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 Releases Internet Explorer 10 For Windows 7

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the double-digits-on-the-prime dept.

Internet Explorer 321

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)."

cancel ×

321 comments

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

Actually... I'm glad. (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015747)

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015805)

Sad to say, but you probably still will.

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

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016183)

Just as well, since IE9's JS engine, and Trident implementation are still totally retarded, when faced with sites using scripts implementing "infinite scrolling" functionality (at least the Twitter Web UI ends up becoming a messy pile of widgets, and some pages end up displaying with two scrollbars)...

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015823)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (4, Interesting)

BLToday (1777712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015985)

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (2)

chucklebutte (921447) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016001)

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (5, Informative)

filthpickle (1199927) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016303)

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

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (1)

chucklebutte (921447) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016471)

I do like it more in general. However, I like it more because I am not a marketing tool for Google when I use Firefox. I can also install more privacy and ad blocking related extensions when I use Firefox. These are the main reasons why I use Firefox. There are others, more stable, less headaches from end users, etc. Browsers aside, the real problem is Flash. It really needs to die. Security risks up the wazoo, memory leaks galore, and made the web a shit filled advertisted and prostituted out pop up freak fest. Flash fuck you. Adobe you ruined the web.

IE you suck less now, but Microsoft you need to put your foot down and ban Flash from Windows.

The only good thing Apple ever gave to us was no flash on iOS. HTML5 or bust please.

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (5, Interesting)

infogulch (1838658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016015)

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

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

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (5, Insightful)

t4ng* (1092951) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016393)

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

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

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (1)

jest3r (458429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015909)

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

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

Re:Actually... I'm glad. (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016599)

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

Another MS browser I don't care about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015765)

They can play catch up to Firefox and Chrome all they want, but they'll likely never be better than third best (second if they're LUCKY).

Re:Another MS browser I don't care about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016025)

What does a fictional Russian fighter jet have to do with this?

Re:Another MS browser I don't care about (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016077)

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

Re:Another MS browser I don't care about (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016495)

And more real, too.

Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015777)

Little to no change to the UI from IE9..

IE10 improvements over IE9 (3, Informative)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016239)

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

Enjoy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015791)

You say "enjoy"? I'm a fucking windows fan boy and I don't use IE. Morans.

Re:Enjoy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016049)

So you're this guy [blogspot.com]

Re:Enjoy? (2)

CSMoran (1577071) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016521)

I object.

mistake in article (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015807)

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

Re:mistake in article (1)

archen (447353) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016203)

What exactly is involved in a "platform update"?

Re:mistake in article (3, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016259)

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

Re:mistake in article (1)

t4ng* (1092951) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016573)

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

So? (3, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015817)

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

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

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

kwerle (39371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015971)

Holy crap! County yourself lucky.

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

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016169)

Oh activeX was used for *a lot* of things, such as all those drive by downloads.

Re:So? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016461)

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

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

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

Re:So? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016553)

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

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

This is why people hate MS (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015825)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015919)

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.

Other than money. It's the same reason game devs don't port their AAA titles to your toy OS. I won't elaborate and will leave it to you to figure out the details.

Re:This is why people hate MS (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015949)

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

And OS X.

Re:This is why people hate MS (3, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015957)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016265)

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

I don't know. Does it make sense to end support for XP when so many people around the world still use it and there are no other reasons to "upgrade" than artificial limits and bullshit product EOLs to milk more money.

Re:This is why people hate MS (2)

avandesande (143899) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016329)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016301)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (1)

eagee (1308589) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015967)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (2)

baka_toroi (1194359) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016013)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016031)

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

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016079)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (1)

dririan (1131339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016291)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016439)

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

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016111)

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

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016481)

Actually, they realized that was a terrible idea for many reasons, including security, and removed all of the "HTML integration" stuff that existed in XP. (Much of XP's interface is actually pseudo html markup.) That is a good technical reason why newer IE versions couldn't be backported, it simply doesn't support all the non-standard gunk that makes the XP UI work.

Still doesn't excuse IE10 being released so late for Win 7 users and not at all for Vista.

Re:This is why people hate MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016163)

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

About IE, you're probably right. About DirectX, you're 25% right. A lot of the filters and shaders and things could be written to work on XP, but DX10 included a massive rewrite to the core, that also included changing where in the OS structure DirectX fit. I don't remember the specific terminology, but it went from a nearly application layer component to a deeply integrated core component. Part of this means that new code couldn't easily be compiled for the old style, which also meant that Microsoft didn't have any incentive to have a second dev team to make DX10XP.
It's kind of like how you can't get DX9 on Windows 3.11 for workgroups.

Re:This is why people hate MS (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016371)

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016419)

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

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016465)

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

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

Re:This is why people hate MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016557)

Yeah, because only Microsoft does this. Bias much? Apple, Google and a bunch of other companies do the same thing. Oh, and XP is 12 years old. How many other companies support their products for so long? More MS hate that gets modded up. Same old Slashdot.

Can we have the story with the additude? (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015833)

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

not so... (2)

Chirs (87576) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015915)

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

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

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

Re:not so... (1)

Racemaniac (1099281) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016451)

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

but vista and windows 8?

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

never understood the hate

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

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (4, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015945)

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

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

95, ditto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (1)

jdastrup (1075795) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016351)

8 Yes [sucked].

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

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

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

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016563)

I've used it. frankly they fixed a lot of internal problems and improved performance. but to use or suoppirt it sucks.
the worse thing though, and I mean the get the fuck out part is windows 8 secure boot crap. fuck you Microsoft.

and that is why, without a doubt, 8 is the worst version they ever made.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016569)

Really? Have you guys even used Windows 8?

Yes.

It's virtually exactly the same as Windows 7.

No, its not.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016357)

Windows 3.1- No Don't give me a GUI I want my DOS and Command Line interface. If I wanted windows I would have gotten a Mac.
Windows 95 - After all that hype it is mostly still windows 3.1 execpt that it boots up with a graphical interface and you don't need to put win in autoexec.bat. It still trails Linux in terms of multi-tasking and stability.
Windows 98 - How dare they embed IE into the OS. No one wants to use their web browser to navigate their files.
Windows ME - Yea this was just crap.
Windows 2000 - What you switching us to the NT Kernel, what about all my DOS games they will be useless.
Windows XP - The UI it looks like it is from Phisher Price. And even more forcing us to use the NT kernel. We want to keep our old DOS apps running
Windows Vista - Look at that New UI, More EYE CANDY, how am I going to to work when I don't have my Start
Windows 7 - You still kept the Windows Vista UI that I hated.
Windows 8 - They changed the start menu so it looks different again, why can't we stay at XP?

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (2)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016535)

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

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

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015955)

Nope, they've got to keep wanking off and thinking their cumjuices aren't salty like the rest of ours.

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (1)

jest3r (458429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015959)

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015973)

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

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016027)

Seriously. If people hate Windows 8 so much, why do they even bother commenting on it, as they aren't going to use it anyway, right? I have been using Win8 on two of my computers (one laptop, one slate) for the past month or so, and I kind of like it. Took a few days to get used to switching to and from the desktop and new metro start menu, but when I actually work I spend the bulk of the time in one program anyway, so what's the big deal? Being able to use the same software on a desktop and a tablet is a great thing for my needs. At work I have been using some convertible tablets/laptops with detachable keyboards, plus the Surface Pro, they are really great devices for the usage they are intended for and Windows 8 makes them better, not worse.

People whining about how they don't want to install Windows 8 even in a VM for testing, how incredibly childish. If someone in my QA team tried that they'd have to seriously evaluate the line of work they're in...

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016191)

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

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016411)

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

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

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

Does that help you to understand?

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016063)

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

How's retirement treating you, Mr. Gates?

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016299)

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016327)

Actually, no.

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

Re:Can we have the story with the additude? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016505)

We only hated them because they were crap. Every Windows version at it's peak still was crap. You say it wasn't? Well, that's probably because you've gotten used to it's issues and considered them something any computer user should know, after all, computer user, means someone who uses the computer for his needs, not the the other way around.

I didn't know IE was still maintained (-1, Troll)

themoneyish (971138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015839)

Actually, I didn't know if Microsoft was still around. I thought they died off long ago.

Re:I didn't know IE was still maintained (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016395)

Has Netcraft confirmed it?

Nice flaimbait intro sentence there. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015857)

Go slashdot.

IE7? Not again! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015867)

IE7 on Win7 requires a platform update to bring some Windows 8 APIs to the more mature Windows

This must be proofeading day (0)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015871)

Don't mean to carry the timothy bashing over from my latest post on another story, but:

" IE7 on Win7 requires a platform update to bring some Windows 8 APIs to the more mature Windows"

That should read "IE10", right?

Timothy: Proofreading, please?

Re:This must be proofeading day (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016141)

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

Windows 8? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015889)

Does anyone like it better than Windows 7? I use both Linux and Windows7/XP at home. It's the best of both worlds and helps round out computing experience. Anyways, I briefly tried Win 8 and literally was turned off by it. The color scheme and application interface just felt really unpolished. Blech! Has anyone had any special experiences worth giving it a more in depth try? Thanks in advance and sorry for changing the discussion.

Re:Windows 8? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016551)

I actually do like Windows 8.

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

I actually almost like Windows 8 (3, Interesting)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015923)

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

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

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

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

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016113)

You can do a clean install: you have to have the DVD based install and the pre-update OS on the HDD.
The installer will allow you to format the drive after verifying the old software.

That said, the metro UI is garbage with a mouse and the desktop UI is a second class citizen (tons of glitches). I restored my Windows 7 backup after several month of Windows 8 use.

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016121)

Two minor points:

1) the upgrade does let you do a clean install; that's what I have done
2) I used Classic Shell and works great. Free too!

Re:I actually almost like Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016205)

Pirate it. No hassle that way. No phonecalls either. And all you lose is notepad. (it still works, it just calls you a pirate)

Why pay for a shitty experience when you can get a much better one... for free too.

download link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015927)

Re:download link? (1)

Windowser (191974) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016251)

Like somebody here would want to download it

How to block IE10 (3, Informative)

toygeek (473120) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015933)

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

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

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

Re:How to block IE10 (1)

kwerle (39371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016021)

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

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

Re:How to block IE10 (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016099)

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

Re:How to block IE10 (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016145)

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

ahahahaha (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015977)

enjoy ... Internet Explorer

Haha, good one.

Re:ahahahaha (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016507)

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

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

The DL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016011)

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

Journalistic Integrity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016045)

Ok I realize this is ./ and I should never expect an unbaised article? But "Windows 8 may suck" in the first sentence is ridiculous. Then the uncited claim of "IE10 was never planned for Win 7" is also just terrible. I get it, the nerds of ./ as a majority apparently don't like Windows 8. Why the hell is an article about the release of IE10 really just a cover to bash Windows 8 again?

IE10 actually brings Microsoft back into the arena of competition of the likes of Firefox and Chrome. At least that's my experience. Clearly I am a Microsoft shill and this post will be modded down to hell anyway. My goodness this place is getting irritating to read...at least I can generally ignore the Apple/Microsoft/Google bashing by avoiding comments, but now it's IN THE SUMMARY. For fuck's sake.

When are they fixing it for Win 8? (1)

Travco (1872216) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016075)

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

Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck. (0)

dwlovell (815091) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016193)

Is there any integrity left on this site?

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck. (5, Insightful)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016337)

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

Re:Summary is FUD. Windows 8 does not suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016555)

Right. Let's take this guys word for it. He know's what he's talking about.

Let's ignore all the other improvements in Windows 8, and focus on one thing that is easily remedied through a mod.

To keep my Karma I'm posting as AC (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016503)

I like windows, always has and hopefully always will. Once you run the OS on the equipment specified by MS you see with clarity how great things are doing things the MS way. People hated the fact when IE 9 moved processing power to the GPU but now understand putting the power on the machine and not the rendering engine was a great thing, like server side processing on web forms. People complain don't they keep backwards compatibility for every well I kind of understand that for people that want to live in the past, why not stay at dumb terminals, yes I know we are going back that way with web centric software but still have to move away from things to see what works and in some cases wait for the speed of technology catch up to the software end of the spectrum.

Can't you just give it a chance. What you really should had are the users who want to move on when you don't have your software ready for the future.

Windows 8 doesnt suck (0)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016541)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>