7-update-phones-home-quarterly
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1437233/if-windows-7-fails-citrix-not-linux-wins
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1345247/windows-7-reintroduces-remote-bsod

One of the faked benchmark articles http://tech.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=10/02/18/0429258

The big reveal http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2329249/windows-7-memory-usage-critic-outed-as-fraud

It's funny to see the modded up posts on Slashdot on given stories. Comparing Windows to Linux or OS X? Windows absolutely sucks and everyone has or is moving away from it. Windows N vs. Windows N-1 ? N-1 is suddenly the best OS ever and version N sucks horribly.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[omnichad]

The drivers weren't fully mature in XP. XP did have its quirks, but the huge number of buggy drivers that were released at the same time across many manufacturers is what caused most of the problems that were attributed to XP.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[DarthVain]

Agree on 3.1, though I always heard that OS/2 was a better system, had better or closer to real multitasking for example, but wasn't as marketed as well by IBM that the MS product was.

95 was a big step forward, so much so, that people put up with the crashes and stability issues. Also was pretty pro gaming.

I thought 98 was simply an attempt to take the various things that got added onto 95 like themes and integrate them into the OS, and to make the user experiance a bit more easy by the adding of various system wizards for various tasks.

Me was a 98 gone too far. Everything was an easy user wizard, but it was bloated, slow, and difficult to even do stuff manually once all the wizards failed. I bought a pre-built dell back in 2000, that of course had ME installed by default. It didn't last a week before I replaced it with 2000....

2000 was great. Updated NT, allowed for more modern features and compatibility. First real consumer to run dual procs (I had a BP6 and dual celerons back in the day) (other then linux of course, which was an even less friendly gaming enviro back then)

Vista was fine. How they released it was terrible. The problem with vista was either they a) rushed it out the door or b) hardware companies were too slow to react to something that wasn't XP. I was unfortunatly an early adopter. Drivers were either non-existant, or developed by some dude online, or by some hardware company in about 5min to ship out with their latest doodad so they could claim "Vista Compatibility", when most of them were obvisouly not. The install process consisted of like an hour of install followed by about 3 hours of updates and driver installs, many of them which had to be downloaded and updated manually. The OS itself is fine. I still use it today with no problems. Were I to do a clean install today, I wouldn't have the issues I had years ago.

7 basically was good and had the benefit of having Vista go through all the change over pains for it. So by the time it came along, most of that sort of stuff had been figured out. I use it at work. Although both in 7 and in Office2010 I come across a feature every now and again where I think, why did you change that, and is most cases eliminate it.

Never used 8, but haven't heard too many good things about it. I get the idea of convergance, and the strategy seems like a good thing to do across platforms, however they might have either been a bit early (how many people have touch screen laptops), or not thought out well enough for legacy systems (i.e. installing a next gen OS on a bargain basement laptop using technology of 3 years ago.) and then getting sub optimal results to complain about.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[yuhong]

On OS/2, I wrote a blog post on the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco:
http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-os2-20-fiasco-px00307-and-dr.html

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Miamicanes]

> Windows 95 and 98 both got a lot of negative press at the time,

Are you kidding? When Windows 95 came out, it was like god himself opened up the skies while everyone yelled, "it is good". Stores had launch parties at midnight, and there were lines out the door of people buying it like twinkies & toilet paper after a nuclear attack, along with pretty much ANYTHING that had the number "95" printed on the box.

People bitched about 98 because ActiveDesktop made your shiny new 60-100MHz Pentium crawl like a 33MHz 486SX. For years, Win95 OSR2 was the gold standard against which everything was judged, especially if your USB needs began and ended with "mouse" (95OSR2 could deal with USB mice, though I don't remember whether it was 'out of the box', or 'by hand-copying a few DLLs ripped from a 98 system').

Win2k Pro was either the best or worst OS Microsoft has ever made, and your opinion depends almost entirely upon whether you cared about using software and hardware that was supported by NT Workstation 4. If you (like me) came from NT4W, it was a gift from ${deity}. If you cared about running "Pooh's Alphabet Adventure" from 1993 on your old PC, it sucked.

People's opinions of XP were pretty much their opposite opinion of Win2k. People who loved Win2k's compromise-free perfection hated XP's compromises made in the name of legacy compatibility (especially its endless reboots for everything). People who loved Win95OSR2 and hated Win2k loved XP's compatibility and prettyness. Most of the Win2k camp grudgingly ended up with XP 2-3 years later, when XP's superior SMP won them over, and Win2kSP3 or SP4 made Win2k need reboots as often as XP, anyway.

Everyone hated Vista, or at least had a grudging love-hate relationship that left them feeling like a battered spouse. I loved the real symlinks, but hated its video driver dysfunction. It was my All in Wonder 128 Pro's deathblow.

Then came Windows 7. Ahhh. Flawless perfection, especially once I discovered that Win7/64 requires signed drivers, but I can sign OTHER people's binary drivers MYSELF with my own self-signed certificate & Windows will quit nagging and leave me alone to install them as I please (this is a big, huge deal for anyone who does embedded development, especially anything that involves a legacy parallel port).

Windows 8? Endless suck. I suspect that, like 98(SE) with 98Lite to make it tolerable (98Lite removed Active Desktop & basically let you have 98's guts with 95OSR2's much faster Explorer), I'll probably end up with 8 eventually... but I have zero desire to put myself through Win8's misery just to make it tolerable. Plus, I'm still hoping that Microsoft will see the light, and quickly release Windows 9... giving us back Aero Glass, and allowing us to apply the translucent-titlebar effect to the ENTIRE WINDOW when it's being dragged. Assuming, of course, that Microsoft is willing to compromise and let us HAVE multiple windows again, instead of turning "Windows 8" into "Window 9" (no "s").

Truth be told, Vista briefly pushed me over the edge to Ubuntu. Ubuntu's then-dysfunctional handling of dynamic multiple monitor configurations on a laptop killed it for me, but apparently Linux/Xfree86 *finally* fixed that problem sometime around 2009 or 2010. Early in the Vista era, I used Ubuntu 6... right around the time Compiz became official, and booting a laptop configured to use monitor #2 as the primary desktop meant having to boot into single-user mode and hand-edit xinetd.conf (I think... it was a few years ago) to put it back to single-monitor with laptop = main display. Oh, and circa 2007 or so, Linux's handling of multiple cores with non-SMP-aware apps basically sucked. The prevailing attitude was, "If the application's author wanted to make use of multiple cores, he should have made it properly multithreaded", as opposed to "application authors are lazy, so make the OS itself as aggressively multithreaded as possible so that even single-threaded apps kind of benefit from multiple cores by virtue of their implicit library calls". From what I've read, it was kind of a kernel-level holy war between the purists and pragmatists, but the pragmatists won, and Linux is now about as good at faking SMP support in single-threaded apps as Windows is.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Miamicanes]

It depends. Plenty of us have had brief love affairs with Linux at one time or another, before discovering that the grass on the other side of the fence had clumps of dogshit strewn around, too. Until fairly recently, Linux sucked at handling laptops that were occasionally connected to second displays (especially if you wanted to use the external display as your primary display in an adhoc manner). Likewise, Windows has historically done a MUCH better job of making sure that even apps that are oblivious to SMP and multithreading benefit to some degree from having multiple cores and CPUs. Windows might be bloated, but KDE & Gnome (not to mention Xfree86) make Windows Explorer look like hand-tuned assembly language at a Scandinavian demoscene conference. On the other hand, Windows' networking (especially pre-7) had so many single-threaded chokepoints, and so many things that ran into them (especially Explorer), that Windows has become practically *unusable* on a true single-CPU single-core system without even hyperthreading to fake it.

Truth be told, I occasionally wonder whether the ultimate pushback to Windows might be a full-blown port of KDE or Gnome to Windows, in a way that allowed it to become Windows' primary desktop shell... kicking Metro to the curb, and acting as the primary window manager for Windows ITSELF. On one hand, Microsoft would still make money from licensing Windows. On the other hand, Microsoft would lose control over their own platform's look and feel. Since KDE & Gnome are free, all it would really take is one or two popular apps that required it, and the ability to run without causing compatibility problems with "normal" win32/64 apps.

This isn't entirely a new idea... Window Blinds kind of started it years ago by being one of the first/only Explorer alternatives/enhancements in history. If someone could leverage the 70% or so of KDE or Gnome that would be relevant to Windows, Microsoft would be *hating* life. Remember, Explorer/Metro might be firmly enmeshed within Windows, but so was Internet Explorer... and Firefox eventually motivated roughly half of Windows users to kick IE to the curb anyway. The key is to enhance and extend Windows, without forcing users to burn bridges behind them. Firefox duplicated functionality from IE, but did it in a way that left IE itself unharmed (just ignored and unloved). If KDE or Gnome could pull off the same feat, it would be a HUGE blow against Microsoft's "Platform Power"

Think about it for a moment... how many kernel-level things about Windows 8 are truly intolerable? Or driver architecture? Windows 8's suckiness is almost entirely due to its UI and window manager. Dump them for open-source alternatives, and we can have our cake & eat it too. Now, we just have to get Miguel de Icaza on board with our little scheme to corrosively topple Microsoft's power by "embracing and extending" Windows in ways beyond Microsoft's own control ;-)

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Miamicanes]

> If people hate Windows 8 so much, why do they even bother commenting on it, as they aren't going to use it anyway,

For the same reason why the British (among others) obsess and whinge about American politics. Indirectly, they're affected by our elected officials too... at least, eventually.

We (Windows 7 users) might bitch about Windows 8 endlessly, but someday, we're going to get stuck with its fallout and be forced to suffer with it. Thus, it's in our best interests to give Microsoft as much grief about it as we possibly can, in the hope that by the time it gets rammed down our throats (if only in the form of a friend or family member's computer), it might hopefully be a bit more tolerable and less awful.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Threni]

> 1. Click the lower left of your screen (Windows 7 and 8)
> 2. Type the first 3 or 4 letters of the program you want to run (Windows 7 and 8)
> 3. Hit Enter to launch it (Windows 7 and 8)

I don't want to type anything. I want to click, like I did before..like I've done on every operating system ever.

Get over assuming that people don't like Windows 8 because they've not used it. Some people are complaining because they've used it and don't like it, because it requires you to think, and change - two things people don't want to have to do when they're just doing basic stuff like loading apps, turning a PC off etc.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Just Some Guy]

Really? Have you guys even used Windows 8?

I have, and it's freaking horrible, like interacting with a schizophrenic with multiple retarded personalities. I offer as an example: the multiple control panels with disjoint feature sets. I wanted to add a network printer to my son's Christmas Win8 laptop a couple of weeks ago and was amazed that the Win7-style printer control panel and the Win8-style version had different and non-overlapping features. Getting the job done required bouncing between the two because neither one could do all of the job by itself.

As a second example: my son is 12 and doesn't have much previous computer experience. He's played with my Mac laptop, our Win7 game system, and my daughter's Ubuntu laptop, but isn't much of an expert in any of them. The last thing I wanted to do was prejudice him against his Christmas present, so I didn't say anything to him other than "this has the new version of Windows on it. See what you think!" Well, a couple of days ago he asked me to "upgrade it to Windows 7" (his words, not mine). Why? Because he can't find anything and "it's just dumb. Why'd they break it?"

So many of your Win8 apologist peers like to crow about how it's not worse, it's just different, as though all the people who don't like it are just too stuck in their ways to learn something new. How does that explain a 12-year-old kid who likes learning new things and doesn't have much previous "lock in" who still thinks it sucks and wants to get rid of it?

Yeah, I've used Win8. Yeah, it's as awful as everyone said. And no, "just instead Github Launcher ProPlusPlus" is not a viable alternative for 99% of people using it. You write off Metro like it's just a silly little thing you can ignore on your way to the real UI. Well, it's not. If you'd used Windows 8 as much as you claim, you'd know that.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[jbolden]

OS/2 was amazing at the time of 95 "a better DOS than DOS a better Windows than Windows" was absolutely true. It wasn't just marketing though IBM was strategically divided on their OS strategy. For example: did they really want to encourage the move to PC servers running OS/2 replacing their more expensive AS/400 servers for mid sized business as they did eventually?

As for Window 8, that's my feeling. Windows 8 is designed for new hardware not old hardware. I see the process as

1) Build a new modern OS
2) Force the change in hardware
3) Force the change in applications

We are in step (2) now.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[jbolden]

Windows 3.1 you just didn't boot into windows if you needed all of 640K. Windows had no impact on DOS.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Threni]

I've never, ever shut down a computer by pressing the power button. One of the first things I do is change the behaviour of the power button to `ask` or one of the `hibernate/sleep/suspend` type options if `ask` isn't available, in case it gets pressed by accident.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[terjeber]

for many tasks you end up using a mix of Win8 UI and traditional desktop UI apps

Really? I've been using Windows 8 for a while, and I "never" use any Windows 8 Metro (new UI) apps. Ever. I haven't found any that are useful that do not have a better option with a traditional UI. I occasionally glance at the Start Screen, using it as a big "Information about all kinds of shit" type of Window, but not for productivity. I obviously have to run the Metro apps to configure the tiles to show the information I want, but that is either a once-off or a "very, very rarely" situation. I can't see any reason to use Metro apps for productivity tasks on a desktop.

Why would you do such a thing, it seems to be rather counter productive.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[terjeber]

I don't hate Windows 8, I just don't see any compelling reason to switch from Windows 7

I'll give you one - and any /. who whines about the Start Screen should have their geek card revoked based on this alone:

This is the geekbench results (64 bit) of first desktop I upgraded from Win7 to Win8. The exact same PC, no hardware changes. It runs an older AMD CPU
Windows 7: 5665
Windows 8: 7103

That's a 25% performance increase. Sorry, if you are so fucking myopic that you will let your religious beliefs, and sorry, the UI change in the real world where you never really have to look at the start scrren from Win7 to Win8 is tiny and insignificant is all about religious beliefs, stand in the way of a 25% performance increase then you are a moron. You are also definitely not a geek. You are a whining house wife who should have her computer privileges revoked.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[WuphonsReach]

Main advantages that XP brought over 2000 was better compatibility and game/media support. The big one for me was that XP supported WiFi out of the box with a standard UI. Prior to XP, you had to deal with every different manufacturer of WiFi cards having a different control UI / drivers / software. Which made support a nightmare unless you standardized on a single WiFi card.

I like Win7, it's definitely the successor to XP in pretty much everything, plus it does 64bit well for those 4+ GB systems. Or those of us who actively use 8-32GB of RAM and were feeling the pinch under XP.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[ekgringo]

I have users that move the taskbar+Start Menu to various sides of the screen to better suit their needs. Users with wide screens tend to put the taskbar on the left or right side because there's more room horizontally. I have never used the physical power button to shut down any computer unless it was unresponsive and couldn't be shut down any other way. I have started using the Start Menu + type the name since Windows 7 since the "Classic" start menu was no longer available and things have been moved around, renamed, or hidden just to make that option a necessity. Windows 7 is fine for most things, but there are still a few annoyances. Fortunately they are minor and don't impact my workflow very often: - Windows Explorer with that annoying Libraries crap that I don't use and can't remove. Yes there are registry settings that can hide that, but it tends to break other things that don't seem related. At least I have been able to keep it minimized most of the time so it's only wasting 2 lines of screen space (Libraries icon plus blank line). - Programs and Features keeps re-arranging the list as it finds more programs to add. I'll click on a program to remove only to find that it selected something else. I'll never understand why it can't generate the list alphabetically so things aren't inserted at the top. - Network and Sharing Center is useless and takes additional clicks to get to the adapter settings. My favorite parts are how it frequently tells you you have no internet access until you launch a browser and actually pull up a website, or when it arbitrarily decides what type of network you're on and doesn't let you change it without some Googling. - Control Panel with it's unusable Category view. At least you can change this to Icon view, but then can't change to sorting by columns instead of rows.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[DragonWriter]

Really? I've been using Windows 8 for a while, and I "never" use any Windows 8 Metro (new UI) apps.

I don't remember the exact workflow, but on the one Win8 machine in my family that I've gotten called in to help with, just dealing with Microsoft updates required interacting with both New UI and desktop components.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[terjeber]

Yeah, and since you have do deal with Microsoft update at least five times a day, this is a huge issue. Sigh.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[DragonWriter]

I'm not sure you are familiar with the distinction between an example and an exhaustive description of the scope of a problem.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[terjeber]

I'm not sure you are familiar with the distinction between an example and an exhaustive description of the scope of a problem.

I am, but I am not sure if you are familiar with the distinction between "a problem, since I have to do it regularly" and "a non-issue, since the issue is limited to something I very rarely do".

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Opportunist]

I.e. "what for"

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[Opportunist]

The "step ahead" for XP was actually the WiFi support, you're right. At the same time WiFi was not as big as it is today back when XP came out, it only grew in importance as time went on. Right when XP arrived, it wasn't really that big an issue, WiFi cards and routers were still pretty expensive, or let's rather say the convenience that came with them didn't outweigh the price difference to simply tossing a cable behind your desk.

7's "big thing" is probably actually the (finally) working and also far better supported 64bit version than with any predecessor. I tried using XP64, and there were quite a few compatibility issues, something I cannot really spot yet on 7 (aside of some really low-down tools like rootkit sniffers). And no, before someone pipes in with Vista, Vista isn't a predecessor to 7. It's more like 7's beta.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[smash]

No. I was a fan of win2k, vista and 7

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[smash]

That. Win8 breaks search, local previous versions, backup, amongst other things. The start menu is annoying but it is not the sole reason I hate it. Not by a long shot.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[crutchy]

This line is the easiest way to spot a FUD troll.

this is the easiest way to spot a shill troll

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[crutchy]

I don't want to type anything. I want to click, like I did before..like I've done on every operating system ever.

clicking's sooo yesterday... if you want to be like neo or trinity you have to at least learn nmap ...and kung fu

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[crutchy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njos57IJf-0

Re:Can we have the story with the additude?

[jonadab]

> When Windows 95 came out, it was like god himself
> opened up the skies while everyone yelled, "it is good".

I distinctly recall complaints about how ridiculously high its system requirements were, compared to Windows 3, and the fact that it did not perform well even if they were met. There were also jokes about how office workers worldwide had finally just about figured out how to use their computers, so of course Microsoft had to completely change the whole interface again so that everyone could revert to spending eight hours a day accidentally deleting one another's files.

not so...

[Chirs]

Like star trek movies the consumer versions of Windows tend to alternate between good and bad.

98 was good, then ME sucked
XP was good, but Vista sucked
Win 7 was good, but Win 8 sucks

Windows 2000 was good, but was more of an enterprise OS so it doesn't count for the good/bad cycle.

Re:not so...

[Racemaniac]

with ME i agree, that sucked (when i personally tried it, i had to get rid of it after half a day since no matter what i did, i couldn't get it on my home network -_- )

but vista and windows 8?

I've used vista both at home and at work for quite a while, and it was just the step between xp and 7. The only vista issue i know of is that aero was ridiculously heavy for the cheap pc's people were buying. But for anyone with a half decent pc (as i'd expect from the slashdot crowd), i'm sure it must've run really well and stable. It was a bit bleeding edge in support (64 bit drivers and pc's that weren't up to the task. But the os itself was very decent and rock solid)

never understood the hate

And now with windows 8 the same shit is happening again "OMG, they changed something!!! HATEHATEHATE". I'm now using windows 8 on my home pc, and i'm not really convinced of metro yet, but for casual home usage, it's no problem at all. The simple new UI and colors are quite nice i think, it gives it a pretty nice lightweight feel. And it may be due to my new pc (although a pretty butget mini itx system) that it's just lightning fast. The entire pc boots to the windows login screen in 11 seconds, and everything just works as it should and very fast. And i stuck to metro to see if it's really the hellhole people make it out to be, and it's ok imo. have been on it for a few months now, and i'm enjoying working on my pc :).

I just don't get this ridiculous hate for the windowses that make some changes. (okay, i can understand it, but i'd hope for a bit more intelligence with IT minded people on places like slashdot)

Re:not so...

[djdanlib]

I get what you're saying, but Vista needed enthusiast-level graphics hardware or it lagged and stuttered constantly. I beta-tested it and used the RTM version (and following that, the service packs) on several machines and the only ones that felt like it could keep up with the base operating system were the ones with good graphics hardware. In my opinion, the base OS should feel a lot smoother than Vista did on a middle-of-the-line enterprise workstation.

Then there were all the missing and buggy drivers, because of a new architecture that the vendors had to code for. That was a total unmitigated disaster.

I actually almost like Windows 8

[ilsaloving]

It's really sad that Microsoft screwed up so badly with the whole UI formerly known as Metro. And the licensing. And, well, pretty much everything beyond the core OS.

I bought the upgrade as a cheap way to get the latest Windows running on my MBP, but the installation was an amazing hassle. They don't tell you up front that you're not allowed to do a clean install, so you have to run through registry hoops and calls to the Microsoft Licensing hotline thingy just to get your legal copy of windows working properly.

Once I got it installed, I found a start menu replacement. I ended up spending the 5 bucks for Start8 by Stardock cause it's head and shoulders better than the freely available ones. It lets you bypass Metro completely unless you specifically want to use it, and from that point on I've actually really liked Windows 8. It's wonderfully snappy, and it's understated window dressing is a refreshing change from the kaleidoscopic orgy of previous versions of Windows.

For the cheap upgrade price, I'm not TOO upset, but there is no way in hell I would put up with this crap if I was paying full price. I'd sooner do without.

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8

[hobarrera]

You bought an upgrade; you're allow to do an upgrade, why would you expect to be able to run a clean install? This has never been true for any version of windows. (and even I know this, being a pure *nix user).

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8

[ilsaloving]

That was exactly the behaviour I was expecting. And that apparently doesn't happen anymore.

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8

[ilsaloving]

That is correct. And that is exactly what I did. Everything worked perfectly and I was merrily on my way until the next day when it started declaring that activation failed. I had to do a whole bunch of googling just to find out what went wrong.

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8

[kannibal_klown]

You bought the upgrade version... WHICH they weren't that clear about. I made the same mistake when I decided to reformat.

There IS a full version for sale, even as a download, but it's more expensive. With that one, you can simply format a new disk or whatever and not have to jump through hoops. I don't know how much more expensive off the top of my head... my friend bought it for his machine.

But for an upgrade, the price was almost too good to be true a few months ago.

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8

[Sporkinum]

Same with me on both counts. Saw no reason not to replace Vista on 2 machines and go legit on a pirated Win 7 when I could get the licenses for $15 each.
Mind you, Vista really wasn't bad, but I do like 8 better as long as I can bypass Metro/Modern.
The only thing I use IE10 for at home is to connect to work from home. IE10 is better than other IEs, but it still is IE. Firefox is the only browser I trust, since I can customize it the way I want.

How to block IE10

[toygeek]

Open an Administrative Command Prompt (click Start, type "cmd" then Ctrl+Shift+Enter) and paste in this command.

REG ADD "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Setup\10.0" /v "DoNotAllow IE10" /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f

From my blog: http://tidbitsfortechs.blogspot.com/2013/02/blocking-ie10-on-windows-7-heres-how-to.html

Re:How to block IE10

[kwerle]

I'm curious: why would you not want IE10?

I mean - sure - you should be using chrome :-)

Re:How to block IE10

[CastrTroy]

As a personal user, you probably have no reason not to upgrade, but for companies, there's many intranet applications that will break if you move to IE10. We're still running some machines on IE8 because it's the latest version that works with some of our stuff, and there's no way to upgrade the existing software.

Re:How to block IE10

[robmv]

The same reason people asked Mozilla for a longest update cycle: ESR http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/ to have time to test the changes on your environment before you apply an update that will break your old applications

Re:How to block IE10

[fahrbot-bot]

Is the value "DoNotAllowIE10" or "DoNotAllowIE10"? Because I've seen it both way in web searches.

Re:How to block IE10

[Nimey]

If you're a company you should use WSUS instead of some unsupported hack.

ahahahaha

[JustAnotherIdiot]

enjoy ... Internet Explorer

Haha, good one.

Re:ahahahaha

[jonadab]

As a web developer, I do enjoy when new versions of Internet Explorer come out.

I ain't sayin' I'm gonna make IE my main browser or nothin'. But I'm very glad to see IE10 finally released. I've been looking forward to it for months.

When are they fixing it for Win 8?

[Travco]

I don't know how many people are using the touch interface. But it doesn't work for drop down menus. Either you have to use another browser on Win 8 or you can't use the touch interface.

Re:Another MS browser I don't care about

[sjames]

The fighter was more useful as a web browser than IE.

Re:This must be proofeading day

[c0d3g33k]

Hey look - it got fixed. Thanks for the credit, Timothy. Oh wait, there was no credit given for noticing the error. Meh.

IE10 improvements over IE9

[unixisc]

Actually, I use IE9 at work, and IE10 at home - both on Windows 7. There is a clear difference that I notice on /. - whenever I'm posting in IE9, things like autocorrect, spelling error highlighting, occur, while in the Comment Subject box, there is an 'X' at the end, which if clicked, will delete the entire subject line and one can type. The latter is just a tad more elegant, but the former is a major improvement. That said, I'm not planning to upgrade on the office box, but yeah, I do think that IE10 is better.

Re:download link?

[Windowser]

Like somebody here would want to download it

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[Nocturnal Deviant]

Not sure which world you are in, but in the age where humans dont have elephant arms for holding their hands up all day every day messing with a touch screen on a desktop, it sure isnt this world where windows 8 Does suck. This is primarily a website for IT and Developers, people who make things/work for others, if you want a site that is about the average joe with his laptop, go ahead praise it all you want, but this is news for nerds, and according to nerd usage, yes, it does suck.

Re:Another MS browser I don't care about

[Opportunist]

And more real, too.

Re:Enjoy?

[CSMoran]

I object.

Re:Windows 8?

[jellomizer]

I actually do like Windows 8.

As a setup option you get you choose your color schemes. I don't see the UI as unpolished but using a different design methodology. From Windows 3.1 to 7 they were trying to give a more realistic desktop look to the OS. Fancier buttons shadows and depth. While such changes looks good for the first impression after a while it just gets old and you end up disabling a lot of these features. Windows 8 is much faster without the useless eyecandy.

Who uses IE anyways?

[gweihir]

Using IE is an indicator for incompetence. The worst browser all around....

Re:Who uses IE anyways?

[Barlo_Mung_42]

That was true a few years ago. IE9 and IE10 are both pretty good. I use IE10 / Chrome interchangeably.

Re:Who uses IE anyways?

[MtViewGuy]

You are correct. I am using IE 10 under Windows 7 right now and it seems to work with no problems. I do like the addition of spellchecking--a major selling pointy of Firefox and Chrome.

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[gweihir]

Oh? From my own and 3rd party observations (friends), win8 sucks badly because a) they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing and b) said UI is an utter violation of all guidelines for good UI design.

Still need IE 9 to test in IE 9

[tepples]

I'm curious: why would you not want IE10?

Because historically, Microsoft has not supported side-by-side IE versions within a copy of Windows. Not all other IE 9 users will have the opportunity to upgrade to IE 10, notably users whose PCs came with Windows Vista. Unless IE 10 has a perfect IE 9 simulator, web developers (yeah, I know anything "developer" is the minority) still need a virtual machine running IE 9 to test in IE 9.

Re:Still need IE 9 to test in IE 9

[kwerle]

I use the developer modes of IE9 to test pre-IE9 browsers. It's not perfect, but I don't need it to be (my requirements are pretty simple).

Does IE10 have the same developer modes?

I am so excited...

[RyanGehrig]

I am so excited! Oh wait, nobody uses internet explorer except on Dubstep commercials

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[sideslash]

this is news for nerds, and according to nerd usage, yes, it does suck.

It's not clear what your credentials are to speak on behalf of all nerds. Personally, as a developer (and nerd, and long-time /. reader) I love the fact that there are more options now - that the same touch first experience that my users love on iOS/Android can be experienced on a desktop OS. Sure, nobody wants to sit all day long in a traditional office pose holding their arms straight out, but that's a silly objection to Windows 8. Three reasons off the cuff: (1) portable Windows tablets, (2) monitors that recline, (3) giant wall or coffee table displays that multiple people can do interesting stuff on. With all of these a touch-first usage mode is desirable, and Microsoft has finally taken the leap to add that new option to Windows 8. In my opinion, Apple is likely to follow at some point in the next year or two.

By the way, I'm typing this in Windows 8's desktop mode, which is still a keyboard/mouse centric mode. The fact that a touch-first mode exists a keystroke away doesn't emotionally disturb me. Should it? :p

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[sideslash]

Oh? From my own and 3rd party observations (friends), win8 sucks badly because a) they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing and b) said UI is an utter violation of all guidelines for good UI design.

Given that Microsoft publishes "guidelines of good UI design", I am guessing that you are engaging in a little bit of "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. With regard to the rest of it, there are reasons why Metro UI has limitations relative to desktop applications. They are actually good reasons oriented toward power efficiency on mobile devices and setting standards for touch interaction. Since they are a step backward for keyboard/mouse users, I can't see the desktop ever being totally eliminated, and I can agree that making Metro the default start screen was a questionable decision. But anyone who pooh-poohs the emergence of mobile primacy and touch interaction (as you seem to be doing) is behind the times.

FF sucks chrome and IE left

[Vince6791]

firefox has gone to complete shit. It freezes and crashes to often. I switched over to chrome and IE 10 which both run faster and more stable than FF. Chrome has plenty of plugins anyway. Opera switching to webkit.

Re:Who cares about IE anymore

[omnichad]

Is there anybody on this planet that actually uses IE (except for MS employees at work) I mean Internet Exploder or Exploiter Should BE BANNED from the net

Welcome back from your trip to 1999. How were the Twinkies? Internet Explorer isn't my favorite choice, but I don't have any complaints at using it when I have to. It's stable and fast.

Re:Windows 8?

[kannibal_klown]

Agreed, it's "different" and I applaud them for making the attempt. Win7 had the same UI all the way back to Win95, really 3.1 if you ignore the start button.

So they tried something new. Are there some poor decisions in there? Sure. Is it for everyone? No.

But it isn't as evil as some make it out to be. Use it for a week or two and you get used to it... and perhaps even like it.

My only 2 problems with it are A) getting to the power-down button is annoying for new users / visitors and B) when using the Metro apps (or whatever they're called) my GPU usage / fang-speed goes up a little more than I'd like.

Re:Another MS browser I don't care about

[colinrichardday]

And more intuitive, as long as you remembered to think in Russian

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[PhxBlue]

This post is a troll, isn't it? Well, I'm going to respond anyway.

When you have to Google how to shut down Windows because the interface changes leave you with no clue how to navigate the OS, then your OS sucks.

Re:How I choose to interpret this

[PhxBlue]

Looks like parent was a victim of the infamous "-1, Disagree."

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[squiggleslash]

win8 sucks badly because a) they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing

Since when has it been the case that an operating system shouldn't implement ("force"? srsly?) a specific GUI?

Are you pining for the days when you could switch between GEM and Windows 1.0 (tiles, yay!), or do you think the fact Ubuntu comes with multiple desktop managers means that it's entirely different to Windows 8 which comes with, ah, two UIs?

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[lgw]

a) they force a specific UI on their users

Takes 2 minutes to install Classic Shell and get on with life. Sure, the UI blows goats, but it's narly trivial to get past that.

I'm pissed that I can't seem to find a way to do manual-only Windows update in Win8. Auto-update is simply not appropriate for a laptop that moves frequently between free and non-free (-per-byte) internet connections!

Re:Windows 8 doesnt suck

[lgw]

Windows 8 doesnt suck. I hate the fucking bias around here.

The UI sucks like a thing that sucks very hard, but that now takes 2 minutes to fix. There are other things that annoy me about Win8 that I don't know how to fix yet (where is manual-only Windows Update??). But overall the downsides seem small.

What's better about Win8? Why would anyone go from 7 to 8 given the choice? What's the upside?

The Link

[Cyfun]

Since for whatever reason, neither the /. summary nor the actual article have any links to download IE 10, so...

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/downloads/ie-10/worldwide-languages

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[dwlovell]

Not sure which world you are in, but in the age where humans dont have elephant arms for holding their hands up all day every day messing with a touch screen on a desktop, it sure isnt this world where windows 8 Does suck. This is primarily a website for IT and Developers, people who make things/work for others, if you want a site that is about the average joe with his laptop, go ahead praise it all you want, but this is news for nerds, and according to nerd usage, yes, it does suck.

I am not sure what world you are in, but Windows 8 does not require touch for anything. The primary input scheme for desktops is the keyboard and mouse and Windows 8 does nothing to change that. You comment implies to me that you either have not used Windows 8 on a desktop or you are purposely trying to mislead others because you don't like Microsoft.

I know what this site is about and have been using it longer than you have (compare our account ids) and I have been a software engineer for my entire career. I think it is totally relevant that any advanced user or novice can use Windows 8 without any touch-based gestures.

It is true that Windows 8 adds application APIs which provides developers with tools to natively support touch-based input, but virtually every Metro application I have used supports the keyboard and mouse without issues in addition to gestures. I can even play games like Angry Birds which were designed solely for touch using my mouse.

Please explain to me what you cannot do with your keyboard and mouse in Windows 8 after receiving a 15 minute introduction to the new UI features (charms bar, etc)?

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[Barlo_Mung_42]

I'm a nerd and I like it better than Win7. I'd never have the nerve to try and speak for all nerds though. I hear some nerds don't even like Win7 all that much.

Re:Windows 8?

[terjeber]

I got a 25% performance increase according to Geekbench. It doesn't translate to quite that much in the real world, but there is a definite performance increase. I never have to use the Start Screen, so I see no problem with Win8 over Win7. To me the whiners on /. who cry about Win8 do so because they are whiny house wives who should have their computer privileges removed for giving up a decent performance increase based on a tiny and utterly inconsequential "somebody moved my cheese" issue.

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[terjeber]

holding their hands up all day every day messing with a touch screen on a desktop ... This is primarily a website for IT and Developers

I use Windows 8 at home (and Ubuntu when I do RoR stuff). I never have to use the Start Screen - though I occasionally use it because I want to (quick glance gives you a lot of information about stocks, news, weather etc). When not using the Start Screen, Win8 is virtually identical to Win7 in day-to-day use. Why would you, as a self-professed IT professional, use the touch aspects of an OS when on a desktop computer? Doesn't that make you just a tad more retarded than the OS you seem to despise?

Windows 8 gives me, according to Geekbench, a 25% performance increase over Windows 7. Granted, it is not 25% in real world use, but it is quite noticeable all the same. Why would any self-professed geek give up a significant performance increase because his religion told him to do so? Doesn't that automatically disqualify you from reading /.?

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[terjeber]

they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing

They don't so your point is utterly meaningless. At the same time they give you a noticeable (25% on my computer according to Geekbench) performance increase.

In other words, any /. complaining about Win8 is an utter retard who is willing to give up a significant performance increase due to a perceived non-existing "someone moved my cheese" issue.

Now that is retarded.

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck.

[gweihir]

Since about 30 years ago now. Integrating the GUI into the OS is simply incompetent and MS has been ignoring the state-of-the-art.

If it's anything like their tablets

[xombo]

It will be a great dance partner.

Re:Excellent

[smash]

Seems to scroll faster over PCoIP