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!

No IE7 For 2k, Now In Extended Service

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the not-quite-do-it-yourself-but-close dept.

Windows 469

Yankovic writes "Looks like MS will not support IE7 on Windows 2000. 'It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000... [S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.' While security fixes will still be available until 2010, I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox." All the details about an MS product's fall into senility available at the lifecycle page.

cancel ×

469 comments

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

One More Reason to Keep Win2K (5, Insightful)

geomon (78680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672395)

My choice is to upgrade from Win2K to WinXP for IE?

Hah! I'll keep Win2K and Firefox, thanks.

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672451)

Hah! I'll keep Win2K and Firefox, thanks.

Dang, whats my upgrade path from Mac OS X 10.4?

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (1)

geomon (78680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672467)

Dang, whats my upgrade path from Mac OS X 10.4?

Silly Mac user. None of these problems affect you. :)

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672547)

Someone those problems do affect:

http://www.geocities.com/angiemtg/ [geocities.com]

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (4, Funny)

Anonymous Luddite (808273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672544)

>> whats my upgrade path from Mac OS X 10.4?

Slackware 10.1 [slackware.org]

Thanks for asking ;-]

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (1)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672613)

cherry OS v1 (chappelle)

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (1)

masterpenguin (878744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672489)

Well I don't think any one who still uses windows 2000 actually uses IE anymore.

Hell some of us proud windows 2000 users have already removed IE from the OS

Remove IE [vorck.com]

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (3, Insightful)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672493)

My choice is to upgrade from Win2K to WinXP for IE?

Hah! I'll keep Win2K and Firefox, thanks.

Yeah, I'll second that emotion... Although my primary machine is a PowerMac G5, my secondary runs Win2k for games, and stuff that "only happens on Windows" (which ain't too much anymore.)

If I'm completely crazy, somebody slap me, but wasn't Microsoft convicted of anti-trust violations relating to their monopoly on the browser? Wasn't a serious issue of their case the "need" to integrate Internet Explorer with the OS? Now it is MORE integrated--to the point that they CAN'T possibly make a Windows 2000 version?

If this isn't more blatant abuse of their monopoly on the desktop, what exactly would it take for DoJ to take action? (Besides a new president?) Would Gates have to go on tv wearing a cape and a "PHantom of the Opera" mask and say "Muhuhahahaha! Fools! My dominance of your desktop is complete!" before the saps at DoJ think something is wrotten in Redmond?

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (2, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672534)

Of course they could make a 2k version, thats not the point they were making. The point is that 2k starts its EOL cycle in June and goes into extended support (security updates only). Why would they spend all this time back porting stuff from XPSP2 to an EOL product. Guess what, 98 isn't getting IE7 either, is that an anti-trust violation or simply because 98 is in EOL status?

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (1, Funny)

Tim C (15259) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672558)

You're right - MS should be forced to support all its software for all eternity, back-porting everything to every version of Windows that they've ever released.

Re:One More Reason to Keep Win2K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672550)

If you're running Firefox already how does this even pertain to you? Since it's obvious you're not interested in IE 7.0, where do you get off thinking Microsoft is even marketing towards you? Besides you're on a old OS anyways...and haven't given them new business so I'd go so far as to say you're not even an MS customer anymore. Microsoft did nothing more than state the facts of the IE 7 release.

Terrible Sunday News (5, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672396)

Does that mean I'm stuck with Firefox, and cannot utilize Microsoft's intelligent autoupdate which automatically downloads security patches once every 3 days?

This raises an interesting question - Why/How can Firefox, which runs happily on W2K and others, offer better security, while IE cannot do the same on an OS developed by MS itself?

I'm sure Firefox will be laughed at if it said it could not develop a browser for Windows because some of the security work in Firefox relies on operating system functionality in Linux that is non-trivial to port to Windows.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672456)

Because it's part of the OS. Even on OSX!

Re:Terrible Sunday News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672500)

cannot utilize Microsoft's intelligent autoupdate which automatically downloads security patches once every 3 days

Damn. What will you do if you want your computer to reboot in the middle of something important you left running? Do it manually???

Re:Terrible Sunday News (1)

SteveXE (641833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672520)

Firefox can run happy because it isnt part of the OS which is good and bad. Good for security, bad for features and speed. If MS patches all the holes (lol) then there would be no reason to use Firefox/Mozilla so long as the feature set was decent.

I also gotta say this new confirm your not a script thing is stupid and if I stop coming here that will be why.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672549)

I also gotta say this new confirm your not a script thing is stupid and if I stop coming here that will be why.

That sounds pretty suspicious to me. If you aren't a script then you shouldn't have anything to fear.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672573)

He's tried to disguise it but his name is 'stev.exe' - it's pretty obvious he's some sort of program.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (1)

memoriesofgreen (784598) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672597)

Exactly, in Soviet Russia they have been doing it for years. I also hear that North Korean Grans are used to it.

In these post 9/11 times you can't be too careful.

Please, mod parent funny

Re:Terrible Sunday News (1)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672617)

If you aren't a script then you shouldn't have anything to fear.

Not only that, but if we stop testing for scripts then the scripts have already won.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672561)

Get excellent karma and you never need to confirm you're a script. Or I haven't had to yet at least.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672601)

Firefox can run happy because it isnt part of the OS which is good and bad. Good for security, bad for features and speed.

Yeah, and we all know how much faster and how many more features IE has.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (1)

MBAFK (769131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672541)

This raises an interesting question - Why/How can Firefox, which runs happily on W2K and others, offer better security, while IE cannot do the same on an OS developed by MS itself?

Like the arcticle says IE replies on features of Windows for some apsects of it's security, the modern implementations/fixes are not being backported to Win2k so the browser wont be able to take advantage of fixed libraries/functionality. It's not that they can't do it - they have just chosen not to.

Firefox supplies a lot of it's own bits and bobs not relying so much on the system libraries.

Re:Terrible Sunday News (1)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672590)

Microsoft should get to work on making another MS-branded browser to cover over the IE -fiasco; one that would be secure, at that. --They could just aswell set up a semi-OSS project (at worst) that "battled" gecko, and make people forget IE, for MS's benefit above all..

If after this, they still need IE installed, it should be sandboxed-in (i.e. hindered in outbound tasks 100%, excluding wupdate.ms.com specific stuff,) and that would be that..

If they succeed in besting the browser-alternatives visible per today, -fine-, if they make the new browser inferior; fine too..

Re:Terrible Sunday News (2, Insightful)

team99parody (880782) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672599)

Why/How can Firefox, which runs happily on W2K and others, offer better security, while IE cannot do the same on an OS developed by MS itself?

That one's easy.

It's a strategic decision of Microsoft's to provide poor security on older products, since their business model is extremely focused on getting recurring revenue from people upgrading to newer versions. Since businesses are running fine on the old versions, Microsoft needs to create problems with the old stuff to force them to upgrade.

Fortunatelly the solution comes naturally with Microsoft's development process. Can you believe these guys go for months checking in software to their source control system without any peer review of users&customers like Linux gets [groklaw.net] .

I... can't tell (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672402)

Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the Win2K users?

Re:I... can't tell (1)

geomon (78680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672416)

Its a struggle, isn't it?

Re:I... can't tell (4, Insightful)

mindaktiviti (630001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672480)

It's a good thing. Why? Well, if it needs the use of the service pack, that only seems to indicate that the browser is more and more tied in with with the OS (if that's even possible).

Like someone mentioned on slashdot before (paraphrased):

"I'd rather browse the net with a browser, not an operating system."

When (3, Interesting)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672404)

When games I want to play stop working in Windows 98 then I'll buy a new OS. Untill then going "oh no, you need the new IE you must upgrade" isn'tgoing to get my money.

Re:When (1)

Dougy (825777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672430)

IIRC didn't doom 3 require windows 2000 and up or something? I could be wrong. Mind you, is Doom 3 a 'game you want to play' ;)

Re:When (1)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672459)

It complains if you try to install it on anything other than 2k or XP-32 (it even complains if you try to install it on 2k3 or XP-64) and won't let you install. You can however get around this by copying the CD to hard disk, modifying the MSI file and installing from there.

Re:When (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672434)

Games like "How many Botnets can my computer participate in at one time?"

"Games I want to play" (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672508)

When games I want to play stop working in Windows 98 then I'll buy a new OS.

Likewise, tell me when a decent shared-screen 4-player fighting game is ported to Windows XP, and I'll switch from DolphinOS [nintendo.com] .

hi guys (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672406)

if you are reading this then you are a gay faggot who reads a shitty website

What is this obsession with tabs? (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672408)

I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.

So what, the statement is incorrect anyway but so what. Tabs are nice but the are not the be all and end all of browsing. Some people like them, some hate them, they are not a big deal.

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672436)

Tabs is pretty much the "point" of IE7. This is the "remain buzzword compatible with Firefox" release. If tabs aren't a big deal than neither is IE7 itself.

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672528)

BS, the point of IE7 is supposed to be security. Anything else is just supposed to be an added bonus.

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672554)

Wow, good job. Did it take the grand parents post for you to figure that out. IE7 isn't that big of a deal. The only big deal is the security fixes. Sure tabs are nice but who the hell downloaded Firefix for tabs? Not a single person. The only people who claim tabs are important are the open source zealots who are just trying to find another reason to hate MS. MS is just creating tabs to shut them up. None of the pro-tabs people who use firefox are going to change back to IE. They hate closed source software and think its evil. It's just something they say to try and look like they got something MS users don't. However, you can get tabs for IE and for those who don't know IE can take a hell of a beating and keep going (try it on Wine). Sure firefox is good but if you're a competent computer user you can make IE just as safe and even faster

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (1)

JaxWeb (715417) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672444)

Yes it's quite a silly statement, I agree.

MyIE [myie2.com] for instances lets IE have tabs. Whats wrong with this for tabs?

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672461)

Some people like them, some hate them, they are not a big deal.

You forgot "and some people get upset if you talk as if they're important".

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (1)

bubkus_jones (561139) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672463)

No they're not the "be all and end all" of browsing, however, there are people who like using them, and still use Win2k (or earlier). This means that they're not going to be able to use the new IE. It doesn't make a big difference because they're already NOT using IE.

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (4, Informative)

Meshach (578918) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672507)

There are lots of ways to have tabs in earlier versions of IE without upgrading the operating system

SlimBrowser [flashpeak.com] is on that integrates into IE seamlessly and gives you tabs, pop up blacking, and all the other "obvious to everyone but ms" features

Of course the better [mozilla.org] alternative [mozilla.org] is still available

Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (4, Interesting)

linguae (763922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672531)

This isn't about tabs. A new version of Internet Explorer hasn't came out since 2001, which is a very long time in computing years. Unless Windows 2000 users use an alternative browser, they would be stuck with Internet Explorer 6 as the latest IE browser.

This isn't a good idea on Microsoft's part, because there are still many users using Windows 2000 (in fact, Windows 2000 is still supported; and I believe that Windows 2000 is the best version of Windows that was ever released), and if Microsoft abandons all of its Windows 2000 users in the broswer market, where are all of these people going to move to? They're not going to spend $$$ upgrading to XP over a broswer; they would more than likely switch to Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape/KMeleon/Opera/etc.

During the original broswer war, IE was on almost every major platform. It was available on Windows as far back as Windows 3.1, Mac OS 7.5 and higher, and even Solaris; the only sizable community that didn't get IE was the Linux/BSD group (that community used Netscape 4.x until Mozilla or Konqueror became usable; I don't know which came first since I was a Windows user back then). It seemed to me that Microsoft wanted to control the broswer market, so instead of only offering IE to its latest Windows offerings, it offered it to a wide array of operating system (even though Netscape had a wider array; it included Linux).

Now in the second Broswer Wars, Microsoft is completely ignoring its older Windows versions, the Macintosh, and *nix. Yet Firefox is available on a wide array of platforms. For example, even though Mozilla doesn't have official support for Firefox on *BSD, using *BSD ports (which applies the appropriate patches to the source), it compiles nicely and runs well. If I were Microsoft, I would be a little scared. Just about every platform can use Firefox, and if it isn't available on that platform (such as Mac OS Classic), somebody can port it. If Linux or Mac OS X takes off, then Microsoft would lose its stranglehold in the browser market. If Microsoft wants to win this broswer war, it should port IE 7 to just about every operating system imaginable. Old Windows versions, Mac OS X, Linux, *BSD, Solaris; you name it, Microsoft should port it to that platform. If Microsoft really wants 95% marketshare, it should stop ignoring old Windows versions and other operating systems and start porting.

OH YEAH FP???? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672410)

Fucking gumshoes.

FP????

ooh! (1)

Enjoi (857482) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672414)

Looks like Internet Explorer is well on it's way to becoming a mainstream browser....

bad move on Microsoft's part (5, Insightful)

kalpol (714519) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672419)

Many people are sticking with Win2K because of the draconian licensing and validation process required with WinXP. They will begin to lose a significant portion of the browser market as people realize how easy it is to get Firefox and the benefits it offers over Explorer.

Re:bad move on Microsoft's part (1)

Eric604 (798298) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672501)

I am sticking to w2k because I don't know why I would need XP. It propably also uses more memory, so no thanks.

pffft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672515)

Many people are sticking with Win2K because of the draconian licensing and validation process required with WinXP.

Patches for the validation scheme have been available for quite some time. You are referring to the difficulty of warezing XP, right?

People are sticking with Win2k for the same reason people stuck with NT4: they're luddites. These people represent a statistically insignificant segment of the population. 99.999% of computer users will use whichever OS their computer came with, and home machines that came with Win2k are aging nowadays.

Microsoft may lose a significant portion of the browser market, but no more than 15% or so. Mark my words, Firefox will never get above 20% of the market, no matter how much you fanboys rah rah rah about it.

Re:pffft (1)

kalpol (714519) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672553)

Hey, taking 20% of the market from a monopoly is a hell of a deal if you ask me.

The M$ resopnse... (4, Insightful)

hubang (692671) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672427)

"Besides, if we supported our products with our products, nobody would have reason to buy our new products."

Dramatized for your enjoyment.

The cost of Internet Explorer (5, Insightful)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672435)

So, Internet Explorer is no longer free, to get a secure Microsoft Browser (Yeah, I'm making a few assumptions here, but let's just live in the hypothetical word for a moment) I have to buy a new version of the OS? Or I can get a secure version of Netscape (That they call Firefox these days) for free. I wonder what I'll choose.

Re:The cost of Internet Explorer (4, Funny)

Man in Spandex (775950) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672524)

I wonder what I'll choose.

hmm... lynx on cygwin ;)

Sounds like (1)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672437)

When they said USB would not be supported for NT 4.0. They said it was non-trivial to back port the code.

And yet USB for NT 4.0 exists and works just fine (I know, I've got it running for a USB keyboard, mouse and old Canon printer.)

Shouln't.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672439)

I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.

Shouldn't the focus of IE 7 be more on security and standards compliance than with tabs and other extras?

I can only imagine that Microsoft will concentrate on what is important, but this is Microsoft we're talking about.

I say... (1)

cood (850880) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672440)

If it aint broke dont fix it.

Wait a minute... (2, Interesting)

caryw (131578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672441)

[S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2
So does that mean I won't be able to run it on XP with SP1 either? I mean obviously I use Firefox, but if I'm going to be forced to have Microsoft's shitty browser installed, I'd rather it be the latest, greatest and most secure. And I still don't trust SP2 and all the crap it dumps on your box.
Just a thought.
--
NoVA Underground: Northern Virginia message boards and chat, with Fairfax County public ticket/arrest search [novaunderground.com]

Re:Wait a minute... (4, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672527)

>And I still don't trust SP2 and all the crap it dumps on your box.

"Crap" like pop-up blocking for IE6, a better wireless manager, NX support, firewall on by default, etc? It blows my mind that all these windows users hate the system they use and complain when they get a bunch of needed features. Of course, there are issues with the update, but thats true of any modern OS.

If you're using windows XP you should have migrated to SP2 long ago if you cared about security and stability. Then again this is slashdot, enjoy your ill-informed karma whore points.

Re:Wait a minute... (2, Insightful)

caryw (131578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672603)

Oh joy pop-up blocking for IE! Like I need IE hogging MORE resources. Oooo, and a FIREWALL. Tiny Personal Firewall does a better job than a Windows firewall ever could. Stability? XP is pretty damn stable. My only real issue is all the ram it hogs after a box has been up for a couple weeks or so.
Yeah yeah, "switch to linux." I don't even want to start that thread here. Linux is definitely my choice for a server operating system. Nothing beats it hands down (well, maybe FreeBSD for some implementations, but shhhhh don't start a flamewar). When I use my home desktop machine, I want it to get the work done that I want to get done and that's it. I don't want to worry about GLIBC incompatibilities, dependencies, or whatever. I have used Linux as a desktop OS on and off for the past 6 years or so and while I'm extremely impressed by its progress, it still doesn't come close to the speed and ease of Windows XP for getting things done.
Mac OS X on the other hand... Damn, if only I could afford the hardware.
</rant>
--
NoVA Underground: Northern Virginia message boards and chat, with Fairfax County public ticket/arrest search [novaunderground.com]

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672608)

...and if the "crap" the original poster is talking about is merely notifications from the new Security Center, those can be turned off. In the left hand column (Resources), click "Change the way Security Center alerts me," then uncheck any or all the options.

There, now people can stop saying they hate SP 2 because it "babies" them with stuff like this.

Wait a minute (1)

rebug (520669) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672555)

...I'd rather it be the latest, greatest and most secure. And I still don't trust SP2...

So you want security, but don't install Microsoft security updates because you don't trust them?

Dot dot dot.

I think I will manage to get by, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672446)

when all I use IE for, is downloading Firefox

Avant browser.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672447)

hmm. Heard of the Avant web browser....with tabs..

Re:Avant browser.. (1)

jupo (717073) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672484)

I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.

Yeah I've been using IE with tabs [avantbrowser.com] on Windows 2000 for quite a while.

Fall into senility? (1)

Blue the Wild Dog (886365) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672449)

Come to think of it, my wife's Win2K laptop does keep blue-screening exactly the same way again and again, like a crusty geezer repeating the same story endlessly . I never realized bits get old like that.

Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (4, Insightful)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672457)

Most normal users never upgrades their OS and a lot of geeks prefer 2k to XP.

I suppose they have to release something new in Longhorn, they could make the window borders even bigger and more ugly and cripple the performance a bit more but with all the things they've dropped from longhorn they need some killer feature like copying firefox tabs to justify forcing another pointless upgrade on the corporate world.

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1, Troll)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672468)

Most normal users never upgrades their OS and a lot of geeks prefer 2k to XP.

Of course, those geeks tend to be the ones too stupid to figure out how to set the style into "Classic" mode. XP doesn't have to look like a fisherprice toy - and I don't know of any other reasons why one would want to run Windows 2000 instead of XP. Except maybe activation (oh, boo hoo).

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672487)

2k uses less RAM than XP IIRC even with changing the themes the same and runs quicker on older hardware.

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672488)

Oh, really?!?!

How about the lists on the M$ site which document current major programs which XP SP2 breaks?

How about a buggy firewall?

How about networking problems?

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672530)

"oh boo hoo" wrt activiation:

This just shows you don't do anything important on your computer and you never travel.

"My Windows XP won't boot" is the equivalent of, "The dog ate my homework." except you get fired/lose the sale/your machines break/etc.

"oh boo hoo" indeed!!

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672600)

Even if reactivation does reer its ugly head while you're on the road, a call to MS can fix it and you get a month to do it anyway IIRC.

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

cood (850880) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672510)

You sir, Do not know what you are talking about.

Have you used windows 2000? There are so many fowl retched changes in XP that would take days to configure so they stop f*(%ing annoying you.

Im thinking about making a website with screenies

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672522)

Because i have XP at work and the swap usage is buggy. it's swaps out running apps in favour of disk caching if you work with many a few thousands files it can become very slow even with a gig ram and yes i've tried all the registry tweaks.

Sure I can reconfigure all the GUI options or i can just install 2k and get it configured sensibly out of the box and get the added performance bonus.

Still Works (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672533)

IE isn't the only app which requires a Windows OS upgrade to run the app upgrade - or vice versa. Lots of people don't want to upgrade apps, preferring simplicity, stability, familiarity or just "already paid for it". Which keeps them running Win2K, because that proven app doesn't work right under XP. My personal experience is with audio editing apps, but I'm sure there's lots more.

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

wyldeone (785673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672537)

Maybe because they don't want to shell out $200 for what is essentially a new skin (which you just said they wouldn't use) for 2k?

Re:Well thats going to be a big boost for firefox (1)

cood (850880) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672587)

Okay, so I forgot to add that it runs games slower (Main reason is probably XP wastes more RAM than 2K (lol?)

BTW I made that leet website
http://haxorcubed.com/winxp [haxorcubed.com]
**The link is safe I promise you

What's needed for a secure browser? (1)

joelparker (586428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672465)

MS is forcing corporations to upgrade to XP.

But it begs the question: what's needed for a secure browser?

First and foremost, don't let outsiders penetrate my system. MS failed this. Firefox failed this. What does it take to get this right?

Re:What's needed for a secure browser? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672516)

But it begs the question: what's needed for a secure browser?

No, it raises the question.

First and foremost, don't let outsiders penetrate my system. MS failed this. Firefox failed this. What does it take to get this right?

For one thing, how long was Firefox vulnerable vs. how long was Internet Explorer vulnerable?

Re:What's needed for a secure browser? (1)

Mishra100 (841814) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672598)

"For one thing, how long was Firefox vulnerable vs. how long was Internet Explorer vulnerable?"

lmao How many millions of more dollars is available and spent into IE compared to Firefox... Maybe is Firefox was backed by a multi billion dollar corporation, they could have build their broswer right the first time. PLUS IE is STILL vulnerable...

Secure web browsers already exist. (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672557)

You can download a copy here. [isc.org]

What shall we do with our spare time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672470)

Get big stick, find MS, Bash continueosly

YAY for ./

IE7 is already available here ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672476)

http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/ [edwards.name]

It is already bringging numerous compliances fixes on the DOM and CSS !

Vive IE7, Vive Dean ;-)

By the way, compliant browser such as Firefox does not need any fixes to implement the standards correctly, and do not contain any currently security breach.... unlike the expected IE7 ?

Windows Longhorn is a minority pursuit (1)

Marcion (876801) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672477)

Considering that Longhorn will require 512MB of RAM; while most non-technical users just surf the web, read email and type the odd letter whigh requires say 128MB at most; I can't really see why these people should bother upgrading their hardware.

Governments, schools and firms certainly won't bother to upgrade if they need to.

The only thing missing is security upgrades, which Microsoft do not provide for old hardware (since by default has to run an old version).

There is a huge missing market here, new software for old hardware. That IE 7 won't work on 2000 shows that Microsoft seem poised to sleep through this opportunity as they did with servers.

Will anyone but Linux fill the gap?

It's OK Windows 2000. (2, Funny)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672479)

There, there... It's OK. Firefox [mozilla.org] loves you. Firefox won't judge you. Just because you're 5 years old, it doesn't mean you can't have tabs.

Come on. Just download Firefox and you can hang out with the other cool kids.

Aw... Is that a smilie emoticon I see in your window?!

[Mr. Burns] Excellent... [/Mr. Burns]

You forgot Pola^W Maxthon! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672481)

I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox.

What about Maxthon, a wrapper that adds tabbed browsing to Microsoft Internet Explorer?

Re:You forgot Pola^W Maxthon! (1)

01000011011101000111 (868998) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672567)

Wrapper != browser... It's not out-of-the-box functionality, so the article post is *technically* true...

I'll not miss IE7! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672485)

I'll not miss IE7 since I am using Windows 2000 in addition to SuSE Linux 9.2. My problem which is very well known I guess, is how to get rid of the version of IE installed on my system. I kind of gave up! I have Firefox 1.04 installed and even went ahead to make it the "default" browser.

My problem comes when using third-party software. You see, in some of these software(s) like Adobe's latest release (7.0), CCleaner and the like, when you try to visit the web from within the software, IE is started! This really bothers me a lot but I am no hacker to delve into the "DNA" of Windows.

Slashdotters, googling for solutions has not helped so, please help. Thanx.

Re:I'll not miss IE7! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672607)

It looks like you missed some parts of the movie so I'll clue you in.

For a few years now IE has been an integral part of the operating system "Windows". This means that developers can rely on having IE available as a core API on Windows for their programs. Deleting IE would cause holes in the Windows platform from the point of view of other programs. You might as well replace Windows with Linux and ask why your third-party software doesn't work anymore.

new insentives (1)

tofucubes (869110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672492)

Maxthon an overlayer on IE has tabs...as for being a surprise...YES! Arg...jerks are trying to force people to upgrade to windows xp for memory sucking eye candy and system restore and now IE7?

yeah I know they game plan make browsers like IE6 and firefox incompatible with the new IE7...so you have to upgrade to see a chuck of the web's content

TO paraphrase a ST title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672505)

...who mourns for IE?

Just another forced upgrade (1, Insightful)

aquarian (134728) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672509)

[S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.'

Oh, BS. This is just another way to justify getting us to pay for a new version of Windows.

And Standards Compliant (2, Insightful)

jtwJGuevara (749094) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672529)

"I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox."

And the only browsers that will be standards compliant for Windows 2k will be the aforementioned Opera and Firefox.

Re:And Standards Compliant (1)

chrisblore (866716) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672602)

Microsoft: "Who needs standards when you can just invent your own?!"

So this is the kind of support $$$ software gets!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672535)

One would have thought that people who actually pay for proprietary software would actually get better support than F/OSS.


Someone actually paid this company good money for W2K and the browser on it; and now the vendor's blackmailing them into paying extra if they want the systems to stay secure!!!!!!


Why do people put up with this?

ms (1)

joey.dale (796383) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672545)

Microsoft's browser wars game plan:

1. Take Gun
2. Shoot self in foot

-Joey

Winning Combination (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672546)

Just in case anyone wonders why Microsoft lets its OS support so many bugs and insecurity holes, this is your answer. Some bugs get fixed in new versions, which require the upgrade of the other components. The planned (passive) obsolescence of one component forces repurchase of all the others. When you've got a monopoly, and abuse it with forced bundling, there's so many ways to win, and so few to lose.

It is about forcing people to buy XP (4, Interesting)

beforewisdom (729725) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672552)

Previous slashdot articles have reported that businesses are intentionally not spending more money and not buying XP. Win 2000 works fine for them.

During the American antitrust case against MS several experts testified that IE could be separated from the OS in a matter of weeks.

Refusing to make a version of IE7 a part of win 2000 is as much a business decision as a technical one.

They want businesses who are not buying XP to get off win 2000 and buy XP.

I am not bashing MS, but it seems from what I have seen that XP is incredibly vulnerable to attack. In addition to managers not wanting to fork out the money for XP, their network people, many of whom are microsoft weanies, do not want to put their networks in harms way by using XP for their servers.

At some point the managers and network will capitulate. MS will stop supporting 2000 completely.

The question is how long the managers and network people will drag their feet, how much resentment towards MS this will generate, and what the effect of that resentment will be.

Too bad, Firefox sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12672586)

(Though I am quite fond of Opera)

Why can't Firefox properly render HTML published with Flash MX 2004? And why does Firefox insist on rendering incorrect code? (i.e. it attempts to render image maps without proper syntax)

A job for WINE? (1)

mrtom852 (754157) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672591)

Maybe wine can help with...

"operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000."

Ok, maybe it's non-trivial but I kind of like the thought of replacing as many of the Windows libs with winelibs until it's all open source.

typo (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672605)

...[S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2...

more accurately, this should read: ...[S]ome of the insecure work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2...

When will MS realize that integrating the browser with the OS is never a good thing.

DirectX Too. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12672609)

That will kill most gamers and force them to upgrade.. Doubt they will be offering newer versions of that for W2K.

Already seen that with 98.. Wouldnt fly...
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>