Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Upgrading Windows Users To Latest Version of MSIE

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the great-and-powerful-oz dept.

Internet Explorer 476

helix2301 writes "Microsoft will be upgrading all Windows XP, Vista and 7 users to the latest IE silently. They are doing this because they have found a large number of non-patched systems. Microsoft pointed out that Chrome and Firefox do this regularly. They will start with Australia and Brazil in January, then go world-wide after they have assured there are no issues."

cancel ×

476 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For your own good (-1, Flamebait)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386082)

Don't knock 'em. Microsoft has a Big Brother reputation to uphold.

Re:For your own good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386204)

And what browser do you use? Firefox? Chrome? both of those already do this. This is actually a good idea. I know that at both my office and my parents house that if a screen comes up asking them to update, it's *close* "I'll update later"... this will go on until I manually run the updates because they don't want updates taking time away from facebook or shopping online. Automatically updating like this will silently fix issues, which is a good thing for the bulk of the population that still uses IE.

Re:For your own good (3, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386588)

Hum, last I saw, Firefox only auto-updates if you authorizes it. (What, by the way, I don't do, on any of my computers, for reasons that are completely different from not trusting the updates.)

I welcome the news of no more IE6, IE7 and IE8. But the means aren't good (well, I don't depend on Windows personaly, so I don't relly care - the IT of my workplace may think differently).

Re:For your own good (1)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386608)

For me, my relatives, and other private users, this is undoubtedly a Good Thing. There better be an opt-out clearly defined and honored, though, because there are many big companies out there denying the passage of time.

An unnamed multinational Big Pharma up the road from me still uses a major in-house app which is coded specifically to IE6's foibles. They've actually coded up some horrible hackjob that runs IE6 on Windows 7, rather than fix the horrible in-house app.

Re:For your own good (0)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386618)

On top of that it will also bring HTML5 features closer. While many sites will still probably use Flash and Silverlight, at least people will have a browser that is capable of showing HTML5 video and supports HTML5 tags. Sites won't start using it before IE9 is more widely used. And then we can finally stop the H264 vs WebM battle, because IE9 will only support H264.

Re:For your own good (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386206)

Do we want to call MS Big Brother over this, when they're following the example of Firefox?

IE has been getting a lot better, and the more sane release schedule was becoming more and more of a selling point over Firefox. Funny how the browser field has shifted. It used to be Firefox for the smart people, Opera for the independent smart people, and IE/Safari for the people that didn't really know how computers operated.

Now, IE and Safari have improved, Firefox is squandering it's lead, and Chrome is on par with Firefox, and Opera is still the Ron Paul of browsers. There's no obviously bad browser anymore, but we also don't have an obviously superior browser.

Re:For your own good (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386298)

There's no obviously bad browser anymore, but we also don't have an obviously superior browser.

Alternatively, if you're me you think that all browsers are bad, but approximately equally. ;-)

Re:For your own good (4, Insightful)

Yakasha (42321) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386368)

There's no obviously bad browser anymore, but we also don't have an obviously superior browser.

As a developer, I strongly disagree there. IE has the same problems it has always had: everything works in Chrome, Firefox, Opera, & Safari but oh, surprise surprise, it doesn't work in IE. Always have to code something special, even with widely supported Javascript frameworks, there are needed tweaks nearly every time, just for IE.

Re:For your own good (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386600)

In my experience it hasn't been so bad in IE8/9. There are still a few quirks but it's a huge improvement over 7 or fucking 6.

Re:For your own good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386672)

Umm Chrome has a lot of broken stuff where IE/Firefox work just fine.

Re:For your own good (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386398)

One thing that makes a difference between FF and IE pushing upgrades, if I have IE6 installed on my machine, it's because there's some horribly written intranet site that will only work in IE6. I'm not saying that every IE6 user can use that excuse, but there exist some number of us for whom it is true. Do they have a way to force a downgrade or install versions side by side?

Re:For your own good (3, Informative)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386474)

There is a way to opt-out of the upgrade and also to downgrade if you happen to get it.

Re:For your own good (0)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386448)

I lol'd because I became a Ron Paul supporter about the same time as I became an Opera user. Of course now I just use Firefox tricked out to look like Opera because I'm hooked on ABP, so maybe I've lost a little bit of that independent streak. Then again...I'm still a Ron Paul supporter.

Re:For your own good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386452)

My obviously superior browser is Lynx. No ads, no flash, no pictures and integrates with my screen reader nicely.

Re:For your own good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386454)

Do we want to call MS Big Brother over this, when they're following the example of Firefox?

Simple way to answer this. Ask yourself three simple questions:

Are they a corporation?

Are they collectively larger than you are, large enough to trigger primitive prey instincts you're still holding over from grade school when bullies kept beating you up?

Are they doing something?

If the answer to all three are "yes", the answer is that they are, indeed, doing something on which we can slap a cheap scare tactic label as a sort of crude bludgeon to convince really really weak-willed impressionable people of our cause*. Sure, the label has already lost almost all of its impact due to overuse and misuse in this manner, but so long as we can find one malleable dope we can scare into following us, it'll all be worth it.

After all, in the time it took me to type out this much (which is definitely nowhere near the length of even a halfway-decent analysis on the topic), a hundred other people could've posted their own comments, and that would mean they Won(tm)! Therefore, we don't have time for rational discussion, it's all just a land grab for the few remaining idiots who'll fall for labels like "Big Brother".

*: Alternatively, we could just be trying to convince the echo chamber that we still agree with the currently trendy dogma. Still ultimately the same degree of usefulness.

Re:For your own good (2)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386492)

>Do we want to call MS Big Brother over this, when they're following the example of Firefox?

Sure. Firefox isn't integrated into the OS in the way IE is, for starters. And what this means is that I haven't upgraded IE for some time now because it broke one of the widgets I use on my Win7 desktop. Firefox doesn't do that sort of thing, because it can't, so there's not an issue with beaking stuff outside of itself.

I guess I might as well mention while I'm here that I haven't upgraded to the latest Firefox either: it breaks one of the addons that I use all the time.

Re:For your own good (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386598)

yes, but I trust Mozilla, they have not screwed me in the past.

Re:For your own good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386644)

What about all the applications that still don't work with the newest version of IE? We have one vendor who only supports IE and then they're only up to supporting 7 I think in the next release this will change, but if we don't upgrade soon we'll have to wait until October due to business contraints.

start with Australia and Brazil (5, Insightful)

epedersen (863120) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386098)

Do they start with Australia and Brazil because they do not care about the users there?

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386196)

Australia.... starts with an A
Brazil... starts with a B

probably just going down an alphabetical list of major countries.

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386262)

Shit! We're next!

-Canadian AC

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386512)

Shit! We're next!

-Canadian AC

Ha! USA! USA! USA!

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386542)

Ha, Not so Anonymous now are you?

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (0)

Sun (104778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386566)

So why is a raven like a writing desk?

Shachar
Who waits to see if the moderators get the joke....

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386654)

What happened to Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus...?

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (5, Funny)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386242)

No, they decided to do it alphabetically. So they spent $13 million conducting market research in which they asked focus groups to name a country that starts with A and another that starts with B. After spending another $4 million running statistical analysis on the results (plus an additional $87 million trying to keep the analysis computers running, since after all they were Windows machines), they came to the conclusion that the ideal A country is Australia and the ideal B country is Brazil. Shortly they will be running a $150 million ad campaign depicting Kermit the Frog and Al Gore traveling from Australia to Brazil.

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (2, Funny)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386630)

Little known fact: Originally they were going to use Austria as the "A" country, but they were afraid Arnold Schwarzenegger might get pissed, and come beat them up.

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (5, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386310)

Brazil I imagine has rather high infection rates, due to the high piracy rates (I'm pretty sure Windows_XP_NoWGA_+_Keygen.torrent doesn't have all the patches slipstreamed in).

Australia is probably just because if the inhabitants can handle thousands of incredibly toxic spiders, scorpions, snakes, fish, and even exploding trees, they can probably handle a browser that's slightly more broken than normal.

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386356)

Not to mention driving on the wrong side of the road.

And Vegemite.

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386660)

Brazil I imagine has rather high infection rates, due to the high piracy rates (I'm pretty sure Windows_XP_NoWGA_+_Keygen.torrent doesn't have all the patches slipstreamed in).

Australia is probably just because if the inhabitants can handle thousands of incredibly toxic spiders, scorpions, snakes, fish, and even exploding trees, they can probably handle a browser that's slightly more broken than normal.

"Crikey! This is a really dangerous virus on our computer! I'm going to try to take it by the tail and drag it out of the drive so you can see it. That's quite a magnificient beast, isn't it? Look how it hooks in between layers and takes advantage of vulnerabilities. OK, letting it go again. Watch yer selves!"

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386738)

Hey, fuck you buddy! I take PRIDE in my pirated OS torrents...

- totallynotskeevydude@microsoft.ru

Re:start with Australia and Brazil (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386658)

Australia and Brazil both have IE6 usage rates below 2%, and they probably both have a relatively small percentage of global internet users. In other words, it's a small but diverse test case. The US has an IE6 usage rate of only 1%, but we have a larger share of global internet users.

finally! (4, Interesting)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386104)

I can't believe it's taken this long.

IE6 is Finally Gonna Die! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386108)

Somebody tell netcraft!

I like there strategy, I like it a lot... (5, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386118)

They will start with Australia and Brazil in January, then go world-wide after they have assured there are no issues.

Haha, I guess a big thanks goes out to Australia and Brazil for being the beta testers. Thanks!

Re:I like there strategy, I like it a lot... (1)

xs650 (741277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386570)

<quote><blockquote><div><p>They will start with Australia and Brazil in January, then go world-wide after they have <strong>assured there are no issues</strong>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Haha, I guess a big thanks goes out to Australia and Brazil for being the beta testers. Thanks!</p></quote>

Australia is the alpha tester, Brazil the beta tester.

Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (2, Insightful)

JazzyJ (1995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386130)

I think Microsoft is going to find plenty of issues trying to roll this out in the US.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386200)

Honestly?

Fuck 'em. They deserve the headache.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386260)

THIS! Its either they have a mild headache and upgrade their apps now, or they can get hacked (or have been getting hacked). And besides, web developers like me have been dealing with their bullshit for so long. Its time for 6 to go, no questions asked.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386202)

It's coming in through Windows Update. If you have intranet apps with specific requirements and don't carefully manage Windows Update, you'd have gotten fucked long ago.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (0)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386226)

Microsoft won't be the ones getting the angry customer phone calls. The devs of broken, backwards web apps will.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386376)

Microsoft won't be the ones getting the angry customer phone calls. The devs of broken, backwards web apps will.

Now, is that a feature, or a bug?

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386250)

I think that a lot of organizations are going to have to eventually upgrade their obsolete software.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386290)

No, the people using IE6 are going to have the issues. Microsoft mostly has control of the PC market, at this point they can essentially do whatever they want (i.e. making Windows 8 "label" devices incapable of booting any other operating system).

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386322)

From what I understand, some SAP products are locked into IE6 (so I have read.) It's ridiculuous that that's the case, but it is what it is.

Although I wish the world would automatically update, I also believe that consumers should have the write to maintain which ever version of software. At a minimum, they should be able to keep what they originally purchased because, after all, that is what they originally purchased.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (4, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386722)

From what I understand, some SAP products are locked into IE6 (so I have read.) It's ridiculuous that that's the case, but it is what it is.

Yep we have to keep IE6 on accountants' computers just for ACCPAC. That said we install Firefox on those and set it as the default browser.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (2)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386468)

Yes, but really it's time this happened. Microsoft finally has a half way decent browser, it's been 18 months since IE6 and 7 were end of life'd, there is no reason for people to still be running on IE6/7 other then organizations being too stubborn or bureaucratic to make their stuff work on the new. The last project I was on we as a team of 8 devs + project manager and two testers spent weeks making the app backward compatible with IE6 just because there was other stuff that they refused to fix that only worked on IE6 so parts of the company was stuck on IE6. Obviously updates can be controlled, but hopefully this will start breaking up the log jam of dependencies on broken old version of IE...

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (4, Informative)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386690)

Then install MultipleIEs [tredosoft.com] , and you can have your IE6 still exist somewhere, while the main IE on the machine is 8 or 9.

Re:Lots of intranet apps still stuck on IE6.0 (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386692)

I don't think Microsoft is going to find any issues rolling this out in the US. Dinosaur IT departments, on the other hand, may see an issue or two.

A web developer says thank you! (5, Insightful)

mrtwice99 (1435899) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386136)

I know there might be negative ramifications, but I'm glad to see this day arrive. The sooner old IEs die, the better.

Re:A web developer says thank you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386264)

I couldn't agree more.

Though since it's going out through Windows Update, those individual users with updates turned off won't get it and I won't be surprised if all the businesses still keeping machines on IE6 for shitty old reasons will just leave it unapproved in WSUS. :(

Good. (5, Insightful)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386142)

Fuck IE6. Fuck it hard. Companies that have been dragging their feet on this for years need a hard kick in the ass, and this is how to do it.

If something breaks because of this, you only have yourself to blame. Anyone still running this shit intentionally knew they were on a path to pain.

Companies can avoid this like before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386240)

From the article:

Respecting Customer Choice and Control

While the benefits of upgrading are numerous, we recognize that some organizations and individuals may want to opt-out and set their own upgrade pace. One of the things we’re committed to as we move to auto updates is striking the right balance for consumers and enterprises – getting consumers the most up-to-date version of their browser while allowing enterprises to update their browsers on their schedule. The Internet Explorer 8 and Internet Explorer 9 Automatic Update Blocker toolkits prevent automatic upgrades of IE for Windows customers who do not want them. Of course, we firmly believe that IE9 is the most compelling browser for business customers, and we want them to make the decision to upgrade at their convenience.

Similarly, customers who have declined previous installations of IE8 or IE9 through Windows Update will not be automatically updated. Customers have the ability to uninstall updates and continue to receive support for the version of IE that came with their copy of Windows. And similar to organizations, consumers can block the update all together and upgrade on their own. Finally, future versions of IE will provide an option in the product for consumers to opt out of automatic upgrading.

And why are those systems unpatched ? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386148)

Because they are not running Windows updates. at all. And therefore this is not going to have an effect.

Re:And why are those systems unpatched ? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386176)

Or it's my wife's computer and she just keeps dismissing ANY message that comes up without reading it.

Re:And why are those systems unpatched ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386288)

Because we keep telling people never to click YES, so now they click NO/CANCEL/BUGGEROFF

Re:And why are those systems unpatched ? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386702)

It's an improvement.

When the software grows up and stops crying for attention all the time, we can start asking users to pay attention.

Re:And why are those systems unpatched ? (1)

ewhac (5844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386574)

...Or it's me, who long ago told WinUpdate to never attempt to "upgrade" IE, for the simple fact that I was never ever going to use IE (except to download FIrefox).

Every time Micros~1 updates IE, they fsck around with the defaults -- incorrectly, of course -- and I have to dive through half a dozen panes of preferences settings to bludgeon the thing back into submission. So, no, Micros~1, leave the damned thing alone.

(I also long ago uninstalled MSIE which, for some inane reason, is distinct from IE.)

Schwab

Re:And why are those systems unpatched ? (1, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386684)

Oh god that was so hard [microsoft.com] . Upgrade already. XP is old-n-busted. Windows isn't my favorite, but 7 gets a lot of things right.

Re:And why are those systems unpatched ? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386716)

Oh damn, that even works on XP. Guess you have no reason to bitch then!

Red Headed Step Child... (1)

TommyGunnRX (756664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386162)

Well, I guess we know what Microsoft thinks of Australia and Brazil...

I don't use windows in my personal life anymore, but I really wish they'd release patches on a nightly basis like Ubuntu or Red Hat instead of waiting to make sure systems are compromised.

Re:Red Headed Step Child... (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386524)

They do release patches, the problem is people keep telling Windows not to update it!

We tried a big IE8 rollout last summer (5, Funny)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386174)

We tried. We really did. Then our users started to complain that their browsing history was gone. Apparently, some of them had never heard of this strange thing called "bookmarks."

Re:We tried a big IE8 rollout last summer (5, Insightful)

Laxori666 (748529) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386256)

I'm on Chrome. I don't use bookmarks anymore. Just: "r<ENTER>", "g<ENTER>", "d<ENTER>", "s<ENTER>", "st<ENTER>", "sl<ENTER>".

Re:We tried a big IE8 rollout last summer (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386686)

Firefox user here. I do the same, locally rather than through Google instant, so my browsing habits are less exposed to the data miners at our favorite advertising agency.

Re:We tried a big IE8 rollout last summer (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386332)

Neither has IE - they call them "Favorites" over there.

Awesome for web developers and designers. (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386178)

Goodbye IE7/8 support!

Re:Awesome for web developers and designers. (4, Insightful)

sylvandb (308927) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386254)

Do they have IE9 for XP? Not last I checked...

Re:Awesome for web developers and designers. (4, Informative)

xlsior (524145) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386286)

Not really: since IE 9 is not available for XP, there will still be millions of IE 8 installs around evem after a forced update to the latest version.

Re:Awesome for web developers and designers. (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386378)

Well....

Shit.

Re:Awesome for web developers and designers. (3, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386726)

Not really: since IE 9 is not available for XP, there will still be millions of IE 8 installs around evem after a forced update to the latest version.

This is a major improvement over millions of IE6 and IE7 installs.

Don't you mean IE6/IE7? (3, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386418)

Unfortunately, Microsoft chose not to support IE9 on Windows XP, so we're going to be stuck with IE8 for quite some time yet.

Mind you, this is still cause for some celebration, as IE8 represents major improvement over its predecessors. But it's not the fundamental fix to the Web that an update to IE9 would be. When Microsoft swallows its pride and ports it (or puts XP support into IE10), that will be cause for dancing in the streets.

Web Applications (2, Interesting)

David89 (2022710) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386184)

What about all the companies that use older versions of IE because of compatibility with their own proprietary web applications?

Re:Web Applications (2)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386252)

What about all the companies that use older versions of IE because of compatibility with their own proprietary web applications?

Simple: they'll disable the automatic update, by force if necessary.

Realistically, though, these users tend to be behind corporate firewalls with lots of antivirus protection and a forced patch schedule, so I doubt Microsoft is too worried about them contributing significantly to continued security holes thanks to IE6. This is an update to save the clueless from themselves.

Re:Web Applications (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386320)

How about reading the article before commenting on it?

"While the benefits of upgrading are numerous, we recognize that some organizations and individuals may want to opt-out and set their own upgrade pace. One of the things we’re committed to as we move to auto updates is striking the right balance for consumers and enterprises – getting consumers the most up-to-date version of their browser while allowing enterprises to update their browsers on their schedule. The Internet Explorer 8 and Internet Explorer 9 Automatic Update Blocker toolkits prevent automatic upgrades of IE for Windows customers who do not want them. Of course, we firmly believe that IE9 is the most compelling browser for business customers, and we want them to make the decision to upgrade at their convenience.

Similarly, customers who have declined previous installations of IE8 or IE9 through Windows Update will not be automatically updated. Customers have the ability to uninstall updates and continue to receive support for the version of IE that came with their copy of Windows. And similar to organizations, consumers can block the update all together and upgrade on their own. Finally, future versions of IE will provide an option in the product for consumers to opt out of automatic upgrading. "

Re:Web Applications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386324)

What about all the companies that use older versions of IE because of compatibility with their own proprietary web applications?

Fuck 'em.

Automatic reboot this month for XP and Win7 (3, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386190)

So far, I'm found a few XP and Windows7 PC that automatically install and schedule a reboot regardless of your Automatic Update settings. For some reason, MS decided to override this policy with some super-secret update policy I've never seen before. This would be the first time I've noticed it. These machines are always update to date each month and some are on a domain while others in workgroup mode. Anyways, the updates that got push out this week will prompt a user every 15 minutes to reboot. It's like a dead man's switch. If you ignore the option to postpone the reboot, it does it on it's own.

I smell a lawsuit coming for loss of user data that hand't had a chance to be saved while open on the desktop.

Re:Automatic reboot this month for XP and Win7 (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386312)

If you've got machines on a domain that aren't properly configured to a) Update automatically from an internally managed WSUS server on a regular basis and b) Set to suppress and/or reschedule automatic restarts out of working hours then frankly you deserve any data loss you get.

Re:Automatic reboot this month for XP and Win7 (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386602)

I have many clients that have SBS 2008 servers that manage WSUS policies by default along with many GPOs associated with computer OUs. You can still define WSUS updates manually, but you risk breaking the link back to the main SBS console. There's an entire KB article on this. Anyways, I haven't check if those workstations are experiencing the same behavior. I'm also managing a domain with standard 2003 DCs and GPOs to modify the update behavior and custom WSUS settings.

Basically it comes down to this. like I've stated in my previous post, I've never seen this behavior before in which Microsoft forces a dead man's switch upon the user every 15 minutes to reboot. The default update behavior happens at 3AM, but at least the user gets prompted to reboot on their own time for changes to take effect. That's ok in fact. But to force a reboot *without* user interaction isn't defensible as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Automatic reboot this month for XP and Win7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386612)

This. However one client decided to drop us. Nobody left that knows how to approve updates for install. They're all lost in the dead of space

Enterprise? (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386230)

While I'm ok with this as an end user and I actively use chrome at home so I'm used to this, I can't help but wonder if this is going to either be a godsend or nightmare for the enterprise IT crowd. However, the shop I work in is fairly good about letting go of things such as the infamous IE6 and we've had very little issues with the latest.

Re:Enterprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386314)

I imagine most enterprise environments would have WSUS managing updates. It would be trivial to simply not authorize it if they absolutely have to keep IE in the dark ages.

Re:Enterprise? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386336)

Any enterprise IT department worthy of continued employment will be running all Windows updates through their own WSUS server anyway and so will be free to leave their XP clients running IE6 if they so desire.

OMG (2)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386282)

"...after they have assured there are no issues..." Besides the faulty English, this little line sends shivers all over my spine.

Wow, this is going to be interesting... (5, Informative)

JMZero (449047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386292)

after they have assured there are no issues

IE 6 is a very, very different browser from IE 9. We've had plenty of clients who can't move off IE 6 (or are in the middle of a large project to do so) because it's the only one that will run their Intranet site correctly. I've seen MS make this type of mistake before - they don't see many public-facing sites using a technology, so they feel safe getting rid of it. Well, yes, very few public-facing sites are going to use crazy IE specific stuff, and most are (by now) going to be making reasonable efforts to work between browsers.

Intranet sites are a whole other kettle of fish; corporate programmers often target a single browser - and for many of them, that was IE for a long time. They got away with that from IE 4 to IE 6 because MS just added stuff. With IE 7 and, particularly, Vista, they started fixing insecure and non-standard behaviors - and that's part of why so many companies are still on XP and IE 6.

If MS does this, there will be a lot of pissed off people and gnashing of teeth. I'm not saying it's the wrong choice but "once they've assured there's no issues" sounds pretty silly.

Re:Wow, this is going to be interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386664)

That is -precisely- what they get for targeting something /other/ than an openly documented standard. Maybe corporate memory will actually learn this lesson this time. I highly doubt they'll learn about vendor lockin, but this is a major step towards being insulated from that in the first place.

Still the best way to download Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386296)

I haven't touched Internet Explorer since the last time I had to install Firefox on a new system. So... how exactly does this affect me? I don't even want to install the piece of crap.

IE9 for XP? (3, Interesting)

Svenne (117693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386326)

Really? When did this happen?

Australia to change name to Zustralia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386330)

so this won't happen again.

They can do whatever: IE is part of the OS... (1, Informative)

bADlOGIN (133391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386402)

Remember kids, MSIE is _NOT_ a "web browser". It is a part of the Windows operating system. Microsoft has said so in court. Therefore, when you want to go on-line, be sure and use a "web browser" such as Chrome(Win/Mac/Linux/etc), Firefox(Win/Mac/Linux/etc), Safari(Mac/Win/iOS), or even Opera(Win/Mac/Linux/iOS).

When people ask you why you hate IE (and of course Microsoft by extension), be sure to have this fact handy and correct them about referring to IE as being a "web browser". After all, if it really was you could:

keep more than one version installed at a time
install different versions for different user account
and of course... easily uninstall it.

As a web developer (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386428)

THANK YOU! The number of people using IE 6 and 7 is about to dramatically decline, which is roughly proportional to the number of headaches I will be getting on a daily basis.

Re:As a web developer (0)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386610)

Sounds like someone doesn't know how to do "gracefully degrade". Sure, if some web browser doesn't have a feature you NEED, then the advantage of doing what needs that feature won't happen for them. Their bad. But everything their browser can do, in the standard way, without bugs (oh wait, that doesn't leave much for IE) should still work.

One of the really annoying examples on the web are hyperlinks. HTML has had the capability since the beginning. Yet so many sites insist on doing it with Javascript. In SOME (but not most) cases, the Javascript adds to this by being smart and figuring out what the best URL is. But almost all (some did it right) uses of Javascript break tabbing of hyperlinks (e.g. visit the link in a new tab, either by menu or by middle button click). I hope YOUR pages don't have any misuse of Javascript like that.

If what you want to do can be done on the old browser, and was a standard then, and is a standard now, then make sure THAT works on the old browser.

Of course it's great to have new browser features. But not everyone has new computers that can handle the bloated OSes that can handle the bloated browsers offered today. And not everyone cares to keep updating their browsers every 3 months. The insanity needs to end. Of course IE 6 and IE 7 ... they ARE the insanity.

How does an upgrade even work? (0)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386456)

I've been wondering how Firefox or Chrome can accomplish such an upgrade. The Firefox binaries are in a /usr directory which ordinary users have no write/change access permission. The browser runs as the user using it, not as root. Even Flash fails to install (I tried it once on a machine I was getting ready to wipe clean and re-install) even though it could have put the shared object module in the user home directory.

Of course, with Windows' holey security model, it might work.

Re:How does an upgrade even work? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386544)

normally you click "ok" giving it permission, or have you not upgraded your firefox at all?

Re:How does an upgrade even work? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386720)

Firefox on Linux, I have no idea (aptitude takes care of it for me).

On Windows, Firefox still shows the UAC screen to gain permissions, and Chrome just installs and runs from a path inside the user's home.

Integrated with the OS (0)

BigDaveyL (1548821) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386530)

From my basic and possibly incorrect understanding, isn't Internet Explorer an integral part of the OS? This may be why other browsers can get away with it. Also, other browsers aimed to be somewhat standards complaint from the beginning. IE 6 wasn't as standards compliant. So one can get away with upgrading other browsers.

Finally got 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38386572)

Yeah, F you Australia and Brazil!

My IT Staff's job just got harder (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386576)

We use some banking software that only works with IE8. This is gonna be a pain in the ass.

Re:My IT Staff's job just got harder (2)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38386732)

if it's web base and only works with IE8 i wouldn't call it "software" but rather a bandaid

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?