Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Released As High-Priority Update

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

438

jimbojw writes, "Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning and is available via automatic update or download from Microsoft." And an anonymous reader notes stats on IE7 and FF2 downloads, adding: "Looks like FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5, while IE7 is having a hard time to find followers. Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?" The sans.org stats site will be updated throughout the day, so perhaps we'll get an indication.

cancel ×

438 comments

A few days behind (0, Flamebait)

TintinX (569362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688683)

IE7 was released last week. It may be that the automatic update is starting to be rolled out today.

Re:A few days behind (2, Funny)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688717)

Uh... did you even read the article headline?

I've heard of people not reading the article or even the article summary, but at least read the headline...

Re:A few days behind (1)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688791)

The first sentence in the article summary says "Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning". Seems the GP did read the summary!

Re:A few days behind (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688869)

Seems the GP did read the summary!

And even better, it seems that the guy who was complaining didn't...

Re:A few days behind (1)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689069)

I meant the headline on Slashdot, not in the article itself.

Re:A few days behind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688881)

Believe he said "read the headline."

WGA (5, Funny)

ColinPL (1001084) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688685)

Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?
Only if Microsoft disables Windows Genuine Advantage on this update.

Re:WGA (2, Informative)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688731)

Look up a little utility called muBlinder. It doesn't work right now, as MS updated their WGA software just a few days ago, but give it a couple days and you can pretty much download whatever you want/need.

Re:WGA (1)

break99 (992583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688773)

Dude, WGA is not required for high-priority updates.

Re:WGA (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689063)

Dude, WGA is not required for high-priority updates.
Hah, so even the evil pirate warez-mongers get to be counted as the MSIE faithful in the browser wars. Nice one, MS!

Re:WGA (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689107)

I'm not sure whether something has changed since yesterday but when I got the IE7 thing pop up asking me whether I wanted to install it, something other than WGA checked whether my windows install was valid. It was built into the installer itself.

Re:WGA (1)

Claws Of Doom (721684) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689273)

In all honesty, couldn't they just give us an "uninstall" choice instead of "upgrading"? Having said that, an uninstall in this case would be pretty synonymous with an upgrade...

ohhhhhhh (2, Funny)

darkchubs (814225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688687)

Work that monopoly ... yeahhhhhh you like that dont you .. yeahhhhhhh whos your daddy

Had this on my home comp (2, Informative)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688697)

Installed smoothly, reassigned without giving a choice file types to IE, e.g. xml's

first download... (1)

roadrunnerro (800862) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688701)

Not high priority enough for me

Monopoly leverage, indeed (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688705)

Internet Explorer 7 was finally released this morning and is available via automatic update

If anyone has ever wondered how MS gets those fantastic browser numbers, here's your answer. Just you watch - here in a few months MS will be crowing about how there are more IE7 users than Firefox 2.0 users. As if anyone with a windows box has a choice in the matter.

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688913)

As if anyone with a windows box has a choice in the matter.

You'd rather people stayed with the old, proven-insecure IE6? Besides, what part of it being a high-priority download forces people to use it, rather than FF or Opera? Remember - total number of downloads and total number of users are not the same thing...

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689045)

> You'd rather people stayed with the old, proven-insecure IE6?

And that affects me how?

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689235)

In your mom's basement, not a whole lot. In the real world, where you are dealing with real problems and real people on real machines, it does. I know you probably need to get back to your clan raid so I will leave you to it.

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689049)

"total number of downloads and total number of users are not the same thing."

You think they're going to honor this distinction when they crow about what 'the market' wants? This company allows dead people to speak out for them.

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (1)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689095)

total number of downloads and total number of users are not the same thing...
Especially when corporations are running a Windows Server Update Services servers (we have 2 here to cover different geographical areas). It downloads once, then farms it out to the clients. Actually, we installed the 2nd WSUS server so that the workstations at one of our other organizations wouldn't upgrade to IE7 automatically (because of a crappy program the staff is forced to use via web browser).

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689237)

You'd rather people stayed with the old, proven-insecure IE6?

What reason do you have to believe that this version will be more secure? It's not exactly like it has proven track-record of reliability. I don't know were people get their definition of the words "secure" and "unsecure" sometimes, but I have a hard time seeing how you could defend this statement as anything more than an out-of-your-ass guess.

Besides, what part of it being a high-priority download forces people to use it...

Nothing is forcing anyone right now, but since the average non-IT user has no frame of reference to know if they should or shouldn't use it, they'll take Microsoft's word that "high priority" is the same thing as "must have". And how am I, an experienced IT engineer, going to tell them that they need to install every other high-priority patch except this one? Am I gonna tell them Microsoft is lying in just this one case? Sure.

TW

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (1)

Aadain2001 (684036) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689259)

You'd rather people stayed with the old, proven-insecure IE6?

No, I would rather they download FireFox or Opera than use IE.

Remember - total number of downloads and total number of users are not the same thing...

And we all know how honest companies like MS are in pointing facts like that out. "Ya, we have 100million downloads so far! However, we only show about 15% of web users actually using it.... guess that means IE7 sucks. Oh well. Hey, why are all the shareholders selling or calling for our CEO to resign all of a sudden??"

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (1)

Fatalis (892735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688935)

As if anyone with a windows box has a choice in the matter.

You can easily disable Automatic Updates, or set it to only download them and then notify you to choose what to install.

Re:Monopoly leverage, indeed (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689311)

As if anyone with a windows box has a choice in the matter.

You have a choice, you just have to know how to exercise it.

My company has already said we should not take IE7 since it's not compatible with some of our stuff.

You know how you do this? Instead of using the (stupid) Express Install for updates which says "install everything", and instead of setting up auto updates to grab and install everything, you use the Custom Install, and deselect the change for IE7.

It aint that difficult. I won't be installing it on either my home or work machines for the time being.

Believe it or not, you can choose not to take this 'high-priority' update. I never just blindly install what the auto-updates thinks I should be a good boy and fetch. I look at it. =)

Cheers

classic slashdot troll fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688719)

From a sad nerd in his basement using Netscape 4.7 on Slackbuntu.

Force "feeding"... (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688723)

Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?

Yes of course it will. Why would the majority of Windows users go out and manually download a web browser? For most of them IE works just fine. When IE7 comes in they will just consider it another one of Windows quirks and happily chug along with it.

Ummmm (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688817)

Why would the majority of Windows users go out and manually download a web browser?

Oh I don't know. Maybe the millions of people who went and downloaded Firefox did it to...be more secure?

But seriously, every time I have to go and get rid of a virus off of a Windows machine, I tell the user to download firefox. Most of them do.

Transporter_ii

Re:Ummmm (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688911)

Why would the majority of Windows users go out and manually download a web browser? Oh I don't know. Maybe the millions of people who went and downloaded Firefox did it to...be more secure?

That's a small minority of users. Most users don't know Firefox exists, or that they can use something other than IE, or even what IE is. Most don't know that they could have fewer viruses, or even that they have viruses. In a classic capitalist system, this would not matter. Like evolution, capitalism lets money talk and the market moves towards the best solution since decisions are made by informed customers or by agents trying to win customers by choosing for them. In the browser market, Microsoft has bypassed the normal market forces and chooses for customers instead. As a result, the majority of people will use IE unless it becomes so bad that it is unusable.

Re:Ummmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689035)

You mistake is assumeing the customers are informed. A lot of people don't know about or care to learn any better and all the education in the world isn't gonna help them. They just want to click on the blue E like always. These people will never move off of microsoft unless MS closes its doors because they do not want to learn how to operate something different. And with IE7 offering the tabbed browseing and other features there is even less need for people to learn and change browsers. They don't see the viruses so they are obviously not there.

crossed thread (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689163)

Most of your comments about my post directly contradict what I said. Are you sure you replied to the right post?

old news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688727)

I got this as a forced, high priority update over the weekend, not sure why this is hitting /. now...

WGA gets things blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688729)

I thought the whole reason behind having WSUS was to bypass checks like this...

Hmm... (1)

mshmgi (710435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688733)

One one of my systems, I had previously downloaded and installed a tool from Microsoft which was supposed to prevent the automatic update from happening. Surprise, surprise, this morning, this particular system was prompting me to install IE7 and it gave me big nasty warning messages that I was harming my computer and causing starving babies in Africa to get hives because I refused to install it ... or something like that ... who ever reads those things anyway?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688903)

Hmmm, what tool are you referring to? The only one I've used is where you right-click on My Computer, click on the "Automatic Updates" tab, and then select the option to turn off automatic updates.

Huh? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688735)

Huh? I thought IE7 was already out and had already had over a million downloads... Have I been hallucinating?

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688843)

Yes. People on drugs were downloading IE7 voluntarily, now Microsoft release it for real, forcing people to upgrade.

next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688779)

windows will not let you log in unless you upgrade ie. It will also lead a new capitule in "get the facts" : ie7, the most downloaded browser!!

Antitrust (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688793)

I'm sure since MS says they're now complying with antitrust laws they'll also be allowing Firefox, Opera, and anyone else who wants to, to roll out their own browser as a high-priority update as well, right?

Re:Antitrust (1)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689039)

*shrug* Maybe when Firefox releases their own OS they can do the same.

Re:Antitrust (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689127)

What exactly do you think "leveraging a monopoly" is?

Re:Antitrust (1)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689277)

Microsoft doesn't stop any other software from doing an automatic update. Sure, it might not come down as an update from Microsoft but I know that many other applications contain "phone home" functionality to check and notify for updates. Not a single app is prevented from doing so. In fact, my virus scanner notified me of updates this morning.

Re:Antitrust (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689131)

On my Vista machine Firefox informs me when a new version is available. So does iTunes, and Photoshop, and Acrobat, and some other applications I am forgetting.

So I think it is more a case of Microsoft never having prevented anyone from rolling out updates.

Re:Antitrust (0, Flamebait)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689293)

So I think it is more a case of Microsoft never having prevented anyone from rolling out updates.

Can the Firefox or Opera team release their products as high priority updates via Windows Update? No. Does this mean IE will gain market share not because their browser is better, but because they have a monopoly on Windows? Yes. For MS to be in compliance with the law they must in no way leverage their existing monopoly to gain an advantage over other players in a different market. It doesn't matter if they don't stop others from running their own automated updates, because users need to get those programs in the first place. Did MS include Firefox, iTunes, Photoshop, and Acrobat with every Windows install so those auto-updates reach everyone? Did they give part of the money they make selling Windows and give it to the developers of those programs like they did the IE team?

They have bypassed the competitive marketplace. It is detrimental to the industry and to consumers and it is clearly illegal in the US, EU, most of Asia, and a good chunk of the rest of the world.

Re:Antitrust (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689323)

Security update for the OS != New version of Internet software

Hang on, this is Windows we are talking about.

More Work for us IT Types (1)

justice7 (785522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688803)

For those of us who manage a large amount of workstation systems; this means we are in for a bit of work. All of my systems are locked down with Deepfreeze (auto thawed on sundays; the time that the updates to windows on our systems are set to occur) What does this mean for the installed plugins such as Shockwave/Flash and Java that the users so dreadfully desire?

Re:More Work for us IT Types (1)

dsginter (104154) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688855)

No it isn't. [microsoft.com] Just add a script to the regular batch.

I got the update alert for it last night. (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688819)

Clicked the checkbox off and told it not to remind me about it again.

Stupid questions (2, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688841)

Seriously. Of course the Firefox users jumped on the bandwagon and downloaded 2.0 (which is buggy and crash-prone, glad I'm still using 1.5 at work because my home browser is barely useable). If you've gone to the effort of getting a replacement browser you're obviously more up on what's available.

So tens of millions of users didn't swarm to download IE7 as soon as it was available. Seeing as I never once saw a major news report on it, the majority of users don't read technology news, and even most of the users who do don't care what browser they use so long as it works, why is the summary written as if there's a problem that the masses didn't mindlessly rush out and downloaded the latest shiny package from Microsoft?

I find the "forced" update (which isn't really forced) a little worrying, though. It should *at least* pop up a window saying that a new version of IE has been downloaded and is ready to install if the user wants it. It's a pretty major UI shift, people should be made aware of it. Blindsiding them with that isn't going to win MS any fans.

Re:Stupid questions (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689113)

Of course the Firefox users jumped on the bandwagon and downloaded 2.0 (which is buggy and crash-prone, glad I'm still using 1.5 at work because my home browser is barely useable).

Out of curiosity, what are you doing with it that is making it crash? Since I've switched, the only difference I've noticed is the spell checking in forms, and that it's significantly faster... Is it less stable on Windows or something?

A couple problems with JavaScript. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689257)

Firefox 2.0 has had a couple of problems with JavaScript that can cause crashes.

This only affects you if:

a. You are running a vanilla install of Firefox and have not downloaded the NoScript extension (please do so right away).
and
b. You go to one of those maliciously formed pages.

Failure to follow both of the above steps will result in Firefox not crashing due to either of the JavaScript issues. Which probably explains Firefox's stability on your system, my system, and most of the rest of everyone else's systems.

Re:Stupid questions (1)

steevc (54110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689295)

I'm running FF 2.0 on XP and I think it may have crash once with plenty of usage. The spell checker is good, even if it uses US English. The ability to re-open tabs could be useful, but I don't like the close button on tabs.

Most of my extensions are working happily.

Re:Stupid questions (1)

justice7 (785522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689217)

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/updatemanagement/ windowsupdate/ie7announcement.mspx [microsoft.com]

Yes that is exactly what they've done.

Automatic Updates will only offer Internet Explorer 7 to users with local administrator accounts. Automatic Updates will notify all such users (including those with Automatic Updates configured to automatically download and install updates) when Internet Explorer 7 has been downloaded and is ready to install. The notification and installation process will not start unless and until a user who is a local administrator logs on to the machine. Users who are not local administrators will not be prompted to install the update and will thus continue using Internet Explorer 6.

IE7 *should* be adopted. sooner the better. (5, Insightful)

taybin (622573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688847)

I *want* people to upgrade to IE7. I don't care if they're using IE7 or Firefox. I just want to be able to write sane CSS.

Re:IE7 *should* be adopted. sooner the better. (0, Flamebait)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689083)

I *want* people to upgrade to IE7. I don't care if they're using IE7 or Firefox. I just want to be able to write sane CSS.

IE7 will not run on a huge number of existing Windows machines. Thus, you still can't write sane CSS. IE7 still ignores half of the CSS spec, thus you can't write sane CSS. I have some pages auto-generated. I followed the spec. They worked in every browser except IE5 and 6, which barfed on the formatting. When IE7 was released I added it to my tests. It still barfs, and adds some new broken things. If the Firefox team and Opera and Apple and Konquerer, and everyone else I tried can manage to write to the spec... why can't MS with all their resources? Obviously, they don't want to, because they want to keep the Web broken and nonstandard to lock people in.

Re:IE7 *should* be adopted. sooner the better. (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689319)

``I just want to be able to write sane CSS.''

Well, you're able to do that today. If you do it right, your website will still work if the browser doesn't implement all the CSS features you use. If it doesn't, it's either a bug in the browser (file a bug report with the developers, complain, alert people, fix it), or, more likely, a bug in your code (fix it).

Re:IE7 *should* be adopted. sooner the better. (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689371)

Many people will never update to IE7. The installer passes the WGA, so everyone with a pirated XP copy who do not want to crack the WGA or download firefox will just keep using IE6

This is also why IE7 is not being "forced", like the misleading news comment says. Microsoft can't enforce it, I've heard that in fact they add a "no, and don't ask again" option

As someone on FF 1.5 (1)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688861)

Most people don't feel the need to update unless they see things they need. There is no way people would update to IE 7 unless forced- just like there is no way people will update to Vista until they are forced to.

I did check IE 7 out yesterday- we use IE for internal browsing at work, and my boss wanted me to make sure the new version worked properly. (Web browsing, of course, is done with Firefox). It definitely looks and feels better than IE 6, and they have taken measures to improve security (whether they work or not remains to be seen). As usual, Microsoft makes great improvements to their products as soon as they get competition. That's what capitalism is all about.

Hello chaos (3, Insightful)

pilkul (667659) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688863)

In my company we have at least two programs whose functionality is broken when IE7 is installed, due to menus written using IE6's renderer. Even some of Microsoft's own software -- e.g. the file transfer function in their Xbox 360 DDK -- breaks when IE7 is installed. Pushing this major upgrade as a forced update is irresponsible. This isn't what the Automatic Update system is supposed to be for.

And even when nothing breaks, I suspect a lot of users are going to be pissed that their web browser interface has suddenly changed.

Re:Hello chaos (1)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689031)

Our head of IT sent out a note to all staff saying DON'T download Internet Exploder 7. He wants to make sure 1) it's compatible with all our existing apps, and 2) it doesn't have huge exploitable weaknesses that MS missed. I asked him about FF, and he said they've upgraded individual users to FF when IE6 had problems, but some apps don't work with it. Nothing, it seems, is perfect.

Re:Hello chaos (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689181)

The point the original poster was making was that installing IE7 breaks standalone applications that use IE controls to render things. Installing FF cannot do that. If you're using web applications that don't work in FF the solution is very simple: fire the developers, there's no excuse.

Re:Hello chaos (1)

chroot_james (833654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689133)

Agreed on this. We use JProbe where I work and IE7 broke it. Sucks...

Fortunately, I don't have use JProbe for my contributions to the project so I happily run FF2.

Re:Hello chaos (1)

eodmightier (208901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689157)

I head up the IT department at an insurance agency. We have atleast two apps confirmed that will not work under IE7 and is expected to be some time before it will work.

Re:Hello chaos (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689261)

``This isn't what the Automatic Update system is supposed to be for.''

It isn't? Updating IE to version 7 isn't what the updating system is for? Alright, so maybe it isn't what you _wanted_, but, if you use automatic updates, it's what you get. Don't like it? Well, don't use it, then.

rocketbooming? (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688887)

There's a guy named zefrank who puts out a video blog which is pretty amusing. One recurring topic is a behavior he calls "Rocketbooming" (not to be confused with the company of the same name, wink wink), which he explains as using really bad metrics to make you look hyper-popular. Of course, this behavior has been used since the business deal leading to the first advertisement on a 2-page town newsletter, but what with the puffy egotistical company name, I kinda like zefrank's term.

Anyway, by shifting gears and making IE7 an automatic downloadable for anyone who has Windows (because you all know that IE is an integral component of Windows), it seems to me that this is just a great numbers-inflating gambit. "We have 100 million* IE7 users (defined as people who left their computers connected to the Internet and didn't crash long enough to download a critical patch update that included it)." Even devoted users of FireFox who happened to fail to aggressively avoid this update will be considered one of the IE7 faithful.

This count is meaningless (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688891)

For one, most corporations don't just go downloading updates as soon as they're release and IE is a special case. $MegaCorp has software which relies on the browser as a platform. Since IE7 isn't backwards-compatible with IE6 when it comes to Java and ActiveX, $OurBigApp can't run on it. We're working on patches but until they're released companies with thousands of seats are stuck using IE6. Considering that IE7 was fast-tracked for release we didn't even have time to build patches to send to QA by release.

Furthermore, the general public is loathe to change. If Aunt Bea is used to her Internet being IE6, she sees little need to move to IE7 unless she absolutely has to -- basically when MS force it on her. Firefox is generally used by more tech-savvy people (and their friends and relatives) who are more likely to update for both features and security even though there's that huge regression hole in FF2.0.

Just because FF2.0 has had 2M downloads doesn't mean two million more people have dropped IE in favour of FF. In fact, the high number of downloads may show dissatisfaction with the earlier version and its memory leaks, whereas IE6 is "good enough". At the end of the day the only meaningful statistic is the tracking count. My blog gets hit by about 20% FF and 75% IE. YMMV.

Re:This count is meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689203)

My blog gets hit by about 20% FF and 75% IE. YMMV

And 5% reading it telepathically!

Enterprise Management (1)

bubba_ry (574102) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688893)

If you're an admin in any size enterprise, you can mitigate the installation of IE7 using WSUS or SMS. I've got WSUS in place and it works fine for (not)deploying updates. There'd probably be a $#!+ storm here if I allowed IE7 to be installed, what with the new interface. My users have to introduced to changes slowly...

M$ pushed the update on my computer at work... (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688909)

I'm surprised CERT hasn't issued a malware alert! ;^D

IE7 hasn't managed to get itself installed on any of the SuSE or Solaris based computers on my home network, however . . . perhaps that's why CERT hasn't issued a warning - limited scope of vulnerability to this particular expliot!

it;'s nasty. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688927)

They hid the file menu for some reason, so you have to go change a setting to fix it. And then it doesn't work well: the tried-and-true menu motion for File-New to open a new window ends up going to the tabs instead. Why did they have to mess with the menus?

Re:it;'s nasty. (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689145)

To differentiate their product from the competition.

Re:it;'s nasty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689211)

There's no easy way to open new window in a, gasp, new window?

I'm one of those (few perhaps) people who *hate* tabs.

Re:it;'s nasty. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689347)

There is an easy way. However, it is a different way. Opening a new window with the menu is one of the 3 or 4 browser functions I use the most, and Microsoft could not leave well enough alone :(

Microhard. Hack away. (1)

Ctawp (813135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688939)

Microsoft sure makes being a web developer hard. Not only did they not give oodles of time to developers to get their current sites updated to IE7, but now we have one more browser to hack js/css for. Then again, who doesn't want to have different hacks for at least three different MS browsers? (IE7,IE6,IE5 for mac)

Nooo... Map Drives (1)

Damingo (803966) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688977)

Anyone noticed what happens when you open a mapped drive? Try it, run a program/batch/etc from it and look at the loverly "WARNING:- Death to all those who run this program" box that appears. Its causing hell for all those like me who have batches run on startup for workstations (they are on mapped drives, thanks to my MagicCards (hardware deepfreeze)). anyone who finds a secure work around, please let us now! damingo

Just get the blocker (1)

NerdyJock (1001797) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688993)

Thank goodness for the IE7 blocker [microsoft.com] . I pushed it out to all of my users, so they don't get via auto updates. You should investigate that for your IT illiterate family and friends. reasons for Blocking IE 7: 1) There are a lot of sites that don't work in IE 7 2) 2 out of 3 installs causes svchost.exe to take up 90-100% cpu, after intalling IE 7 3) IE is boaring

Wouldn't have known it. (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689005)

If not for slashdot, I wouldn't have known about the forced upgrade.
I don't use IE except when forced by microsoft- which is about once every 18 months to download the new directx.

I heard Michael Howard talking about this one (4, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689015)

Microsoft says they've taken steps aimed at the root causes of IE security problems, as in doing a real redesign.

It's not exactly sandboxed, but it has to ask permission from a "request broker" before changing anything in the rest of the system, and the request broker is smaller, more auditable, and not handling malicious input all the time. Troublesome features like installing Browser Help Objects are off by default.

If we're lucky this could be like IIS 6. If we're not lucky, it should still be better than the malware installation engine [oreilly.com] everyone's running now.

Don't expect your friends and relatives to report fewer malware installations, though. The bad guys will just shift to a different infection vector if IE7 lives up to its promises.

Whatever... (1)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689029)

Who really cares anymore? FF1.5 and IE 6 BOTH allowed sites infect your computer with virii, spyware and adware if you weren't vigilant. FF2 and IE7 look almost identical, function very similar, and both have been working fine for me since I downloaded them. To tell you the truth, rather than running FF2 on high risk sites, I've just taken to logging into a limited account and using IE 7, because I like some of the interface "features" a little better. Right now, while both are pretty new and no major problems are cropping up (at least ones that don't get fixed asap) in either, it is silly to sit here and listen to fanboys argue about how many downloads each has. Your average FF user is on top of the situation with FF and has downloaded the update. Your average IE user probably couldn't give a damn, and will download theirs when MS tells them they should. Who cares what gets downloaded immediatedly after releases?

WTF? (1)

8tim8 (623968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689047)

From the Slashdot post:
Looks like FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5, while IE7 is having a hard time to find followers.

From the linked article:
For isc.sans.org (which is probably not your typical site), 50% of Firefox users already use Firefox 2.0, and 23% of Internet Explorer users use MSIE 7.0.

The linked article is only talking about users of isc.sans.org, and that includes the table in the article (the data comes from Google Analytics, but it's only for isc.sans.org.

Jeesh. Does anyone bother to read the articles anymore?

GOOD NEWS! (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689053)

As a result of this massive upgrade, the whole Internet will be offloaded as all those Internet Exploder clients will be hindering the Microsoft users "internet experience"!

Wow. They got it wrong... (1)

Jennifer York (1021509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689057)

I'm amazed at this since the JavaScript parts are still borked. Try using the GoDaddy account admin interfaces in IE7, they work once, and then fail to repeat the same action in the same session.

Firefox works very well, if you're looking for an alternate. IE6 works too. It's just IE 7 that is causing this trouble.

I caved... (1)

murphotronic (985577) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689065)

I installed a trial version of Windows Onecare (fed up with norton) simply because for $50 i can cover all 3 pc's we own. Not being a huge MS fan, I have to admit it's been relativley painless so far. It did show IE7 as a high priority update, and I finally gave in, since I want the little Onecare taskbar icon to be green rather than 'warning yellow' 24/7. The interface looks nicer, but I'm still only going to use it for the MS's IE only websites, I'm simply more comfortable and familiar with Firefox. Haven't yet moved from FF1.5 for the same reason.

Market share (1)

BarC0d3z (825670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689111)

Maybe you all can help me with something, but what's the big deal about marketshare among browsers. At least from a Wall Street point of view. Every browser I've ever owned was free, so it's not like Microsoft or Netscape or NCSA or Mozilla made money off me downloading it. Besides the technical superiority of one browser over another, why does Microsoft or Mozilla or Wall Street care when one browser gains market share?

Re:Market share (1)

thorkyl (739500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689361)

It has everything to do with server enviroment.

If all useres worldwide where using FF then .NET would be usless
Server 2003 would be a brick
SQL Server would be a waste of money

PHP, Oracle, posgress and others would rule

If all users world wide used IE then there would be no PHP and Microsoft would control all development platforms and servers and such (after all isnt that what they want)

Re:Market share (1)

MrAngryForNoReason (711935) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689365)

it's not like Microsoft or Netscape or NCSA or Mozilla made money off me downloading it.

Mozilla don't make money from you downloading Firefox but they do make a small amount every time you search using the google search box and then click on an advert.

Microsoft's gains are more complicated, they want as many people using their browser so that they can keep control of their users. If the default browser on Windows is inferior to the default browser on OSX then Joe Public is more likely to switch. Of course they also use IE to leverage their own search engine MSN.

Nice out-of-context quote, there (4, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689125)

For isc.sans.org (which is probably not your typical site), 50% of Firefox users already use Firefox 2.0, and 23% of Internet Explorer users use MSIE 7.0. Overall, we got about a 50/50 split between Firefox and Internet Explorer users.

The stats on the site don't say much at all about the uptake of IE7 (or FF2, for that matter) among the general internet-using population. As you can see in the quote, the article doesn't make any pretensions that they do, either, noting that sans.org isn't a typical site.

Which is obvious, given the breakdown of FF vs IE users. A 50/50 split is obviously not a representative sample.

The second half of this blurb is blatantly misleading.

Getting menubar on top -HELP! (1)

asciimonster (305672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689149)

I'm dowloaded IE7. Had some trouble connected, but what the heck (I use FF anyway). Started it up, whadjathink? No menubar. Activated menubar. but it's under the navigation bar. I don't want that! Unlocked the toolbars, but can't move location bar. Menu bar can but can't be dragged above location bar. Can't be floated either (Which is a good thing, I think...

Ok. Never mind. Tried to put buttons under navigation bar, not at the botomright position. But I can only move them horizontally, although the mouse cursor indicates all 4 directions including up and down!

AAAARRRRGGG!!! Help me, please! :)

King of Questions That Answer Themselves (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689165)

Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?

Yes.

Hot damn! (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689169)

Die, older versions of IE, die!

Finally, I can do mostly sane CSS. Still, there's so much more to ask for...

Ditch VML for SVG.
MNG support. :before/:after pseudo selectors and the content property!
Border-radius, box and text shadows!
And put some fucking -ie- prefixes on the proprietary stuff, for god's sake.

On my project's site today... (1)

the_germ (146623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689207)

67.6% Internet Explorer
  -> 1.4% Internet Explorer 7.0
  -> 91.5% Internet Explorer 6.0
  -> 4.3% Internet Explorer 5.5
  -> 2.8% Internet Explorer 5.0

24.7% Firefox
  -> 53.8% Firefox 2.0
  -> 46.2% Firefox 1.5

Looks like IE7 got a bad start...

My company told me not to install it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689231)

My company (2000+ employee tech company) told everyone to not install IE7 it because it has incompatibilities with our internal web pages. IT was silent on Firefox 2 since 1.5 wasn't supported; however, most of the people I work with use Firefox anyways.

Damn Microcrap (1)

thorkyl (739500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689241)

I dont want 7 on my machine.
Hell I dont want 6 on my machine.

Next hedline

Microsoft requires IE7 to do winbloz update

--
mod me as flaim bait if you wish, you now know how i feel

i hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689245)

After work, I'm going to high-priority my ass home, high-priority run to my computer, high-priority wait for my CRT to engage, high-priority go to Add/Remove Programs... I hope there's a high-priority uninstall option.

This is not a forced upgrade (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689297)

I received the notice last night through Windows Automatic Updates that the download was available. I clicked Cancel and didn't download or install it. Anyone who wants that level of control over their system just has to go into Automatic Updates control panel and configure it. Or, hell, even turn it off and run WindowsUpdate manually every second Tuesday of the month, with the Custom option that allows you to pick and choose what you want to install.

The only people being "forced" are people who are too dumb to know how to manage their boxes, and corporate end-users who have no say in what is run in their corporate environment.

The Coming Trauma (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689305)

First, I think that it's a good idea for as many Windows users as possible to get IE7. It's a good update for a number of reasons. But anyone working support lines is going to have their hands full, because it is different enough (at least the way it installed on my systems) that most Windows users are going to be traumatized. Really, most Windows users don't think of IE as a web browser, IE is the Internet. When IE7 is installed, their "Internet" is going to be broken in ways that will scare and annoy many of them and send them reaching for the telephone.

High Priority != Forced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689307)

You would think /. users would realize this. Any user is free to set the AU settings to what they feel comfortable with. I've personally been using IE7 here at work since beta and haven't had any issues with it.

Why are slashdot members such mongoloids? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16689369)

Turn off automatic updates in Windows and you don't need to install IE7, jesus! Always do a custom update then you can choose which updates you install. You're like a bunch of schoolkids all dis'ing Microsoft because you think it's the cool thing to do.

Get a life.

High Priority? (1)

rexbinary (902403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16689373)

Funny. Windows Media Player 10 was pushed out as optional update, but a new version of Internet Explorer is now considered a high-priority update. Does that mean all the security patches for IE6 couldn't secure it, and that we must upgrade to IE7 for safety? Does it mean the adoption rate of IE7 is so low compared to Firefox 2.0 that Microsoft needs to 'make' this a high priority update?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...