backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by Shadowmaster62.. on Oct 15 at 4:27 PM

Microsoft makes its IE7 browser available to a wider audience

In a surprise move, Microsoft has issued a new build of Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) to customers that can be installed on any machine running Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 -- IE7 is already included in Windows Vista operating systems.

IE7 was previously reserved for customers using genuine copies of Windows-based operating systems and was protected by Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) validation software.

"Because Microsoft takes its commitment to help protect the entire Windows ecosystem seriously, we’re updating the IE7 installation experience to make it available as broadly as possible to all Windows users," remarked IE7 program manager Steve Reynolds on the IE Blog. "With today’s 'Installation and Availability Update,' Internet Explorer 7 installation will no longer require Windows Genuine Advantage validation and will be available to all Windows XP users."

Microsoft is likely using this move to makes IE7 available to the broadest range of customers worldwide. Mozilla's Firefox browser has gained a lot of traction recently, and this move would give Microsoft some additional ammunition.

In addition to the removal of WGA, the latest version of IE7 brings updates to the menu bar, online tour and a new MSI installer for IT administrators.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Is it enough?
By daftrok on 10/5/2007 6:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Granted Mozilla does have memory leaking issues, but other than that it is an incredibly fast browser for Windows (and Apple). The fact that you can block ANYTHING using Ad Block Plus, that you can download flv using download helper, that you can run IE tab so you can run Internet Explorer on pages that don't work properly, the insane amounts of customization makes it a SUPERIOR browser. IE7 may be more open to people, but it still won't stop the already 400 million+ users out there from using it.




RE: Is it enough?
By daftrok on 10/5/2007 6:58:06 PM , Rating: 3
By "it" I mean Mozilla Firefox.


RE: Is it enough?
By TomZ on 10/5/2007 7:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm so sick of hearing browsing testimonials. Can't we just assume everyone loves their browser best and get on with it?


RE: Is it enough?
By RamarC on 10/5/2007 7:36:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm so sick of hearing browsing testimonials. Can't we just assume everyone loves their browser best and get on with it?

agreed... it's just a frickin' web browser. i know guys more picky (and passionate) about their browser than they are about their girlfriend.


RE: Is it enough?
By BladeVenom on 10/5/2007 7:45:51 PM , Rating: 4
But when you look at the code (genetic) women are all 99.9% the same. The browser are much different.


RE: Is it enough?
By spluurfg on 10/6/2007 5:32:13 AM , Rating: 4
and browsers are free!


RE: Is it enough?
By codeThug on 10/6/2007 11:20:49 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly!

When I kill my browser, I get my leaked memory back...


RE: Is it enough?
By Ringold on 10/5/2007 8:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Those type of guys have girlfriends and wives?

If I had boobs, sorry to say, I wouldn't play second fiddle to a browser, but that's just me. :P


RE: Is it enough?
By ebakke on 10/6/2007 12:04:58 AM , Rating: 5
I hear there's a surgery for that.


RE: Is it enough?
By jajig on 10/6/2007 12:38:25 AM , Rating: 5
You've obviously never been in a long term relationship.


RE: Is it enough?
By Ringold on 10/6/2007 2:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but even a dog is more interesting to interact with than Firefox. Or IE.

And women can do a bit more than roll over.. although... nevermind.


RE: Is it enough?
By Screwballl on 10/6/2007 11:44:27 AM , Rating: 4
1) a browser doesn't ask "does this make me look fat?"
2) a browser doesn't get jealous if you use or play with other browsers, even at the same time
3) a browser is made to be easy all the time for as long as you have it
4) you can set your browser to forget whatever you want
5) a browser can be dressed up how YOU want
6) you can update a browser in a few minutes to make it better and your additions added can be as permanent as you like
7) a browser can be used and played with almost anywhere... legally
8) you can kill a browser and bring it back to life
9) you don't have to pay for a browser (in most cases)
10) a browser goes where you want it to and not where it wants to go (unless its sick)

and yes I have been married long enough to enjoy making jokes about the differences between women and whatever

/end sarcasm/


RE: Is it enough?
By Quiescent on 10/6/2007 2:57:13 PM , Rating: 5
1. I don't ask that question
2. Yes they do, their way is the next time you open them, they say: "Currently this is not your default browser, would you like to make this your default browser?" This can sometimes be disabled, but still.
3. No it's not. Browsers can be very picky and difficult like females. Take for instance for the fact I can't run PJIRC in Firefox without Firefox messing up.
4. Sure, you can. I agree. But you can do some brainwashing and other techniques to make anybody forget stuff.
5. So can females. Why else do they ask you if what they wear makes them look fat. I always ask my boyfriend for a bit of advice on stuff.
6. Updating doesn't always make things better. Why do you think there are websites out there for you to revert back to an older version of applications? Firefox is just one of those things where it got some real good stuff going to 2.x, but it came with some problems too.
7. Not anywhere. Imagine that you live in Israel. Or China. They're restricting their stuff. And you can't look at child porn, can you? So there is some things illegal to do. However, you could get in trouble for using a portable browser on someone else's computer.
8. Depends how you kill the browser. If you're going to be gorey, I might suggest a re-installation, else it won't work.
9. Yeah you do. You have to pay time. And time for those extra special times when your browser is being a lovely PAIN IN THE ASS.
10. Perhaps true. I have no comment. :(


RE: Is it enough?
By BrightMoon on 10/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Is it enough?
By Quiescent on 10/6/2007 5:38:28 PM , Rating: 1
2. Yeah. I do set it to default and shut everything else off to STFU about it.
5. Oh I am sure there are females out there who would wear stuff
7. I know some one who lives in Israel who cannot access deviantart.com

I call that one Lynx.


RE: Is it enough?
By oab on 10/8/2007 12:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not being able to access deviantart.com in Israel has nothing to do with a browser, that filtering kind of thing is done OUTSIDE the browser.

The browser, in simplest terms, fetches a specially formatted text file from somewhere inside the "internet" (though a method which I will not get into at the moment, suffice to say it happens, though it may be stored locally), and then displays it visually on your computer monitor, according to the formatting of the textfile, which is supposed to conform to some-sort of standard on how to have the information inside it be displayed.

Having a wall between your computer and the "internet cloud" block certain connections from being made has no bearing on the browser itself. If Firefox can't access it, IE can't access it, Safari can't access it, Lynx can't access it, Konqueror can't access it, Camino can't access it, Netscape can't access it, Camino can't access it, Opera can't access it, and so on, provided that block is not being done on the website itself. And since I can access DA with Firefox in North America, it's not Firefox's fault, but that person's ISP.


RE: Is it enough?
By Screwballl on 10/7/2007 2:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
cute and sarcastic.... but if that is about YOU then you are a very rare female. A majority of females are tougher to get along with than a rabid gorilla.

I myself prefer Firefox and have no problem with my usage. If something isn't working right then I find an add-on that does do it right or keep a close eye on the next update or even try the next stable beta release. Plus in cases like this where something is malfunctioning, IE is completely useless 99.99% of the time so I only keep it installed for Windows updates.
As for legal issues, using the browser is not illegal, it is the content viewed through it that may be depending on location. When looking through a neighbors window, it is not illegal but when you become a peeping tom, then the legality changes.

Thanks for the responses all, tried to keep it fun.


RE: Is it enough?
By Ryanman on 10/7/2007 2:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
you uh.... you killed the joke. It was really funny, too.


RE: Is it enough?
By KashGarinn on 10/8/2007 4:33:58 AM , Rating: 1
Seconded. Bitch stole Christmas.

K.


RE: Is it enough?
By nangryo on 10/6/2007 4:46:12 AM , Rating: 1
I'm curious why are u so sick when some products are better than microsoft one

lol


RE: Is it enough?
By thesid on 10/6/2007 5:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
who said anything about that?
you ppl can never get the point..


RE: Is it enough?
By Locutus465 on 10/8/2007 12:21:27 AM , Rating: 3
There is no better browser, they're all one big PITA because they won't play nicely with eachother... Some let you create DOMXL objects and let you read/write/edit XML trees all you want, others cry fowl anytime you do something that it considers changing the tree (and won't do it consitantly near as I can tell). Once we can get browsers to the point where they all render similarly and the only difference is features/speed/reliability I'll care about which one is better :)

Coming from a web programmer in case you didn't pick up on that...


RE: Is it enough?
By thesid on 10/6/2007 5:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
exaclty


RE: Is it enough?
By bigboxes on 10/6/2007 7:26:05 AM , Rating: 1
Just let me know when you are tired of listening to any subject and we will ban discussion just for you. Tell ya what Tom. Just turn off your pc right now. That way you don't have to read any more bothersome opinions.


RE: Is it enough?
By ToeCutter on 10/6/2007 8:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just let me know when you are tired of listening to any subject and we will ban discussion just for you. Tell ya what Tom. Just turn off your pc right now. That way you don't have to read any more bothersome opinions.


Yeah, funny how the ones that "are so sick of <whatever>" are the same who post endless replies to every thread on DT.

Perhaps regular doses of Real Life™ might alleviate some of your "sickness".

And ironically, this is one of the more coherent threads on DT!


RE: Is it enough?
By mikeyD95125 on 10/6/2007 3:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a lot of people just don't know that their is another option besides IE. So people just stick with what they are used to and what they have installed. I'm sure that if everyone know about all the FF add-ons like Adblock Plus then there would be an even larger move to FF from IE.

I think its similar to another software situation. If all the people who are stuck with Microsoft works knew about Open Office they would probably switch because of the better features. So I think it is important to get the word out about software so that people know they have an option. Even if I have to type this paragraph 100 more times.


RE: Is it enough?
By BrightMoon on 10/6/2007 6:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
I support that.

If I had known about Open Office two years ago when I bought M$ Office I wouldn't even consider spending money over it. I won't make the same mistake twice though.


RE: Is it enough?
By TomZ on 10/7/2007 9:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
That would be true if Open Office didn't suck, but it does. It's fine for casual use at home, but it's slow, uses a lot of memory, and has pretty limited functionality compared to Microsoft Office.


RE: Is it enough?
By Ryanman on 10/7/2007 2:21:05 PM , Rating: 1
ah, I agree with you heare, actually. But it's not worth $150+ so that you can work 5% faster


RE: Is it enough?
By Locutus465 on 10/8/2007 12:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
It is if your job depends on working with Office Applications, and having access to custom functionality IT departments come up with for MS office... Hence OO is great for casual use, for professionals there is currently no substitue.


RE: Is it enough?
By JeffDM on 10/7/2007 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 3
Even if Open Office is "limited" in functionality, I'm sure it's still more than most people need. I've never personally run into something I needed to do that OO.o couldn't do for me.

In terms of speed and memory use, it seems to work plenty well enough on my five year old computer. It was pokey on my dad's 9yr old computer before we stopped using that and bought a newer one. Maybe if I needed to use an office app all the time, then maybe I'd consider something else, but even at work, I just use OO.o. Maybe I use that sort of app once a day.


RE: Is it enough?
By Ryanman on 10/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: Is it enough?
By jconan on 10/5/2007 7:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ad Block plus is quite weak without noscript. Noscript stops just about anything in its track and IE7 doesn't have this plugin.


RE: Is it enough?
By Ringold on 10/5/2007 8:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's probably a good thing.

I know we all want everything for free, and will steal anything digital that isn't free if we want it, but something tells me DT doesn't provide this service and this forum for free. Servers don't run on big smiles and warm hearts.


RE: Is it enough?
By jtesoro on 10/5/2007 9:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't block the ads right now, but what annoys me is that a lot of the slowdowns I experience while browsing are I think related to those ads. Typically when things slow down I notice the browser trying to get to tribalfusion or adserve or some other ad site like that. It's during these times that I'm really tempted to get adblock. If they want to reduce the chance of this happening, they'd better scale up capacity somewhere.


RE: Is it enough?
By drebo on 10/6/2007 10:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
IE most certainly does have these features. They're available via third party applications, albeit, but they're out there and they work beautifully.

Case in point: I've not seen a single popup or inpage web advertisement since I started using Symantec Client Securities 5 years ago. In fact, I can dictate to the subxdomain(meaning as many subdomains down as I need to) level whether or not I want to be able to see animated GIFs, it's that granular.

But, whatever. To each his own. I prefer not to have to spend hours configuring my web browser and installing "plugins" in order to have a passable experience.


RE: Is it enough?
By Canizorro on 10/6/2007 9:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm. I use Firefox for my browsing and IE for Netflix. Will the IE tabs work properly with the instant watching feature in Netflix? Would be great if I can keep it all to one browser.


RE: Is it enough?
By yaneurabeya on 10/6/2007 3:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
Use the IETab extension with Firefox.

Just watch out for memory leakage as IETab combined with Firefox doesn't always free up the memory after IE components exit. It may be a fault with how Windows does 'garbage collection' during execution and after execution's complete for an application.


RE: Is it enough?
By Shadowmaster625 on 10/15/2007 4:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think their stupid activation thing with IE7 really shafted Microsoft. Just the hassle of it was enough to make me stop using IE7. And I dont miss it one bit. I dont think they'll ever recover. :P

You're right about the flv downloader... it is a very useful tool when combined with a decent flv converter. Are you able to download youtube videos with google addresses? I cant find a plugin that works for them and amazingly cant find anyone who seems to have this problem. The only workaround I know of is to click on the user's name and then find the video in their list and then it will show up as a youtube link and not a google link. But that doesnt help with those google videos which do not have a download link.


I guess MS is afraid of...
By Marlin1975 on 10/5/2007 6:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
Opera, Firefox, etc... gaining more share so MS wants EVERYBODY to use IE7 even those that did not pay for their WinOS.
That and with so many people sticking to XP, and older OS's, most sites are not going out of there way to make sure IE7 works 100%.




RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By mechBgon on 10/5/2007 7:09:42 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, I believe the underlying motive has more to do with countering the bad guys than grabbing market share. Whether YOU use Internet Explorer or not, your WinXP system is more secure overall if your IE version is IE7, due to its security improvements over IE6.

Another aspect of this revision is improved deployability, customizability and manageability, which the corporate folks will appreciate (unless they're the end user being thwarted in their attempt to defy I.T.'s policies). IE is still THE browser, if you want to manage your fleet's browsers using Group Policy and IEAK.

MVP, Windows Shell/User


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By calyth on 10/5/2007 7:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
The best security improvement over IE6 is to simply not use it anyways.
Web devs who code for IE only should just stop doing developement altogether.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By mechBgon on 10/5/2007 8:08:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The best security improvement over IE6 is to simply not use it anyways.


Actually, the best security improvement is to stop running your browsers, ANY browsers, with Admin-level privileges.

http://www.mechbgon.com/build/Limited.html

But if IE is invoked by malware, then that's where you may benefit from having IE7 rather than IE6 even if you don't normally use IE at all. Case in point, if you're interested:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2185307,00.as...

Speaking as someone who does a bit of security research ;) I suggest getting IE7 even if you don't plan to use it yourself. Also vet your rig for security vulnerabilities using Secunia's Personal Software Inspector:

https://psi.secunia.com

MVP, Windows Shell/User


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By yaneurabeya on 10/6/2007 2:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, the best security improvement is to stop running your browsers, ANY browsers, with Admin-level privileges.


Actually, the best thing to do is if you are so concerned about security is to unplug your computer from whatever network you're using, and don't allow physical access to it. No matter what OS you use, no matter what method you use to access the network, you are imposing a degree of security risk upon the machine by just being connected. End of Story.

And just because you execute a process using a non-privileged account, doesn't mean that it can't do a lot of damage with files that it can access (say your pictures, your documents, your music, etc).

Seriously though, please don't try and diffuse the fact that MSIE is a bloated browser (IE7 in particular, even though it works much better with higher amounts of resident memory than IE6), and it doesn't really any additional functionality with all its bloat.

The only reason why the Mozilla browsers are so slow is because they have the XUL engine powering the themes and add-ons, whereas IE6 requires third-party plug-ins and hacked themes to work.

Some food for thought:
- Mozilla browsers are closer to Javascript / W3 to being compliant than MSIE (even though IE7 which was lauded as MS's first attempt to become W3 compliant -- still not even close).
- Add-on's and extensions give you a much easier hold on adding features to your browser, instead of having to add a bunch of 3rd party plugins, sometimes from untrusted sources, in order to get functionality.
- If you build it (HTML, content) for Mozilla browsers, it'll reach a wider audience of users than IE will with MS's proprietary ActiveX and Javascript bindings.
- ActiveX, WScript, and some other portions of the MS scripting 'experience' expose a greater number of gateways for a cracker to access into your machine with. This includes file access, amongst many other facilities. Mozilla browsers (and other browsers such as Opera, etc even) don't have this 'functionality' because they're generic and don't want to support it across multiple platforms / OSes. However, I find it to be a strong security point that they don't have these possible security holes like MSIE does with the script setup.

quote:
Speaking as someone who does a bit of security research ;) I suggest getting IE7 even if you don't plan to use it yourself. Also vet your rig for security vulnerabilities using Secunia's Personal Software Inspector:


Or just run a Unix-based OS because if you don't run as root, you get the same thing, and you don't have to worry about annoying Vista features like UAC ;)..

-Garrett
http://wiki.freebsd.org/GarrettCooper


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By mechBgon on 10/6/2007 9:52:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And just because you execute a process using a non-privileged account, doesn't mean that it can't do a lot of damage with files that it can access (say your pictures, your documents, your music, etc).


I completely agree, and this is one reason I also suggest using a disallowed-by-default Software Restriction Policy for verisons of Windows that support SRP (http://www.mechbgon.com/srp/index.html ), as well as risk avoidance to the extent that's practical, elimination of attack surface where practical, and some other good practices.

quote:
Seriously though, please don't try and diffuse the fact that MSIE is a bloated browser (IE7 in particular, even though it works much better with higher amounts of resident memory than IE6), and it doesn't really any additional functionality with all its bloat.


In an era where some PC games can push the 2GB mark, it appears to me that most modern computers can handle either version of IE pretty well. As for functionality, I can think of several functional advances in IE7, some of which I use a lot, some of which I don't.

quote:
Some food for thought:
- Mozilla browsers are closer to Javascript / W3 to being compliant than MSIE (even though IE7 which was lauded as MS's first attempt to become W3 compliant -- still not even close).
- Add-on's and extensions give you a much easier hold on adding features to your browser, instead of having to add a bunch of 3rd party plugins, sometimes from untrusted sources, in order to get functionality.
- If you build it (HTML, content) for Mozilla browsers, it'll reach a wider audience of users than IE will with MS's proprietary ActiveX and Javascript bindings.
- ActiveX, WScript, and some other portions of the MS scripting 'experience' expose a greater number of gateways for a cracker to access into your machine with. This includes file access, amongst many other facilities. Mozilla browsers (and other browsers such as Opera, etc even) don't have this 'functionality' because they're generic and don't want to support it across multiple platforms / OSes. However, I find it to be a strong security point that they don't have these possible security holes like MSIE does with the script setup.


Given the exploits I see used via both IE and FireFox at some malicious sites, the bad guys seem to be moving away from simply exploiting the browser itself on Windows systems. As for ActiveX, the opt-in feature of IE7 is a timely improvement over IE6 and gives a buffer against scripted attacks via ActiveX. Whether IE is the user's daily-driver browser or not, they stand to benefit from updating from IE6 to IE7, and that is the message to take to the bank here.

quote:
Or just run a Unix-based OS because if you don't run as root, you get the same thing, and you don't have to worry about annoying Vista features like UAC ;).


For those who are interested in that option, hit our Operating Systems forum where we have a stickied thread to help you out, as well as some helpful *nix dudes :) But for many folks, the more realistic option is to get up-to-speed on their Windows security.

MVP, Windows Shell/User


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By Christopher1 on 10/7/2007 2:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
IE7 BLOATED? What world are you living in? The installation takes up about 20MB's, less than Mozilla Minefield's 30-35MB's.

IE7 is not bloated in any way, shape or form.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By Blight AC on 10/8/2007 8:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with IE7 for some IT departments is support by third party vendors for web based applications. Some of our web based apps do not like running in IE7, and getting the vendors off their arses to support it... well, some just don't and others are real slow about it.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By borowki on 10/5/2007 7:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
The underlying motive is that Russia has been threatening to move towards Open Source in a big way, because a large percentage of their computers (including tose in government institutions) run pirate copies of Windows.

Kremlin > bad guys > poor people.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By Jack Ripoff on 10/5/2007 8:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft just want people to use their products in order to spread their flawed proprietary standards, thus making it harder to use competing products.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By thesid on 10/6/2007 5:48:10 AM , Rating: 3
god! you ppl cried when they started WGA.. now you cry again when they stop using it ,..... retards


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By cyberserf on 10/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By Jack Ripoff on 10/6/2007 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why have I been downrated? What I said is true!

Their web browser (specially previous versions of it) implemented undocumented deviations from global standards which forced web developers to tweak their pages in order to make them compatible with it - which in turn rendered those pages nearly unusable on other web browsers.

All their products are riddled with undocumented "features", programming interfaces, document formats and network protocols which make them uninteroperable with competing products.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2178222,00.as...
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By yaneurabeya on 10/6/2007 2:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Jack is very correct in this regard.

MSIE still is the number one loser in several arenas in terms of complying with W3 standards.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By TomZ on 10/7/2007 9:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
The reason you got downrates is that you assume that a paper standard is always more important than a de facto standard.

I've worked as a software and electrical engineer and manager for many years - and I can tell you that most standards aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Most written standards are ambigious and leave so much open for interpretation that the result is a set of products that are loosely "standardized" but have a large number of compatibility problems. You see this in nearly every industry, including the web.

If a particular product has most of the market share, it is usually far more efficient to use that product's implementation as a de-facto standard, rather than writing a separate paper standard. The de-facto standard has been "reality tested" since it is in a product already, plus it has evolved in order to meet the requirements of the domain. Furthermore, someone writing another conforming application can simply test theirs against the original, which eliminates any question about compatibility.

I'm not saying this is the best approach in all cases, but it is rather effective in many areas, including the web.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By Jack Ripoff on 10/7/2007 8:38:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I've worked as a software and electrical engineer and manager for many years - and I can tell you that most standards aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

It's not about being a paper standard or even a quality standard. It's about being an open, documented and interoperable standard.

Let's take Java and MSOOXML as examples. Java isn't a paper standard. It's owned by Sun Microsystems. It is, however, multiplatform and can be reimplemented by anyone since it's documented and not dependent on any platform-specific behavior or feature by-design. It runs on mainframes as well as mobile phones. Microsoft's OpenXML, on the other hand, is an ECMA standard, but it relies on behaviors specific to Microsoft Office, references other undocumented and proprietary Microsoft standards (e.g.: WMF) and is generally inconsistent and difficult to implement on a non-Microsoft platform.

quote:
I'm not saying this is the best approach in all cases, but it is rather effective in many areas, including the web.

Actually you're saying effectiveness is more important than interoperability.


RE: I guess MS is afraid of...
By mrchoas101 on 10/11/2007 1:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think your right.

I used an copy of XP for a while (I now own my own) when I was just dirt poor in school. WGA forced me to go to firefox. Prob is once I bought my REAL copy, I installed firefox and kept it. I do use IE but ONLY when a page wont work right in firefox.


My reason for going Firefox
By wordsworm on 10/5/2007 10:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
About 4-5 years ago, I was picking up viruses all the time. Then, I got Firefox, and I haven't had a virus since. That's why I went for Firefox, and I only use IE when it's a site I trust and they won't let me use Firefox. Also, sometimes badly written webpages come out better in IE than in Firefox. Again, though, I only use IE when I feel a great deal of trust for the owners of the site, like www.microsoft.com

I must say, though, 64 bit IE7 is pretty slick. But I still don't think it's as nice as Firefox.




RE: My reason for going Firefox
By drebo on 10/6/2007 2:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you should call them the "badly" written sites, when IE7 is the more standards compliant browser at this point in time.

Also, if you're picking up viruses just by browsing the internet, you've got much more serious issues than just which browser you're using.


RE: My reason for going Firefox
By yaneurabeya on 10/6/2007 3:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny you should call them the "badly" written sites, when IE7 is the more standards compliant browser at this point in time.


Well, MSIE has caught up to Mozilla a bit in the CSS/HTML realm, but still lacks a lot of footing with Javascript.

Just wait until the Mozilla group releases Tamarin framework with its Mozilla browser products, and Adobe starts fully supporting an ActiveScript based Flash solution. Then the doors will be fully open to more platforms, and more groups will be able to develop solutions for Mozilla (and other supported browsers), using a generalized scripting framework. Then MS will definitely have something to worry about...


RE: My reason for going Firefox
By tfk11 on 10/7/2007 12:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny you should call them the "badly" written sites, when IE7 is the more standards compliant browser at this point in time.


As a web developer I have to point out that you are dead wrong. Not only does ie (including ie7) intentionally fail to adhere to standards but it's behavior is often quite unpredictable.

Although I agree that sites which fail to render properly in "other browsers" may not be written "badly" at all. More likely they have just been written to work specifically with ie.


RE: My reason for going Firefox
By Screwballl on 10/7/2007 2:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
as an ISP employee, I agree...
Mozilla and Opera adhere to the standards, IE has always attempted to change the display method by introducing unnecessary code which makes coding some website styles a major pain.
Now some sites code specifically for IE and then create extra code to work with alternative browsers. If they would all adhrere to the same standards then it would save so much time and money for web designers.
there been some pages that just would not display properly in IE so I made links right at the top that state "if you are having difficulties seeing this page, download and use Firefox."


By Christopher1 on 10/7/2007 2:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's right. The only times I have picked up viruses is when I go to some porn site and it downloads a virus (stupid, I know, but I like porn!).
That's my own fault, and lately it seems that Firefox and IE7 both don't get any of them and NIS2007 blocks almost all the viruses on my machine.


RE: My reason for going Firefox
By yaneurabeya on 10/6/2007 3:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to say, but just because a site works well with IE and doesn't work well with Mozilla browsers, you shouldn't blame it on the browser. It's most likely a culmination of the HTML developer, combined with whatever tools were used to make the website with that are causing a slow web experience.

Of course portions of MSIE are running all the time in the background as well, so don't assume that MSIE doesn't have a bit more of an upper hand in the entire user experience ;).


"protect the windows ecosystem"
By computerslayer1 on 10/5/2007 10:42:54 PM , Rating: 3
"Because Microsoft takes its commitment to help protect the entire Windows ecosystem seriously..."

What about AutoPatcher? I know people refused windows updates before that came around and will refuse them now that it's been taken away.




RE: "protect the windows ecosystem"
By Rebel44 on 10/6/2007 9:46:35 AM , Rating: 1
Only people I know that wont use automatic update are those with pirated windows so its their problem.....


By computerslayer1 on 10/6/2007 11:56:12 AM , Rating: 3
Those kinds of people are in the minority.

The people I know have legit OEM installations and refuse windows update by choice for several reasons. If you're familiar with autopatcher at all, you'll be familiar with those reasons as well.


RE: "protect the windows ecosystem"
By yaneurabeya on 10/6/2007 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only people I know that wont use automatic update are those with pirated windows so its their problem.....


Incorrect. That may be a part of the people that don't want it, but I personally don't like running Windows with Automatic Updates because I want to choose when my machine reboots or not.

Domain owners don't use Automatic Updates a lot either, because they push updates out to machines in an automated way, instead of having the machines check all the time with the MS util.

Many people don't like the mysterious algorithm behind Automatic Updates too and choose not to subscribe to not knowing when an update will happen.


RE: "protect the windows ecosystem"
By JeffDM on 10/7/2007 4:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
I see and I agree. I was using Windows in an HTPC and when it had automatic updates on, it would mysteriously reboot on occasion maybe ten minutes after I turned the computer on. It didn't even warn me, so I thought there was some gremlin. That was very annoying, when the computer was perfectly stable. When I stepped down the setting, I also didn't like it when I'd get a window popping up every five minutes asking me if I want to reboot when I'm trying to get something done.


By mechBgon on 10/6/2007 10:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
If your pals liked AutoPatcher, they can actually generate their own AutoPatcher. Further info:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...

The large majority of PC owners don't even know what AutoPatcher is/was, so I don't think it's realistic to claim that it was contributing much to the security of the world's Windows fleet as a whole. People who aren't comfortable using Automatic Updates or the Windows Update site do have other options for updating their systems, as I mention in the thread linked above, and they should use those options if system security is important to them.


Dear Microsoft
By SiliconAddict on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dear Microsoft
By Rebel44 on 10/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dear Microsoft
By PrinceGaz on 10/6/2007 10:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of people would still pay for Windows even if they removed WGA. Admittedly more people would probably pirate it, but WGA never stopped determined pirates from using Windows XP and installing IE7 on it (it just required another patch first, apparently).


RE: Dear Microsoft
By tcsenter on 10/9/2007 5:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot of people would still pay for Windows even if they removed WGA. Admittedly more people would probably pirate it, but WGA never stopped determined pirates from using Windows XP and installing IE7 on it (it just required another patch first, apparently).
Microsoft doesn't give two hoots about the determined tech-savvy pirate and knows as well as anyone that it can't stop them. There is a certain point where it becomes an exercise in diminishing returns to bolster its anti-piracy technology at a cost that begins to outstrip the revenue lost to piracy.

Its the mainstream 'fire-and-forget' piracy by anyone who can turn-on a PC that Microsoft has always desired to stop (e.g. DOS and Win9x). Mission accomplished.

I'm savvy enough to pirate XP or Vista, but at some point the effort (cost) required to do so began to outweight any perceived benefit. And a miraculous thing also resulted, a sense of personal pride or satisfaction in no longer being a thief.

Granted, the latter came as much from the process of growing mentally beyond the juvenile gratification received from engaging in the 'forbidden' or 'naughty'. It's just as true that my personality has changed in that I no longer need to create a 'boogeyman' to tear down in order to feel powerful in my own personal or professional life.

Sadly, it seems this thing called adulthood doesn't seem to be an inevitable destination for everyone.


RE: Dear Microsoft
By mindless1 on 10/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dear Microsoft
By mindless1 on 10/9/2007 2:21:01 AM , Rating: 1
That my post was downgraded, was evidence enough of MS shills posting.

Shills, don't you GET it? Paying customers don't care half as much about what a bazillion dollar company is doing to try to curb loss, as they do about what actually effect THEM. Pirates or not, if I pay for an OS license, then when you cause me more BS I'll remember it.


WGA
By djkrypplephite on 10/6/2007 3:27:30 AM , Rating: 3
If MS got rid of WGA completely from Windows, I might use IE. Wait, probably not.




hmmm...
By sprockkets on 10/5/2007 11:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that is why it did not need any validation for a customer of mine today...

Hey, at least I can put it in without needing to activate and other crap.




By Mgz on 10/6/2007 2:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
I wish we could install WM11 without WGA crap too, but there is no threat to WM11 except the Euro Commission , so I doubt they would do it :(




Interesting...
By justinmcg67 on 10/6/2007 2:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
While I am an avid FireFox user, I did download IE7, because as of late I've been having some issues with some frequently visited web pages in Firefox, hopefully IE7 can fix this. It definitely won't be my Default Browser, but I will turn to it when problems arise in Firefox.

What I do like about this is how pirated copies of Windows can now use the software. That I find rather interesting. For as long as I can remember M$ has always in one way or another turned a blind eye to the pirated versions of Windows but this makes me lift a brow and say, "huh." Oh well, no complaints though, it's free for all now, and that I'm most certainly happy for.




IE7 Still Needs Work
By Hacp on 10/7/2007 10:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
I tried IE7 a few months ago, and while I really wanted to like it, it was obvious that it still needs work. Its really laggy and slow compared to firefox.




Second releases are often good
By KenGoding on 10/8/2007 9:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
I remember when IE6 first came out, it was an adventure on a Windows 98 machine, it might work, it might not. When they released it with the service pack, things became much better.

The first release of IE7 has been an adventure too, whether MS wants to admit it or not. I've seen quite a few machines that had IE7 and it caused very strange problems, like links would come up white and it would lock up. On other machines it would be perfectly happy. So I am hopeful that this update will solve some of these problems and we can have an easier time and Joe-average user who doesn't understand the stuff won't be left wondering why their computer isn't working right.




By DLeRium on 10/8/2007 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
What's the build number of this new release?




By encryptkeeper on 10/9/2007 1:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why I did it, but I got a copy of IE7 (even though I'm a Firefox user through and through) and used a hack to circumvent the WGA protection. It's existed for quite some time, all you had to do was google something like "IE 7 no wga" and you'll find a strategy (same thing for WMP 11).




This is MADNESS!!!
By corduroygt on 10/11/2007 1:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
I gave up all my 9 votes just to post this :)




"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles
Firefox Hits 400 Million Downloads
September 10, 2007, 3:29 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki