No IE7 For 2k, Now In Extended Service 469
Yankovic writes "Looks like MS will not support IE7 on Windows 2000. 'It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000... [S]ome of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.' While security fixes will still be available until 2010, I guess that means the only browsers with tabs for W2k will be Opera and Firefox." All the details about an MS product's fall into senility available at the lifecycle page.
When (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
So does that mean I won't be able to run it on XP with SP1 either? I mean obviously I use Firefox, but if I'm going to be forced to have Microsoft's shitty browser installed, I'd rather it be the latest, greatest and most secure. And I still don't trust SP2 and all the crap it dumps on your box.
Just a thought.
--
NoVA Underground: Northern Virginia message boards and chat, with Fairfax County public ticket/arrest search [novaunderground.com]
Re:What is this obsession with tabs? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't about tabs. A new version of Internet Explorer hasn't came out since 2001, which is a very long time in computing years. Unless Windows 2000 users use an alternative browser, they would be stuck with Internet Explorer 6 as the latest IE browser.
This isn't a good idea on Microsoft's part, because there are still many users using Windows 2000 (in fact, Windows 2000 is still supported; and I believe that Windows 2000 is the best version of Windows that was ever released), and if Microsoft abandons all of its Windows 2000 users in the broswer market, where are all of these people going to move to? They're not going to spend $$$ upgrading to XP over a broswer; they would more than likely switch to Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape/KMeleon/Opera/etc.
During the original broswer war, IE was on almost every major platform. It was available on Windows as far back as Windows 3.1, Mac OS 7.5 and higher, and even Solaris; the only sizable community that didn't get IE was the Linux/BSD group (that community used Netscape 4.x until Mozilla or Konqueror became usable; I don't know which came first since I was a Windows user back then). It seemed to me that Microsoft wanted to control the broswer market, so instead of only offering IE to its latest Windows offerings, it offered it to a wide array of operating system (even though Netscape had a wider array; it included Linux).
Now in the second Broswer Wars, Microsoft is completely ignoring its older Windows versions, the Macintosh, and *nix. Yet Firefox is available on a wide array of platforms. For example, even though Mozilla doesn't have official support for Firefox on *BSD, using *BSD ports (which applies the appropriate patches to the source), it compiles nicely and runs well. If I were Microsoft, I would be a little scared. Just about every platform can use Firefox, and if it isn't available on that platform (such as Mac OS Classic), somebody can port it. If Linux or Mac OS X takes off, then Microsoft would lose its stranglehold in the browser market. If Microsoft wants to win this broswer war, it should port IE 7 to just about every operating system imaginable. Old Windows versions, Mac OS X, Linux, *BSD, Solaris; you name it, Microsoft should port it to that platform. If Microsoft really wants 95% marketshare, it should stop ignoring old Windows versions and other operating systems and start porting.
It is about forcing people to buy XP (Score:5, Interesting)
During the American antitrust case against MS several experts testified that IE could be separated from the OS in a matter of weeks.
Refusing to make a version of IE7 a part of win 2000 is as much a business decision as a technical one.
They want businesses who are not buying XP to get off win 2000 and buy XP.
I am not bashing MS, but it seems from what I have seen that XP is incredibly vulnerable to attack. In addition to managers not wanting to fork out the money for XP, their network people, many of whom are microsoft weanies, do not want to put their networks in harms way by using XP for their servers.
At some point the managers and network will capitulate. MS will stop supporting 2000 completely.
The question is how long the managers and network people will drag their feet, how much resentment towards MS this will generate, and what the effect of that resentment will be.
Integrated with OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It is about forcing people to buy XP (Score:5, Interesting)
Your phrase "Granted, there have been issues" is what my original post is about.
I make friends with the network staff at every job I go to. I have heard a lot of noise from them about XP and how they are going to hold onto 2000 as long as they can. In my private life I have had a number of friends( and even more anecdotal accounts from friends of friends ) of XP getting sacked by all manor of opportunistic programs in a very short span of time after being put into operation.
You could blame it on the internet being a more insecure place then it used to be, but if that was true all of the 2000 boxes I use and all of the 2000 boxes my friends in networking take care of should be getting sacked just as bad as the XP boxes.
It isn't happening.
Re:It is about forcing people to buy XP (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm one of those admins that didn't upgrade to XP and won't until forced to do so.
From personal experience I have to patch XP systems weekly at the very least - depends on how often MS releases a "Critical Update". Being one divisional network leg of a larger corporation I have to load a default XP system on a separate lan segment and upgrade it there before letting it out on the rest of the network - why? - because if I don't then some visiting infected machine will own it within seconds.
The Win2k systems just keep on running without intervention.
Above and beyond all that I'd rather be herding pengiuns and tigers.
Lingering Exploits (Score:3, Interesting)
But that is their plan, force people to 'upgrade', even when what you have does the job you need. Gotta milk the consumer for every dime.
anti-trust violations (Score:4, Interesting)
Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9462.htm [usdoj.gov]
"V.Termination
1. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by the Court."
Re:Terrible Sunday News (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been posting and I haven't had to type in anything from an image tilted 5 degrees with a bunch of static (or whatever
I'm surprised they made IE6 available for Win2K (Score:3, Interesting)
Software and Driver Installation? (Score:3, Interesting)
When installing a new HP printer I got (HP 5700 series), I ran into some problems when I tried to install the drivers/software for the thing in Win98. HP required that I have IE6 to install the thing (bullshit, I know). Well, I installed IE6 and it went fine, but what if I didn't have access to IE6 in 98?
Will I be prevented from installing software and drivers for products in the future because MS is deciding to buttf*ck me for not going to their "latest and greatest" system?
Re:Win2k vs Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm one of them. You run Win2K. Windows XP runs you, by remote control from Redmond. There are still corporate sites installing new Win2K systems. It's more reliable than Windows XP, because Microsoft keeps putting new stuff into Windows XP and breaking it. The XP machines require significantly more attention than the Win2K machines.
And all our real work is on QNX, anyway.