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!

IE7 to be Pushed to Users Via Windows Update

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the have-some-explorer dept.

608

dfrick writes "CNET is reporting that IE7 will be pushed to users via Windows Update. This has serious implications for e-commerce websites whose functionality might be affected by any bugs in the software. Also to have end users suddenly using a new browser right before the holiday shopping season could magnify the cost any bugs that might create a bad user experience on sites."

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

Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (5, Insightful)

WinEveryGame (978424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788559)

Well we just celebrated the Get Firefox day. Perhaps the day IE7 gets pushed via Windows update would be yet another Get Firefox day.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (2, Informative)

Spinn12 (989688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788593)

Here here! I downloaded one of the versions of IE that used tabbed browsing and had all the new "toys". It's big, clunky and makes my screen flash every time that I open a new tab. Quite simply said, it's just not as clean and polished as Firefox.

If MS really wants to do end-users a favor, then they'd stop "forcing" crap down their throat via MS Update. It's irritating at best, and monumentally damaging at worst.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (5, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788622)

Whoa, let's not get crazy here. Now, I like firefox as much as the next reasonably intelligent computer user. But it's got a memory footprint like the goddamned Galactus. It is literally the beast that cannot be fed. Firefox operates like a beowulf cluster dividing by zero simultaneously.

//has seen it easily use u[ 1.5gb+ of ram before.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788657)

Yeah, i can pull that when i have 300 porn pages up too!

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (1)

Spinn12 (989688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788660)

lol...okay okay, I digress. Yeah, I've had issues with FF being a memory slut before. It seems to me to be tied in with some of the extensions that I've used. Wish I could figure it out, really. Regardless, I still can't bring myself to use IE.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788679)

Pacifists versus Peace
by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006)

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.
Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (1, Flamebait)

Ethan Allison (904983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788806)

INTERESTING not FUNNY.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (4, Informative)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788846)

INTERESTING not FUNNY.
Pity that on a spare 400mhz ubuntu machine i got at work, firefox runs, in latest version, with 128 mb under gnome (and of course lighter stuff like xfce4) and doesn't even swap. So if it's not funny it's wrong.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (5, Informative)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788850)

about:config
browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers set to 0

Problem solved.

Re:Another Get Firefox day coming soon... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788895)

Doesn't work for me.

This, however, does: config.trim_on_minimize = true.

Speaking of... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788560)

Firefox 1.5.0.5 was just pushed to me!

Re:Speaking of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788692)

No, no, no, you don't get it. If Microsoft does it, it is bad, because it is Microsof. If Firefox does it, it is good, because it is Firefox. Can't you see the logic, man?

Besides, IE7 will block AdSense by default; be sure to sell your Google-stock before this gets public.

Re:Speaking of... (2, Interesting)

nickheart (557603) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788696)

Actually this happened to me to. I was reading a slide show on Rocks clusters from another post (me to lazy to link to it) and i got this pop-up telling me that "A new version of FireFox needs to be installed." Luckily it was and update, not and upgrade to a completely different version, and a completely different browser.

I have installed IE7 on my machine at work, since i figured that most sites work best when veiwed with IE, and many of my work-related sites will only work with IE (and i'm trying to quit smoking....). I despise IE7 (beta). Many neccesarry active-x plug-ins aren't trusted so i have to refresh sites after clicking the stupid "Information bar" that was introduced in IE6 to allow it to run!!! .....

to summarize, i'm not denying that the UPDATE to firefox was pushed to me, but it was welcomed. I can't imagine how many MySpace yuppies will get pissed at the disfunctionality of IE7...

Re:Speaking of... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788734)

Smashing Windows for Peace
by Robert Garmong (March 28, 2003)

The attack was well-choreographed. Moving in successive waves, they executed a perfect assault. Some moved to cut off their enemies' supply lines, seizing control of crucial bridges and roadways, while others worked to surround and besiege key command and control buildings.

No, these were not U.S. commandos on a mission in Baghdad. They were anti-war protestors on Mission Street in San Francisco.

There, as elsewhere across the nation, well-planned demonstrations targeted not the military or the government, but the financial districts, the commuter roadways, the schools and universities. Their goal was not to advocate, but to disrupt.

Both protestors and their detractors have agreed on one thing: that these protests are examples of freedom of speech. "This is what democracy looks like" is the common refrain.

But these protests are not a benevolent manifestation of the freedom to express ideas. They are an attempt by a small gang of protesters to "express themselves" by forcibly imposing themselves on others.

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate ideas, information and values. It includes, in the words of the First Amendment, the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" and to assemble "peaceably" for that purpose. Freedom of speech protects debate and dispute. It does not protect coercion, nor does one person's freedom of speech authorize him to force others to listen. No one has the right to violate rights.

Yet that is precisely what the anti-war demonstrators have done. Declaring their desire to halt "business as usual" in America, protesters have chained themselves across major thoroughfares to block rush-hour traffic in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and other cities. They have blockaded office buildings, smashed the windows of police cars and squirted red paint on Republican Party headquarters. In San Francisco alone the cost of the first day's protests--counting only physical damage and police overtime, not lost wages and productivity for the besieged--was estimated at half a million dollars.

The goal of the protestors is to impose their anti-war tirades on a public that does not agree with them, and to do so by forcibly disrupting the lives of commuters, office workers, government officials and political opponents. They spread their message not through persuasion, but by blocking roadways, shutting down classes, besieging office buildings, smashing property. So much for their alleged goals of peace and brotherhood.

The issue is not merely that some protestors have resorted to outright violence and destruction. Just as wrong are such acts of "non-violent" coercion as imprisoning workers and commuters by obstructing public streets. There is a fundamental difference between rational persuasion and coercive interference, whatever form the interference may take.

The crime of these protestors is not that they are wrong about the war. In advocating their political views, they violate no one's rights. But there is a crucial distinction between ideas and actions, between holding obnoxious views and forcibly imposing them on others.

Nor is "civil disobedience" inherently wrong. There are cases, such as the Montgomery bus boycott, in which protests are a justified and even heroic measure to defy and confront injustice. But truly peaceful civil disobedience consists of the refusal to support unjust practices or comply with unjust laws. It does not consist of a refusal to respect the rights of others.

In their insistence that vandalism and blockades are protected by the principle of free speech, the demonstrators turn this idea on its head. For them, freedom of speech becomes not a right to debate, but a right to violent disruption. For them, "democracy" becomes what it meant in its origins in Ancient Greece: the absolute right of the screaming masses to dispose of the individual's life, liberty and property.

The fundamental basis for freedom of speech is a respect for the rational mind, which requires the freedom to weigh the evidence, to dispute and debate, without fear of coercive interference. By their reliance on chanted slogans, forcible blockades and the brute physical intimidation of mob gatherings, the so-called peace protestors show their contempt for the mind. It is confession of intellectual and moral bankruptcy, a confession that, for them, rational argumentation does not matter: all that matters is that their opponents are cowed into submission.

The banner of free speech is reserved for those who respect the rights of others and offer arguments addressed to our minds. It does not protect the mindless rabble who clog the streets of our cities proclaiming a fraudulent "right" to smash windows for the cause of peace.

Re:Speaking of... (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788827)

I got this and said yes to the upgrade.
Basically it shutdown FireFox and did the upgrade.
Overall outage less then 2 minutes and back to reading Slashdot.

Force-Feeding (5, Informative)

(1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1) (868173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788561)

From TFA:
Automatic Updates will first notify people when IE 7 is ready to install and then show a welcome screen that presents key features and the choices to install, not install or postpone installation.
It appears, therefore, that they haven't yet resorted to force-feeding; and until security chief Stephen Toulouse eats his dogfood [theinquirer.net] , moreover, force-feeding would be unconscionable.

Re:Force-Feeding (1)

karlto (883425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788718)

From TFA:
Automatic Updates will first notify people when IE 7 is ready to install and then show a welcome screen that presents key features and the choices to install, not install or postpone installation.
It appears, therefore, that they haven't yet resorted to force-feeding; and until security chief Stephen Toulouse eats his dogfood [theinquirer.net], moreover, force-feeding would be unconscionable.

Also from TFA:

Additionally, Microsoft on Wednesday plans to make available a special tool to block automatic delivery of the new browser version [...]

It would seem that your security update tool is still going to annoy you about new software unless you download some software to stop it...

Re:Force-Feeding (1)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788796)

It may not be force-feeding as such, but many users - much like my dogs - will eat up anything you put infront of them. Optional or not, being part of the Windows Update process means that a great many average Joe users will click "yes, next, next, finish, whatever" until it goes away and end up, as pointed out, with an unexpected and potentially baffling browser change.

Alli

Re:Force-Feeding (1, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788885)

I agree. It's not strict force feeding, it's devious one. Any browser upgrade process window that doesn't also warn you with big red letters: "Warning, this upgrade might break your favourite website including online banking, shopping, and especially pr0n" is misleading. IE7, the "browser sooo good that microsoft has to push it to his audience".

My favourite quote: (5, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788564)

My favorite quote FTA: "It will be available from Microsoft's Download Center Web site, Schare said. "We're really trying to get the world ready for a major new browser release."

Sorry, I already got my "major new browser release" about the time Microsoft were claiming "nobody needs tabbed browsing." IE7 is too little, too late, even for the poor unfortunates I know who are still stuck running Windows.

Re:My favourite quote: (2)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788804)

It's still a browser that is going to end up on 90% of computers around the world. Just because you happen to use another browser (or another OS for that matter) doesn't make it any less a major release.

Re:My favourite quote: (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788870)

I seriously doubt it will end up on 90% of the worlds' computers.

First off, Microsoft is releasing a tool that will allow businesses to block the upgrade, and you can be sure that after the problems with other forced rollouts, business is taking a wait-and-see approach.

Second, its to little, too late. Firefox already has more than 10% market share, and as people continue to use it, they get used to not using IE. Case in point - I asked a friend of mine to check out one of my sites using IE. After talking with him on the phone, and checking 3 or 4 times "You're sure you're using Internet Explorer, right?" - it turned out that he was so used to using Firefox that it had completely replaced IE in his mind for "connecting to the internet"

Third, WGA is going to be mandatory for downloading the final version of IE7. What's the piracy rate for Windows XP again?

Re:My favourite quote: (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788928)

Also, what's even the percentage of desktop systems running a version of windows that ie7 will even run on? I'm sure there's quite a few installations of win9x running wild and they're definitely not releasing ie7 for those.

I like your favourite quote and I hope M$ dies... (4, Insightful)

cloricus (691063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788899)

Excuse my French but I hope Microsoft fucking die for this one... This is just fucks up my xmas holidays completely.

I manage around twenty websites for businesses around my state for some spare pocket money each month and all of them are xhtml1.1/css2 compliant (w3c) with a large hacks section for each to get them to work in ie6 (and in the case of one ie5 through 6) and instead of a nice easy integration with Vista coming with ie7 out of the box and a steady stream to xp users I'm being told it will all come in one hit in less than six months? Fuck that. Maybe M$ (and the general web community) has forgotten why we, the web developers, pushed so hard for Firefox in the first place - it wasn't fancy tabs, it wasn't speed, it wasn't popup block...it was the fact that they gave a damn about web standards - and they expect us to learn all of the quirks for ie7 and hack up our sites for them while it's still in beta but that's just not going to happen for many of us.

Though that isn't what really scares me, what scares me is none of the company's I have done websites for and also maintain for will understand the implication of the sites needing recoded until customers start complaining. I can put that number, personally, to about thirty five businesses phoning up and complaining that their sites don't work which will a) not be their fault and b) be my fault for selling them a broken site which leads to two problems 1) they wont want to pay for the update and 2) I lose my god damn holiday or I lose my reputation if I tell them to stuff off. Worse still is that many of these are reasonably large sites so fixing and testing them all in that time frame is just going to hurt.

So I'm pissed. Vista, DRM, selling out free speech in china, what ever ... Enforcing IE7 on the whole Windows population at once - outright mean. Die Microsoft Deployment and Marketing division, die like my karma is about too.

Re:My favourite quote: (2, Funny)

askegg (599634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788909)

Just as I am reading this, I have my new browser delivered [mozilla.com] as well.

Developers (3, Insightful)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788569)

Maybe it is possible that developers could start developing now for IE7 using the beta's so that when it does get pushed out to everyone there is a minimal amount of bugs in the programming on websites. Just some food for thought.

-Ed

Re:Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788613)

That's just crazy talk... Developers don't so stuff like that. CNet is full of turds and idiots

Re:Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788623)

What? You dare to suggest that a problem related to Microsoft might not be completely and totally their fault? You can't honestly think web developers should take it upon themselves to do a compatibility check with a major broswer update on the way. Obviously Microsoft should ensure backwards compatibility by making no major changes to the browser and then personally checking every website on the internet for problems.

Re:Developers (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788757)

Oh dear, somebody who doesn't understand how the internets work. Here, this is a good start. http://www.w3.org/ [w3.org]

Re:Developers (4, Insightful)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788816)

More like someone who is realistic and knows that all browsers have their quirks I would say personally.

Re:Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788794)

Jesus fuck. As a web developer, this comment makes me want to puke.

How fucking hard is it for companies (I'm looking at you, Microsoft) to code to internationally recognized standards so that I can just build the goddamned website without worrying about what fucking browser each individual user is using.

It's utterly ridiculous that in this day and age any web developer should have to be concerned about a new browser release "breaking" their website. Any half-decent standards-compliant browser developer can add tabbed browsing, popup blockers, new bookmark organizers, a slicker, fancier UI, beefed-up security, and whatever the fuck else they want to a browser and not break my website in the process if they just put in half an ounce of effort.

"Obviously Microsoft should ensure backwards compatibility by making no major changes to the browser and then personally checking every website on the internet for problems."

No, but it should be Microsoft's responsibility to ensure backwards compatibility with the standards. That's it. They don't need to check a single goddamned website. Just one set of standards. It's not fucking rocket science. Fuck.

Re:Developers (3, Insightful)

Nataku564 (668188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788628)

That, or just stick some javascript in there telling IE7 users that they aren't using a supported browser :)

Re:Developers (2, Funny)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788714)

sorry but that was disabled in the new version..

Re:Developers (1)

fyrie (604735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788638)

Start? Hopefully they have already. IE7 betas have been made to the public for a long time now.

Re:Developers (1)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788927)

Would be easier if it weren't so deeply ingrained into the operating system that you can't have more than one version installed at the same time so you could test on IE 6 and IE 7 (without having two Windows installations or resorting to virtualization or something) ... I know you could do that in the past with older versions, but they haven't done it for a while.

Good thing they just made Virtual PC free, I guess...

Halo 2 (5, Funny)

aersixb9 (267695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788573)

Could they push a copy of Halo 2 and Crimson skies via Windows Update while they're at it?

Nine Inch Nails? (3, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788602)

Why push halo 2 [wikipedia.org] when you can push halo 5 [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Nine Inch Nails? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788751)

--
I have solved Tetris [tetrisconcept.com].

You may have solved Tetris, but you haven't solved your Wiki installation issues ...

Re:Nine Inch Nails? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788770)

tepples doesn't run that wiki; he just posts to it

Bugs? (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788587)

I've fiddled around with beta 3 for a bit, it's just as stable as IE6 is (even moreso, if you can believe that). I think this summary was written by someone scared of "beta" software.

As for breaking webpages, big deal. IE6 has been breaking webpages for years. Now at least the web designers who built pages for the IE6 "standard" instead of the STANDARD standards will taste a bit of our pain.

Only IE7 bug I noticed is that IE7 REFUSES to remove borders on iframes (or maybe it's the body tag inside the iframe). Using CSS or deprecated HTML attributes have no effect. IE6 does not have this problem.

Re:Bugs? (2, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788710)

Only IE7 bug I noticed is that IE7 REFUSES to remove borders on iframes (or maybe it's the body tag inside the iframe). Using CSS or deprecated HTML attributes have no effect. IE6 does not have this problem.

It should be possible, as Live.com [live.com] does just that (every non-certified gadget [microsoft.com] runs in an iframe for security purposes). However beta 3 does have an issue with resizing those iframes vertically. If a gadget needs more or less space than the default, it'll resize on IE6. Not so on IE7. It won't resize on Firefox either, but live.com puts scrollbars on the iframes for Firefox to somewhat mitigate the issue. No scrollbars for IE7 makes many gadgets unusable.

Re:Bugs? (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788741)

"Only IE7 bug I noticed is that IE7 REFUSES to remove borders on iframes (or maybe it's the body tag inside the iframe). Using CSS or deprecated HTML attributes have no effect. IE6 does not have this problem."

A bug, 'eh? I don't pay attention to this stuff religiously, but I'm pretty sure Google ads display in iframes. And I'm pretty sure they removed the border from their ads recently. So do Google ads display with a border around them?

If so, I'm not exactly calling it a foul conspiracy; if it was user-controlled opt-in behavior it would be good for users IMO regardless of motivation. If it's not user-controlled or opt-in, on the other hand, then it's probably breaking the standard (I haven't read the various specs regarding the display of iframes) and that's not good. And I'm guessing it's the latter.

Re:Bugs? (1)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788783)

As far as I have seen, if "webmasters" simply refrain from using browser specific crap (such as explorer 5 or 6 centric gizmos, excluding non-explorer browsers) they won't have a problem. To it's credit, IE 7 is much more sane about security issues. I still prefer Firefox, since I use Linux most of the time, but in cases where I'm forced to use IE, I find 7 beta much less annoying or inconvienient than its predicessors.

Re:Bugs? (2)

JacksBrokenCode (921041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788930)

Stability and legacy "bad-code" support don't seem like they'll be much of an issue.

The biggest problem won't be IE7 breaking pages, it will be stupid webmasters who are overly specific on which useragent strings they'll allow. If sales are slow the week before christmas, it may be because users are getting a "Please visit this page in IE6" message.

Really a problem? (5, Funny)

DuranDuran (252246) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788589)

This would be a problem if users could not select which updates to install and which to ignore. DuranDuran, for instance, has been without the Microsoft Malicious Software tool since it was first released.

He has also been referring to himself in the third person since earlier this morning.

Re:Really a problem? (3, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788664)

IE 7 prompts the user and asks whether they want to install, whenever a new update is available. In other words, it's exactly like Firefox. With as many new browser exploits that are revealed constantly, frankly, this is a good thing.

Mods: This is important! (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788935)

I was looking for a place to post this, but you've beaten me to it. Microsoft is giving users the option to choose not to install. The update will be pushed, but won't be automatiically installed.

OT Re:Really a problem? (1)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788788)

Dude,

either Barbarella is going to so kick your ass, or you're about to be mobbed by a bunch of 38 year old British chicks. I can't tell which.

Either way, thumbs up on the nick.

Re:Really a problem? (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788886)

Is DuranDuran sure John Romero is the best role model to emulate?

Does it make it the default browser? (0)

TheShadowHawk (789754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788590)

Ok.. so Miscrosoft is forcing IE 7 on us.
Obviously they fear that people wouldn't want to download it themselves.

Do they make it the default browser if we have say either Firefox or any other >IE browser installed?

Times like this make my sig really relevant :)

Re:Does it make it the default browser? (2, Insightful)

Not The Real Me (538784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788624)

Simple solution:
Control Panel -> Automatic Updates -> Turn Off Automatic Updates ( or select "Notify Me but don't automatically download or install them")

By default, I have automatic updates turned off since I consider M$'s automatic updates to be a nuisance.

Re:Does it make it the default browser? (0, Redundant)

gettingbraver (987276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788689)

Really. Have had nothing but trouble w/M$ updates.

Re:Does it make it the default browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788805)

Funny, I haven't had any trouble at all. Empirical observations are fun, aren't they?

Sorry "Tears for Fear"... (3, Funny)

Dark Coder (66759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788597)

Push,
Push,
Push it all out...
These are things that they've been waiting for
Come on ...
It's updating your PCs
Come on ...

[choirs]

In monopolistic times
You shouldn't have to ruin your PC
In blue and white
They really really ought to know
Those one track minds
That took you for a working end-user
Kiss them goodbye
You shouldn't have to jump for joy
You shouldn't have to

[choirs 2X]

They gave you Windows
And in return
you gave them them hell
As cold as ice
I hope we live to
tell the tale
I hope we live to

[choirs 2X]
[rift]
[choirs 2X]

And when you've taken down your guard
If they could change your mind
Hackers really love to BSOD your PC
Hackers really love to

[choirs 2X]

[rift]

[choirs 2X]

Re:Sorry "Tears for Fear"... (0)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788877)

Don't you mean "chorus" and "riff"? :/

What? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788601)

"Pushed?"

What is this thing, fucking heroin?

They will push it. (4, Insightful)

DeathKoil (413307) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788608)

Yeah... I actually thought they might do something like this... and in true M$ style they will mark it as a "critical update" because of all of the flaws in IE.

Okay... on a more serious note, I actually (don't flame me) like Windows XP. It is incredibly stable on my PC. But it is Microsoft style to push their products onto users my force. So my bets are on MS putting this out as a critical security updates.

I'll give 2 to 1 odds. Who's placing a bet??

Re:They will push it. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788625)

2 to 1 odds? Don't be silly - read the article - it clearly states that its being put out as a critical security update. It also calls Microsofts security "swiss cheese."

Re:They will push it. (1)

DeathKoil (413307) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788647)

Yeah... I was trying to make a lot of money and put a shot at Microsoft. IE6 was never a crital update either. But it was marked as such.

Back in the days of IE5 there was no such thing as spyware, and the whole "visit a website, get a trogan" sites were few and far between. Yet IE6 was pushed like IE7 will be.

Yes, I knew it would be critial, I was just giving 2 to 1 because I need the money...

Re:They will push it. (1)

rea1l1 (903073) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788634)

What's wrong with MS autoupdating their browser? Firefox does it. I only wish more software automatically updated itself.

Re:They will push it. (2, Informative)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788776)

The problem is that IE7 is a major version update. Firefox updates with minor versions (1.5.x to 1.5.y), but it wont try to update to 1.5.y if you are currently running 1.0.x.

Of course microsoft is labeling this as critical, which is just plain stupid... no matter how many bugs from IE6 are fixed.

Re:They will push it. (1)

rea1l1 (903073) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788847)

Most users never update their browsers simply because they don't know the updated versions are available. This will bring to them the latest features of browsing, and even if it does end up adding more vulnerablilities and bugs, 'least we get more Firefox users that way.

It's hard to believe that ie7 can be any worse than ie6 anyway, being how bad ie6 already is. Call me whatever you want, but MS products have been getting better and better. They're still nothing compared to Apple, but atleast they seem to be trying harder now as Apple begins to gain marketshare.

Good... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788636)

"Also to have end users suddenly using a new browser right before the holiday shopping season could magnify the cost any bugs that might create a bad user experience on sites"

I for one welcome this. IE6 sucks. Badly.

IE7 has a few problems, but the faster IE6 dies, the better.

This and as a web developer, I hope the bugs associated with pushing this app out will create a bad user experience and force developers that rely on hacks and nonstandard practices to get screwed over. I've had several sites I use not work with IE7 and the simplest has been because their simple javascript that detects IE versions tells me I need to use IE5.5 or greater. I've had others not work with the activeX controls because of new security models (or so I imagine).

The sooner developers move towards standards the better. IE7 is a good push towards this goal, and having it pushed out buggy and forcing developers to address the idiotic IE Only Features is just another milestone on this route.

Backfire (1, Insightful)

Tekoneiric (590239) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788642)

This could backfire on MS if all the major website admins pushed to get the sites working flawlessly with Firefox then put notices up on where to download Firefox in case they have problems with IE 7.

Re:Backfire (2, Insightful)

NineNine (235196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788803)

That's not something that "major website admins" do. That's something that 12 year olds, and crazy W3C/OSS zealots do. It ain't gonna happen.

Obligatory.... (3, Funny)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788652)

This has serious implications for e-commerce websites whose functionality might be affected by any bugs in the software.

<SARCASM>
Seriously? Microsoft software can be buggy?
</SARCASM>

How wonderful for the dialup users (3, Informative)

loraksus (171574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788665)

Who will download a browser in the background that is larger than sp2 for xp.
(no, it probably won't be _that _ big)
(ie 6 _was_ 75 or so.. yay for bloat)

Re:How wonderful for the dialup users (1)

mfaras (979322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788708)

If the final is anything like the betas, it would be in around 13megs.
Which will make it possible to update even for the dial-up users (in several chunks, at least).

I'm really afraid of all the users that will instantly start seeing "broken" pages. I already started testing on IE7 betas, but I'm not giving it much relevance since it's a beta... but now I know I'll have IE7 final at the same time that the all the users, I'm really scared. Well... I hope this turns out in bad publicity for Microsoft and not for thousands of sites and webmasters.

--
I'm starting to bid for a sig, I'm currently offering 6 paperclips.

Re:How wonderful for the dialup users (1)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788743)

The beta is only about 13 megs, so I don't think that it will be too bad a punishment for the users of dialup. I wouldn't expect it to grow to the 70 megs you cited.

-Ed

Do it the simple way (5, Funny)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788666)

Get your quick 'n easy version of IE7 straight from the main website: www.ie7.com [ie7.com]

What's the problem? (5, Insightful)

jaronc (68205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788685)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I understand the doom and gloom of the post? It is an update afterall. And a lot of what I've read online has been positive towards 7 over 6. On top of that, the article pushes that you don't have to install it if you don't want to.

As for the ecommerce sites being broken, it's not like they haven't had time to check to make sure their sites work in the new version. When the first beta came out, even I checked to see if there were any problems with my sites. I didn't fix them straight away, but I made sure to note down where the issues were for later repair.

Vista only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788687)

I thought IE7 was supposed to be Vista only. What's next? Are they going to be porting Aero?

Gates, Where Are You? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788688)

I used to think that Bill Gates wasn't really such a great engineer or such a great businessman. I just figured he was lucky, ruthless, and callous. But since he stepped down as CEO, Microsoft seems to have become collectively stupider every year. More and more often, they're choosing to do things that don't advance their own cause much, but that are sure to piss off legions of their own customers. Endless watering-down of Vista, endless Vista delays, the WGA debacle, and now no IE7. No wonder Apple and Linux are looking stronger than ever.

How Ironic (5, Informative)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788695)

Firefox has just completed downloading an important update and must be restarted so that the update can be installed. Update: Firefox 1.5.0.5

Ironic that I received that message as I was reading this story, and about to post that automatic update will only download IE7, but will give the users a choice of whether or not to install it. Kind of like the message I just received for Firefox.

Bandwidth is really the only issue with this release method, but not so much for a single user. Businesses who would be affected by the download can install the IE7 Update Blocker Toolkit to prevent even the download.

This really isn't that big of a deal.

Re:How Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788913)

There's a fundamental difference between a small patch release and a major verion upgrade.

Makes sense (4, Insightful)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788725)

It makes sense. IE6 is obviously a critical security vulnerability, and apparently it can't be fixed without IE7 (I doubt IE7 will actually "fix" the problem, but it'd be pretty hard to make the situation any worse at this point).

The sooner *any* versions of MSIE go away (even if they're only replaced with new versions), the better, IMHO.

Test your site for visual deffects. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788729)

For those of you who don't want to risk the install locally, you can try iecapture.

http://www.iecapture.com/ [iecapture.com]

Produces a 1024x768 screenshot of most any URL you feed it.

Maybe it's just me... (1)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788736)

...but does nobody else really REALLY hate the new Mickey-Mouse-ish interface? Where's the menu bar? (Yeah, I know, you can enable it if you go digging.) Where are the standard icons that have been with us in roughly the same form since who-knows-when? They wouldn't try to foist a DVR on us that didn't use the standard control scheme (square == stop; triangle == play; circle == record etc) -- why force (okay, okay, strongly suggest -- which is just delayed forcing) that everybody relearn how to use their browsers? Now I *really* like Firefox. And having tried the IE7 beta (as a last-ditch attempt to avoid an XP reinstall), it's amazing how many things suddenly have a new look (IE7 apparently uses a newer version of Cleartype or something -- and the fonts on a LOT of apps suddenly look a little different.) It really is that ubiquitous. Scary, given its history of security bugs.

Re:Maybe it's just me... (2, Interesting)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788926)

The part I couldn't stand was that there is no way to get the menu on the top. I stopped using Opera for the same reason. I like having my menu bar above my address bar!

How is this NOT in violation of Antitrust? (2, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788742)

Part of what got them into trouble in the first place was their (ab)use of their OS monopoly to wedge themselves into dominating the browser market.

I admin for a small site of about 100 seats. On each machine, I have reduced my workload by "removing" MSIE from machines and making Firefox the default browser. My workload has been reduced because my malware incidents have been reduced to near-zero. (My last couple of incidents came from those Sony-BMG CDs... anyone remember those?) But we all know that MSIE is still there right?

If I don't go to each machine to ensure that Windows Update is disabled, I forsee any machine that has it enabled will have MSIE 7 installed and set as the default browser. Just a guess... it's par for the Microsoft course.

This news makes me very unhappy.

Re:How is this NOT in violation of Antitrust? (1)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788774)

My guess on that would be because the internet explorer is used by so many people already, that having them updated to the latest version wouldn't be a problem. And considering that it is much more secure than IE6, it would probably save a lot of money for IT departments and decrease lost productivity due to slow boxex due to spyware and other crap that came in because of IE 6.

-Ed

Re:How is this NOT in violation of Antitrust? (1)

Mancat (831487) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788801)

If you want that level of control you will have to override the update by selecting either "Download updates and prompt me for installation" or "Notify me of updates but don't download." You should then be able to deselect the update and have it automatically ignored in all future instances.

Considering the size of your site, you should probably consider using Windows Software Update Services. You can then pick and choose the updates that your machines receive from a single point.

Re:How is this NOT in violation of Antitrust? (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788849)

I'd guess it's not a violation because MS is not a monopoly anymore, OSX is a viable alternative. The only people forced to use MS are forced to by their IT department.

It's ridiculous that Apple can bolt Safari into OSX so bad that in order to update Safari you need to update your entire OS, but when MS tries to release a new browser after *5* years, people scream antitrust.

Re:How is this NOT in violation of Antitrust? (2, Informative)

dtdns (559328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788892)

If I don't go to each machine to ensure that Windows Update is disabled...

I believe you can use group policy within your domain to disable Windows Update, or at least direct clients to your own update server (where you can disable specific updates). There really shouldn't be any reason to "go to each machine" to ensure it doesn't get installed over your FireFox setup.

MSHTML - woops (1)

Stalus (646102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788763)

Another nasty issue is that any program that has been built and tested with IE 6's web browser control may suddenly stop working if they changed any of the implementations under the MSHTML API, which they've managed to do with past IE upgrades - especially in the page load event mechanisms. Their automatic update to IE may break other programs. Might not, but.. I would categorize it as a high risk component upgrade.

It's also an issue for blind users. Oh, by the way, we automatically changed your browser interface. I hope you didn't have anything important to do this week because you're going to have to re-memorize a new interface now.

We know what this is all about... (1)

zerocommazero (837043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788766)

Nothing like forcefeeding your new browser into people's machines. What happens when ma and pa or the average user download this update?

They'll click through all the hooplah windows so they can just get back to websurfing and suddenly IE will ask if they want to transfer all their settings from Firefox/Opera that their considerate kids set up for them. Of course, they'll just click through and go on with it because it was a "Critical Update". They'll have to go through all the "make IE your default browser" windows and any other alerts to make Windows centric programs as default...what a load of crap!

I like IE7 and have been using it for a bit but I still think this is just plain consumer abuse.

Filth - they only way in. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788781)

Failed innovation lets try hogtie.

Do they still apologize the next day?

IE7 (0, Troll)

WhooTAZ (195866) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788814)

Has anyone tried it? I put it on my PC at home and at work... And Damned if I did not remove it within a day or two of TORMENT. Home PC is Dual Core 3.0 GHz with XP Home and it CRIPPLED it!!!!!!!!!! At work nothing else would run with the browser going.

ALso stay away from Media Player 11 until they fix that SON OF A BUCK!

MS actually mean MASS SUICIDE for end users and those who support them (IT techs)

Re:IE7 (1)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788917)

Which beta did you run? IE7 beta 2 had a serious problem with ram, that has definitely been mitigated in beta 3. In beta 2 I would end up using upwards of a gig of ram, but now beta 3 is only using about 100 megs, and I've had it running continuously for a few days. Before I restarted my machine it was only using about 400 megs, and that was after about 2 weeks.

-ed

What is the issue? (4, Insightful)

Jessta (666101) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788834)

What is the issue?
If sites are not using W3C standards for development then they should know that they can't expect compatibility with browser updates.
Blame the web developers.
An update to Internet Explorer is critical for security reasons and shouldn't be delayed because some developers are idiots.
The same issue occured with XP SP2. Idiot developers using non-standard APIs had issues in their software.

Re:What is the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788862)

because obviously MS's browsers conform to w3c standards...

Yes, but what about stuck beta users? (1)

dufachi (973647) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788839)

And how will they deal with those of us who inadvertently deleted the temporary directory which allows one to uninstall their beta2 version?

zzzzz... (0, Redundant)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788869)

Hey Microsoft, call me when you guys spend billions of dollars on a web browser and actually implement CSS2. In the meanwhile, all your shitty, half-assed browsers do is push more web developers to use Flash, because developing for Flash is a hell of a lot easier than debugging XHTML/CSS to work in IE5/6/7.

Misleading summary (2, Informative)

HappyUserPerson (954699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788874)

The summary for the article is misleading. IE7 is not simply installed automatically like any other critical update. Instead, the user is prompted explicitly with a clear, colorful, simple prompt which explains what IE 7 is and gives the user an option to install the update. The article has a screenshot [com.com] .

instructions (5, Funny)

RickBauls (944510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788883)

to get the new update, simply remove this:
msi http://microsoft.com/xp [microsoft.com] ie6 main

and replace it with this:
msi http://microsoft.com/xp [microsoft.com] ie7 main

in your c:/etc/apt/sources.list file. then do:
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

No Worries (4, Funny)

chrpai (806494) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788887)

I finally found out something I like about WGA! It'll protect everyone with pirated Windows from getting IE7 shoved down their throat!!

I see this as a good thing, honestly. (3, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788902)

I really don't see the problem in this. IE7 is better than IE6 in many ways, including security and features. You'd think people would want IE6 to just dissapear.

I suppose it's that bias against Microsoft in general that makes this a bad thing.

Now that's funny! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15788908)

Also to have end users suddenly using a new browser right before the holiday shopping season could magnify the cost any bugs that might create a bad user experience on sites.

Since when has Microsoft given a rat's ass about whatever pain they might inflict on users of their software? As a matter of fact, I briefly wondered about a move like this when they announced that Vista would not be available for this holiday season. What better way to drum up enthusiasm for a mediocre upgrade than severe problems with XP over the holiday buying season?

Fuck 'em! Just fuck 'em!

Calm down - Blocking and uninstall possible (4, Informative)

derfla8 (195731) | more than 8 years ago | (#15788923)

Hello All,

    Calm down. It is easy to succumb to media hype and not look deeper. But if you do, you'll find that administrators have options available to them and so do users.

1) IE7 Blocker Toolkit - non-expiring toolkit will assist admistrators through Group Policy or script to set registry to prevent automatic update to IE7:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=4516A6F7-5D44-482B-9DBD-869B4A90159C&displa ylang=en [microsoft.com]

2) Admins who have Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) deployed already has control over what is pushed to the corporate desktop

3) Users individually have the ability to decline the install

I have also heard that users can uninstall IE7 from add/remove programs, this will revert the user back to IE6.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?