Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Releases Internet Explorer 10 For Windows 7

Posted by timothy on from the double-digits-on-the-prime dept.

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)."

8 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Actually... I'm glad. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
    1. Re:Actually... I'm glad. by infogulch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Actually... I'm glad. by filthpickle · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Actually... I'm glad. by t4ng* · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

  2. This is why people hate MS by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:This is why people hate MS by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:This is why people hate MS by vux984 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck. by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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