Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Microsoft to Force IE7 Update on February 12th

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the they-know-best dept.

Internet Explorer 480

Z80xxc! writes "InfoWorld is reporting that on February 12th, Microsoft will roll out Internet Explorer 7 through Windows Server Update Services to all systems - regardless of whether or not the update had been requested previously. The piece also mentions ways to prevent the update from occurring, for sysadmins who do not want to use IE7 on their systems. Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'."

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

Good in some ways... (4, Insightful)

dyefade (735994) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125488)

At least now there is only IE7 to support - IE6 should quickly fall from use.

Re:Good in some ways... (5, Funny)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125566)

Except I can guarantee that at least one of my clients will cling doggedly to IE6, just to piss me off...

Re:Good in some ways... (5, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125650)

Probably because they are in the same boat we are, we implemented a large financial system last year and went to the newest available version and yet it still isn't certified with IE7, between that system and our document management system it will probably be years before we can run IE7. The financial system is going through its first year end right now so we are still tweaking and optimizing it, I can't imagine doing an upgrade just so we can support IE7!

Re:Good in some ways... (5, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125772)

That's why you don't implement for IE at all. You build for Firefox, Opera, Safari, or something else that supports standards, and then make little tweaks to fix IE displays. Doing anything else puts you in a world of hurt.

Re:Good in some ways... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125840)

It seems you don't understand what your parent post is about. In software development Implementation is the phase where a system is being deployed, it is not a phase where you develop the system.

Re:Good in some ways... (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125890)

I believe he was pointing out the shortsightedness of the company that designed said system. I don't know about anyone else's site, but between Firefox 2 and IE7, that's just under half my site's visitors right there (49.48% for the month of January as of 6am this morning).

Re:Good in some ways... (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125910)

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's a good idea to use IE as an application platform. Sure standard HTML forms with CSS are fine, but why would you rely on IE specific features? You know that in a few years when MS reworks IE that you are going to have to rework your application to work on it. Also, there's a lot of other issues like limiting your user base.

Re:Good in some ways... (0)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125960)

No one has to do anything. If you don't want IE7, its easy enough not to get it. It won't be forced onto anyone's machine that doesn't want it.

Re:Good in some ways... (1)

Anomolous Cowturd (190524) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125852)

"Ah yes, that feature is working in most browsers but we're still working around yet another bug in IE. Should work on IE also within 24 hours but we suggest using firefox in the meantime".

Re:Good in some ways... (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125868)

Same of your clients may have found that IE7 broke some of their other systems. For example, in the company I work for upgrading to IE7 has messed up MS Access connectivity to our database server. Granted, we could fix it, but at this point going back to IE6 is cheaper and requires much fewer man-hours.

Re:Good in some ways... (1, Flamebait)

honorable1nut (1223486) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125586)

Not in others.......... IE7 WILL NOT be going on any of my machines and if it does somehow get forced onto it, that's when I make the decision to go Linux full tilt. Have been dual booting for quite some time, and definitely feel comfortable enough to take that full time leap. Especially with the new Zenwalk 5.0 out, which I'm about to upgrade my third computer to, here in a minute. Other computers dual boot XP and Blag, which has an upgrade coming shortly also. Screw MS!!

Re:Good in some ways... (3, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125632)

If you are so head-in-the-sand where Windows security is concerned, perhaps a switch to Linux makes more sense for you and everyone (customers, clients, etc) in your immediate corporate environment.

I hope you don't have a similar attitude where Linux updates are concerned.

Re:Good in some ways... (5, Insightful)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125640)

Seriously, that's fine. You keep using IE 6 all you like. Just bear in mind that once your preferred broken browser is in the minority, us web developers will stop spending hours or days at a time going out of way to make our sites not look and work like complete and total ass in it.

The standards were created so that we didn't have to do that for every site that gets built, and by and large they apply--except for IE 6 and IE 7 (IE 7's so much better than IE 6, though; it's a breeze in comparison).

So yeah... you use IE 6. Then you'll discover how its rendering engine really copes with standards-compliant mark-up (hint: it's not pretty).

Re:Good in some ways... (2, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125832)

Er, what he said was "IE7 WILL NOT be going on any of my machines", not that he will use IE6. Updating MSIE replaces a bunch of system files as well, even though you don't use the sorry-excuse-for-a-browser at all. I have yet to see a case when version X+1 of a Microsoft product was less intrusive than version X, so that's not a totally unbased decision.

And, if you need to check if a page works in IE6, you have it right there. I just checked the IE history on my XP box -- there was not a single entry outside the local servers.

Re:Good in some ways... (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125928)

That's an entirely fair point: I'm pretty conditioned to "not installing IE 7" being equivalent to "I'm sticking with IE 6".

Personally speaking, though, if I can't uninstall IE 6, I'd consider installing IE 7 to be the next best thing (there'll always be some weird piece of software [hello, Windows Update] that insists on using IE's components whether it's your default browser or not), but I get that other people don't necessarily evaluate it the same way.

Re:Good in some ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125848)

Given the number of websites that are truely compliant I doubt this is as big of a deal as you make it out to be.

Re:Good in some ways... (2, Insightful)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125876)

> IE7 WILL NOT be going on any of my machines

Why on earth not? IE 7 is *SO MUCH* better than IE 6 it's ridiculous.

IE 6 is so bad that I can't understand why anybody would NOT want to upgrade as soon as IE 7 came out.

IE 6 is an seven year old web browser! It was released on August 27, 2001! a The web has moved on from then and so should you.

Re:Good in some ways... (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125608)

It's not so good -- Win2k and 98 will still be affected. And they're quite widespread -- Win2k in bigger corporations, Win98 in smaller businesses. Private computers tend to use XP, mostly of questionable legality. And of those who run XP, a vast majority seems to have updates disabled.

And even if everyone switched from IE6 to IE7 overnight, it's still a steaming pile of crap. Sure, it may be mere bullshit instead of military-grade toxic sludge, but either version makes me glad I don't have to do webmonkeying for a living.

Re:Good in some ways... (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125816)

Well, anyone running Win2K in a corporate setting will have turned off Windows Update and done pushes via corporate owned SMS solutions or some other corporate mechanism.

Anyone that runs XP with Update disabled I would hope would be running Firefox or Opera anyways. If you're smart enough to do one, surely you'd do the other too?

Re:Good in some ways... (3, Funny)

QBasicer (781745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125610)

The quicker Microsoft gets rid of non-standard software, the better the alternatives work. I know there's quite a bit of sites that don't work under firefox, but the user doesn't have a choice (like my parent's payroll site at the gov't). While IE7 is still a long ways away from ideal, we must say that it's better than IE6 (using the lesser of two evils theory), and I'm happy that they made this choice.

The firefox penetration has increased to the point where people don't know what it is, but they've been told it's better, so they use it.

Firefox! (-1, Troll)

patricioalba (1209754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125496)

IE sucks!!! use firefox!! and you won't have more problems http://www.spymac.com/details/?2331213 [spymac.com]

Re:Firefox! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125544)

Not always an option. Intranet apps are often browser particular. And with crazy things like Active X controls. Reprogramming them will cost too much.

Re:Firefox! (2, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125838)

Active X should be banned across the board in any company that even remotely considers security an issue. Intranet apps of the type you talk about need to be reprogrammed, because they probably won't be maintainable even in the short term.

Re:Firefox! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125558)

You must be new here.

Re:Firefox! (4, Insightful)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125616)

Ah, except that in its current incarnation Firefox is a bit sucky too. It's better than IE on many levels, especially security, but it's no longer the snappy and lightweight browser it once was. Memory usage is terrible, I find the UI sluggish, render times are far from ideal and the whole thing just feels... not what it was.

Hopefully 3.0 will fix that, but for the meantime I'll stick with Safari.

Yes, Firefox 3 does fix memory use (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125766)

Ah, except that in its current incarnation Firefox is a bit sucky too. [...] Memory usage is terrible [...] Hopefully 3.0 will fix that
Mozilla Firefox 3 Beta 2 is much less of a RAM hog than Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.x. Despite the "beta" name, I'd recommend that home users try it out.

Re:Firefox! (2, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125782)

I am not a web browser tester but... lately Firefox seems to be performing much better than it used to. It's still using a bit of memory, but I'm not getting any crashes, or aberrant behaviors. The worst I've noticed in months is Foxmarks sucking the life out of my cpu when synchronizing, but that can be monitored/avoided.

Literally the only time I've been annoyed with FF in a year is having to load IE6/7 to open a website that refused to recognize FF using IETab. And in that case, it's not FF that annoys me. I'd put the coder of that site on the DHS watchlist if I could!@@#$%@$#%

Re:Firefox! (1)

thanatos_x (1086171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125800)

My understanding is that firefox is generally considered to be a poor browser on a mac. I use it whenever I'm on a mac just so that I can use *some* of the keyboard shortcuts I'm used to, but I believe Safari is better in many regards.

As for 3.0, I'm using the beta and I'd have to say that render times do seem to be improved. Memory usage doesn't seem to be much better than previous versions; After leaving it running for about 14 hours (mostly overnight) I'm at 200 mb memory usage with two tabs open, one being this page. I know 2.x would get up to about 370 mb, however this would be after several days with 10+ tabs, and 200 mb seems about right for where it would be now. I don't care too much since my machine can handle that, but it matters to most people on slashdot.

Re:Firefox! (2, Informative)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125854)

FF 2.x is worse than the other iterations. You can turn off spell check, that helps some. There's some tuning parameters you can set to release memory/pages in cache and limit it to those in the browser currently. Other than that, the core problem with all browsers is that the JS engine in them sucks rocks, and the single threaded nature of that beast is what kills performance when you have lots of plugins or heavy JS pages.

FF 3.0 reportedly is much lighter in memory and faster in performance, but I've not tried it yet. I downloaded it this weekend, and will try to find some time to install it shortly.

Re:Firefox! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125926)

I'm running Minefield (Firefox 3 nightlies) on my work Windows laptop. It's very much a nightly test build - some days' builds crash like bastards - but in general it's smaller, faster and better than Firefox 2, not to mention having various little things that make it slicker and nicer to use. More of my favoured extensions are OK with it too. Firefox 3 is going to be a real winner.

(And at Wikimedia we're very much looking forward to the VIDEO element supplying Ogg Theora support right there in the browser. Then we can drag Nokia and Apple kicking and screaming to the party.)

Take that Firefox! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125500)

Now we'll see which browser has the greatest growth rate in January!

Re:Take that Firefox! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125806)

Um... February. The forced update is in February.

Re:Take that Firefox! (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125880)

Tumours can have high growth rates too, doesn't make them a good thing :p

translation (4, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125512)

Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'."

So this means they're feeing insecure about their market share?

Go firefox!

What!?! (1)

xander_zone_xxx (979068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125536)

N o o o o o o o!

Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (5, Insightful)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125540)

IE6 is a huge pile of ******. These days, whenever I write a website, the procedure is always like this:
1. Test website in Firefox initially.
2. Verify that it works in Opera.
3. Verify that it works in Konqueror.
4. Verify that it works in Safari.
5. See it totally break down in IE6.

IE6 has too many rendering bugs. It's the sole cause of hours and hours of lost productivity. It's about time that it dies. IE7, although not as standards compliant as... uhm... pretty much every other browser on earth, is orders of magnitude better than IE6. People should be forced to use IE7 (or Firefox, or Opera, or whatever; just not IE6).

IE7 is better? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125576)

The funny thing is that I've had quite a number of pages that worked fine in IE6, worked fine in firefox (and others), but totally bombed in IE7. In addition, there are a number of companies which in-house sites which are *not* IE7 compatible (yes, sometimes due to less than spectacular coding that IE6 compensated for... but it's still not a good idea for an upgrade to *break* compatibility across the board).

I wonder if it would be possible for MS to allow use of both legacy IE6 and IE7 somehow. At least if they're going to force an "upgrade" they can leave a fallback path for affected users.

Re:IE7 is better? (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125666)

I've had quite a number of pages that worked fine in IE6, worked fine in firefox (and others), but totally bombed in IE7.

In my experience, most on-screen IE7 oddities come from it doing strange things when calculating the width and height of elements; it doesn't seem to inherit in the same way other browsers do. Nine times out of ten when IE7 is being weird, I can fix it by setting the height/width of the parent element to the same as the child element. Annoying, but at least the final code remains standards-compliant and hack free (and if all sizes are in ems, it even still scales cleanly).

Don't get me started on IE7 printing though...autoscaling is a cute idea for sites without CSS, but a nightmare if you actually have print styles.

Re:IE7 is better? (4, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125692)

The funny thing is that I've had quite a number of pages that worked fine in IE6, worked fine in firefox (and others), but totally bombed in IE7.

These pages are probably detecting that you are using IE, and enabling ugly IE6 hacks (or more likely the sites are "designed for IE6", and only enable the standards compliance hacks when they detect Mozilla/Firefox and perhaps Safari and Opera. Nothing is perfect, but IE7 is miles better than IE6 when it comes to standards compliance and rendering CSS properly.

Re:IE7 is better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125872)

The funny thing is that I've had quite a number of pages that worked fine in IE6, worked fine in firefox (and others), but totally bombed in IE7.

That's probably because they were coded for IE6's ... quirks and won;t work in anything except IE6. That's not funny, it's sad.

but it's still not a good idea for an upgrade to *break* compatibility across the board

It wasn't good for IE6 to break standards. I could make a sentence including the words "coming" "chickens" "roost" and "home" about it.

Re:IE7 is better? (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125920)

> there are a number of companies which in-house sites which are *not* IE7 compatible

That's usually a problem with the site - not the browser.

> but it's still not a good idea for an upgrade to *break* compatibility

Yes it is. Why try and maintain compatibility with a BROKEN and BUGGY browser? Fix the browser, then let the web developers fix their sites.

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125582)

As a web developer, I've been watching IE 6's share of the browser market decline steadily. I can only agree with the above comment--the sooner it dies a death, the better.

Unfortunately, we still have clients who insist on using Windows 2000 (which can't run IE 7). Thankfully, they don't stick to IE 5.5 and complain that the sites "don't look right" in it--they at least update as far as they can.

I've lost track of the number of occasions that I've held back on replacing all of the IE6-specific styling and scripting with a bit of client-side browser sniffing that simply displays a "Upgrade your browser, dumbass, it's 6 years old--that's like, 49 dog-years. Preferably upgrade it to Firefox." message. Each site build makes it increasingly more tempting.

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (3, Funny)

Carrot007 (37198) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125646)

> Unfortunately, we still have clients who insist on using Windows 2000 (which can't run IE 7). Thankfully, they don't stick to IE 5.5 and complain that the sites "don't look right"

Ok, I'm not at work today but let's just pretend like I am...

1. Fires up IE

2. These sites just don't look right in this ;-)

3. Things are updated as far as they can be.

4. Oh yeah that's right NT 4.0.

Damn you microsoft.

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125686)

Looking at the stats for the sites we run, the proportion of NT 4.0 users who don't install an alternative browser is so small that the time would be better spent just disabling CSS and JavaScript for older versions of IE.

If you've been running IE on NT 4.0 all this time and haven't noticed sites are broken, you either don't view many sites, or have a really warped view of the web :)

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

jbrady (473107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125878)

Thank you, I nearly spit coffee on my laptop. LOL

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125850)

I've had one client complain last year that the site didn't work in their browser, which turned out to be Netscape 4.7. I foolishly used the <button> tag which is not supported by Netscape 4.7.

There will always be one weirdo still using antique software.

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22126008)

Wow, I'm a web developer, and I wasn't even aware there was a button element. Looks kind of useful, any information on which browsers support it?

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125628)

IE7, although not as standards compliant as... uhm... pretty much every other browser on earth, is orders of magnitude better than IE6.

That is most probably true, but I've been using Firefox for ages. I don't need nor want IE7. It will waste my bandwidth and it will waste my disk space. IE7 is not welcome on my system, because I chose to use better alternatives.

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125912)

Actually you should first test in Opera because it has better standards support than FF and is better at guessing what you wanted even when you screw up. Furthermore it doesn't support stupidity like moz-round-borders (or something along those lines), which I'm sure is as sane as IE's custom CSS ideas and implementations.

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125970)

It's about time that it dies. IE7, although not as standards compliant as... uhm... pretty much every other browser on earth, is orders of magnitude better than IE6.
When I look at Web Devout's Browser Support Summary [webdevout.net] , it looks like IE 7 is barely any better than IE 6 except at basic selectors. I know they fixed some high-visibility bugs such as lack of alpha transparency in PNGs and some CSS bugs that had well-known workarounds. It looks like Microsoft has been very successful at getting users to have very low expectations, then they are easily able to exceed them. ;-)

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

ccharles (799761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22126006)

> just not IE6

Obviously you've never tried IE4 for the Mac :-).

Re:Yes, finally! Get rid of IE6 (1)

bloodstains (676306) | more than 6 years ago | (#22126010)

I have no problems with the IE7 rendering engine. It's everything else about it that pisses me off.

Web developers (3, Insightful)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125560)

What's with web developers that have to test html code on IE6? It's really a shame for MS that you can't have IE6 and IE7 installed side by side (I know it IS somehow possible, but that's way too complicated and not the point here). To bad that you always need a second (virtual) machine, just to test html code. And now they are forcing the upgrade...Stupid.

Re:Web developers (1)

happytechie (661712) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125584)

Lot's of large organizations are still mandating IE6 ONLY on the internal PCs. We are not scheduled to be rolling out IE7 untill 3rd qtr this year. The intranet sites that have alot of functionality and do not work in IE7 are the biggest cause for concern. Just because you'd rather use does not mean that you either can or are authorised to do so.

Welcome to the MS tax (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125954)

You've been served.

I'm aware of several organizations that foolishly listened to MS on how coding to their browser using their tools would save them money. Apparently not. The initial roll-out of a POC was seemingly fast, but then came real requirements, and the cost of dev quickly came on par to writing the app to standards in the first place. Then came the quirks, and the company, now x$'s into the program, mandated a homogeneous browser installation on all equipment so the broken app could work. Now MS comes along and forces you to update and you'll have to rewrite those apps yet again.

Will they learn? Sadly, probably not.

Re:Web developers (3, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125664)

We have to test with IE6 as our clients demand it. Of the couple of sites that I've done since starting here, all of the corporate big wigs that sign the payment checks use IE6. So what is pretty simple to do with IE7 or any other browser we have to spend 3x the time checking things out with IE6. Then go back to more modern browsers and make sure none of the hacks we put in affected those browsers.

And it's actually very easy to install multiple versions of IE. See here [tredosoft.com] . It's a nice, tidy installer.

Re:Web developers (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125812)

Have you made clear the monetary incentive to move to a better browser? After all, you do charge them more because you spend more man-hours complying with their ridiculous requests, right?

Re:Web developers (1)

duggi (1114563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125940)

The point is that most organizations don't care, they just want IE6. I am a java developer, but due to company constraints, I have to design my jsp's too. As if struts2.0 is not a bitch enough, I have to develop it for IE6. Work-arounds for IE6 are much more time consuming, but try to argue with someone who doesn't know the difference between database and bad-data. Most companies just want their work done, with the least bit of extra hassle, and it is almost always the developers who have to face suicide or testing it on IE.(My manager is pretty happy about this though, says we can ask for more time to deliver.)

Re:Web developers (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125708)

You can do it with MultipleIEs, an unofficial hack to install multiple versions of IE on a machine.

It works pretty well nowadays--it was a bit shaky when it was first released, though.

We use it for testing internally, though I do have VMs lying around for "just to be sure" testing.

Re:Web developers (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125722)

(I know it IS somehow possible, but that's way too complicated and not the point here).
It's actually quite easy.
  • Go here [evolt.org] .
  • Choose the browser you want and download.
  • Unzip and click executable
I know that wasn't your point but it is very possible ... just not through Microsoft (which is where the real shame is).

Tsk Tsk (0, Flamebait)

strtok_r (1223902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125562)

I can't believe Microsoft is trying to force users into downloading a new version of IE. My company has a few dozen internal applications which fail when using them on IE7. Microsoft isn't giving people enough time to catch up with the latest version. Cutting users off from security updates to force a new browser install is downright shameful.

Perhaps if they made IE standards-compliant in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. Developers now have to take the time to undo all the work they did in making sites render properly in IE6. I know I'll be working overtime managing web designers for the next few weeks, unless IT can find a way to prevent this update from going through.

This type of coercive behavior reminds me of our current Republican administration. I can't wait until Ron Paul [aspiesforronpaul.com] gets elected, personally. At least then we won't have to deal with M$ and the government breathing down our necks.

Re:Tsk Tsk (1)

iBod (534920) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125598)

>>My company has a few dozen internal applications which fail when using them on IE7.

They must be pretty damn bad applications in the first place if moving from IE6 to IE7 'breaks' them!

How does IE7 break them?

Re:Tsk Tsk (2, Informative)

strtok_r (1223902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125624)

They were coded to comply with IE6's rendering model, which isn't standards-compliant. There are many, many in-house applications like these, since developers only have to test for the browser version mandated by IT.

Re:Tsk Tsk (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125694)

IE7 in quirks mode mostly replicates the IE6 way of rendering. I think that you're trying to blame IE for your bad software. There are many, many Microsoft ASP and ASP.NET developers who are just total dumb-asses and couldn't write a clean line of HTML if their life depended on it. I don't mind, it makes me look good and it also means I can earn tons of money making things work :)

Re:Tsk Tsk (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125636)

I think its more like IE7 can expose where the app was already broken.

Re:Tsk Tsk (1)

strtok_r (1223902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125688)

Well, the apps worked as needed up to this point. The requirements documents for each list IE6 as the target browser. Now that IE7 is the standard, they all have to be updated.

Re:Tsk Tsk (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125658)

They must be pretty damn bad applications in the first place if moving from IE6 to IE7 'breaks' them!

1. Get spec: Must work on IE6
2. Design methodology: Hack it around until it looks right
3. Test methodology: Click around in IE6

If you have paid no heed to standards or alternative browsers, it's trivially simple to make a site that breaks on IE7.

Re:Tsk Tsk (2, Funny)

El Yanqui (1111145) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125614)

I can't wait until Ron Paul gets elected, personally. At least then we won't have to deal with M$ and the government breathing down our necks.

You seem to have a pretty realistic view. Microsoft will release a standards compliant browser around the time that Ron Paul is actually elected president. You just forgot the cold fusion powered flying cars.

Re:Tsk Tsk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125634)

You forgot to add 'driven by genetically engineered anthrpomorphic dolphins' after 'flying cars'. Paul is as likely to get elected as my plumber.

Re:Tsk Tsk (3, Insightful)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125672)

Microsoft isn't giving people enough time to catch up with the latest version.
IE7 was released 18th October 2006. RC1 was 24th August, and the first pre-build was January 31st. You've had almost two years to catch up with the latest version, it's not like they've suddenly sprung the changes!

Re:Tsk Tsk (3, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125740)

Microsoft isn't giving people enough time to catch up with the latest version.

How long do you need? IE7 was released in August 2005 so Web developers could start testing and fixing their apps well ahead of the October 2006 release.

Good Thing... (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125578)

...For web standards at least.

Quite frankly only those who have built IE-only sites for IE6 should really suffer. I think it's all worth it if we can finally have a critical mass of users supporting standards even a little better. As a former web developer I'm biased though. :)

iptables (5, Funny)

Nako (228625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125600)

iptables -A INPUT -s update.microsoft.com -j DROP
at least for a month

Re:iptables (1)

mariuszbi (1113049) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125764)

Iptables for Windows !? Really? I think we folks on Linux are pretty safe against a M$ forced update. Even on a Linux router, AFAIK, the rule should not target the INPUT chain, but the PREROUTING one.

Silverlight (5, Interesting)

sjaguar (763407) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125622)

Will this upgrade also include a (forced) installation of Silverlight?

Re:Silverlight (4, Informative)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125786)

Doubtful, Silverlight is already a recommended updated so I doubt they'd bundle it. It's got some nice tricks up its sleeve, especially compared to Flash when it comes to tying in with AJAX.

Good for them (3, Informative)

nekokoneko (904809) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125644)

I think this is great news. Quote: (...) and it has posted guidelines on how to ward off the automatic update if admins want to keep the older IE6 browser on their companies' machines. So you can keep IE6 if you want to, but all the non-tech savvy users get a safer, more standards compliant browser.

IE7 breaks corporate intranet apps and Moodle (0, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125682)

Where I work, the ASP.Net apps work only with IE6 with ActiveX enabled. Trying to use the apps with IE7 is a huge mess and causes support requests.

Also, there is a college in our campus where about 900 students use Moodle very regularly on XP. Moodle has been working fine on IE6 and lately Firefox; but for some reason the IE6 experience seems to be the best. Now if there is an auto-update to IE7, all hell will break loose.

If IE6 is a security hazard; and MS is not keen to resolve them; why not open the source; so interested customers can do so themselves?

Re:IE7 breaks corporate intranet apps and Moodle (4, Informative)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125964)

> ASP.Net apps work only with IE6 with ActiveX enabled.

Sorry but this is rubbish. ASP.NET is a *server-side* engine. It's rubbish to say that ASP.NET sites only work with IE6.
And ASP.NET does NOT require any ActiveX support in the browser. Properly written ASP.NET sites work properly in ALL browsers - even ones which don't have javascript support.

I think your website is broken for other reasons - not because of ASP.NET or it's supposed incompatibly with IE7.

IE7 tabbed browsing sucks (4, Funny)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125706)

This is somewhat off topic, but whatever.

Has anyone else noticed how terrible tabbed browsing is in IE7?

Let's just say, hypothetically, I'm at my favorite porn site, looking at thumbnails. The plan is to ctrl-click the thumbnails and open them in tabs.

Once you get enough tabs open, there comes a point where IE7 bogs down tremendously when asked to dispaly jpgs, each in her own tab. Symptoms include clicks on the first tab are no longer acknowledged, and tremendous slowness moving between tabs.

After that, there comes a point where your ctrl-click won't even spawn a new tab.

Tabbed browsing is a great "innovation" in the IE product line, but in terms of performance and not being a resource hog, IE7 is easily outpaced by Mozilla and many others.

Re:IE7 tabbed browsing sucks (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22126012)

What is this "porn" of which you speak?

How long will it take ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125712)

... on dialup access?

Force-feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125716)

While I coud use the money... (3, Interesting)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125734)

...I wish there was another way of making it.

OK, note to self: week of Feb 12, expect many calls from windows-using clients...

Suggestion for Microsoft (2, Funny)

elronxenu (117773) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125744)

Ah, well if it's a security thing, then Microsoft should add this to the critical update list:

Wubi [softpedia.com] , which "is an unofficial Ubuntu installer for Windows users that will bring you into the Linux world with a single click."

Default Browser (1, Funny)

blavallee (729704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125748)

Microsoft just wants to remind everyone who uses FireFox that IE is not their default browser.

This is about browser market share (1)

gabrieltss (64078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125756)

IE6 has fallen behind Firefox in browser share and IE7 is behind as well - at least by W3 stats [w3schools.com] .

IF M$ forces everyone to IE7 it will combine the two IE stats and make it the #1 browser by share again. But if you look at the trend Firefox is growing at a steady pace every year. By doing the force upgrade more IE users may say "enough" and take another look at downloading and installing Firefox. The way to tell that would be if the IE share drops drastically and the Firefox share jumps drastically. I'm kind of hoping this happens. If might mean a huge defiance against M$'s monopolistiic ways.

Re:This is about browser market share (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125842)

Uh, the w3schools stats are only for visitors to w3schools.com, which given their high ranking in SERPs for HTML element and attribute names, CSS properties and JavaScript objects, are primarily web developers quickly looking something up via Google instead of reaching for a nearby book.

I'd be concerned if w3schools' stats showed Firefox at the same kind of penetration level it is on consumer sites.

Re:This is about browser market share (2, Insightful)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125974)

Oookay, kiddo. Now let's start the thinking, shall we?

1. The stats you quote are taken from w3schools.com
2. w3schools.com is a website containing some tutorials for web-related languages and technologies.
3. People interested in the topics covered by w3schools are a small subset of all web surfers.
4. People reading or using w3schools are another subset of this subset of surfers; according to their stats mostly Firefox users

Conclusion: Looking at those stats as an indicator of browser usage on the www and in various intranets is about as smart as using stats gathered on /. as representative indicators of linux' market penetration or calculating apple's market share from a survey in some Mac Owners Lounge.

Talk about innacurate (5, Insightful)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125822)

IT still needs to approve the update via WSUS for IE 7 to get deployed. If its not an approved update you don't get it.

Of course this is Slashdot, you are allowed to spout all the innacurate crap you want, as long as its crap slung at Microsoft.

If people had bothered to read they would have noticed this in the "warning" from Microsoft: you have configured WSUS to "auto-approve" Update Rollup packages (this is not the default configuration), Windows Internet Explorer 7 will be automatically approved for installation after February 12, 2008 and consequently, you may want to take the actions below to manage how and when this update is installed

Thanks again Slashdot for proving the Linux camp really are full of a bunch of anti-Microsoft loonies who read only what they want to read.

Re:Talk about innacurate (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125988)

The amusing thing is that then they will accuse MS of spreading fud when saying things half as innacurate as this :) And I mean, MS does spread lots of fud...but Slashdot has em beat any day of the week, easy =P

it breaks my system and makes WTS crawl!! (1)

QX-Mat (460729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125826)

Argh,

On my home PC IE7, not only makes it crawl (even if it is a 2Gb dual core machine), but also breaks the Creative device explorer. Not to mention the that the poorly crafted render and input loop minces a WTS server with only a few simultaneous IE users - last month we reverted back to IE6 and saw a 100% performance increase!!

Matt

Security of what (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125864)

Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'."

Yeah, the security of IE6's place as the monopoly browser is in jeopardy, so Microsoft has to force its customers to install a Microsoft browser that has a chance of competiing with FireFox.

IE7 ? (2, Funny)

Spc01 (1188301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125866)

I don't like what they have done with IE7.. especially removed support for Active Desktop that was very good and being a standard for 12 years..

The only thing I'm holding out for (1)

Domstersch (737775) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125898)

Screw HTML and CSS standards compliance; the only thing I'm holding out for is sweet, sweet 24-bit PNG support. No more stupid matte colours, and no spending ages getting fiddly non-square image shapes to layer onto complex backgrounds nicely. Plus: 'glass' background effects. Hoo-fucking-rah.

The sooner Microsoft push this update on everyone, the better. After all, it's not like I use IE - why should I care whether people want the update or not?

Accurate Statistics? (2, Insightful)

dbc001 (541033) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125900)

Does anyone have accurate statistics on IE version usage right now? Unfortunately my own stats really only break down between browser vendors and it's difficult to get per-version stats...

It's probably wise to start planning to stop supporting IE6 when it's usage drops below a certain percentage - the sooner we get rid of IE6 the better. Of course, a lot of users are stuck with it - but when things start breaking, they'll get the hint to either upgrade (if that's even possible) or just switch to a better browser.

Some stats here [w3schools.com] and a little blurb here [wikipedia.org]

Security Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22125938)

Perhaps if they were so concerned about security, their next update would be to roll out a mandatory Linux core to upgrade their NT core, due to security concerns.

Re:Security Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22126004)

And when users found that GIMP and OpenOffice doesn't hang with their Windows counterparts who would do the rollback?

Computing is about a hell of a lot more than an OS.

So what? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125942)

Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'.
Are you seriously making a case for keeping that POS? I mean really, who cares if they did it for some other reason as long as they're wiping IE6 of the planet I am happy.

Our intranet site uses IE6 activeX... (3, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22125996)

The place I work uses activeX components to log into the citrix-based intranet client. They have big signs for the last couple years stating that they will not support Firefox. Over the last year they also had to add a sign that they will not cover IE7. Should be interesting to see what they do now. Maybe I'll drop them an email and ask. :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?