Slashdot Mirror
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)."
I have to do compatibility testing and dont want to have to install Windows 8, even on a VMWare image.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
IE7 on Win7 requires a platform update
should be
IE10 on Win7 requires a platform update I think
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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
-Noc
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?"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
This space for rent.