Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Internet Explorer The Internet Operating Systems Software Windows IT

Microsoft Offers IE7 to All, Pirates Included 179

sjdurfey writes "Microsoft recently decided to open up IE7 to all users of Windows, not just the ones with legitimate copies of Windows. They claim it is in the 'end-users best interest'. As a result, Microsoft has decided to mark IE7 as a 'High-priority' update. This is essentially a forced update. Granted, its only a forced update if you are running Windows and have windows update set to automatically install all updates, but nevertheless, it's unnecessary. You can however uninstall IE7 from the Add/Remove Programs menu after its been installed. 'A blocking tool kit is still available for companies and organizations that don't use Windows Server Update Services and want to permanently prevent IE7 from automatically installing on PCs equipped with IE6.'" Update: 10/06 21:19 GMT by Z :Sorry if this seems a bit familiar.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Offers IE7 to All, Pirates Included

Comments Filter:
  • Competition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hack slash ( 1064002 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:04PM (#20882371)
    I'm inclined to say they're removing the WGA restriction because the popularity of FireFox is now rivalling IE.
  • counterpoint (Score:5, Insightful)

    by packetmon ( 977047 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:08PM (#20882405) Homepage
    I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with competition... I've got a feeling Windows XP/Vista/etc are so apt to get pwnd by the sheer amount of IE6 and under exploits, MS would rather focus resources moving forward than placing those resources on EOL programs. I know I would... Why spend even $1.00 on yesterdays programs when you really don't care about them, why not make that dollar more useful and productive focusing on now and tomorrow.
  • by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:08PM (#20882413) Homepage
    As a web developer, there's no browser I hate more than IE 6 and 5. IE 7, although not the most standard compliant browser out there, is a step closer to being there. A lot of what works on Firefox works on IE 7. IE 6/5 have to treated in a class of their own. I'm glad IE 6 will soon be gone, regardless of what is going to replace it. More importantly, I've been considering the idea of only support Firefox, Opera, and IE 7 for my new project and this move makes my choice easier.
  • Why all the hate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Justus ( 18814 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:10PM (#20882435)
    Why is there a consistent negative vibe around IE7, calling it a "forced update" and so on?

    Speaking as a web developer, IE7 makes my life a hell of a lot easier. It's not perfect (it's not even great), but it's definitely better than IE6. If all the people still using IE magically became IE7 users, at least I wouldn't have to worry about some of the retarded things like the lack of alpha PNG support. I can understand that you might not want to upgrade if you're a business with a variety of web apps that rely on IE6--my heart goes out to you--but I would really like to see it pushed on the home user. Another legitimate complaint, of course, is that the GUI for IE7 is not what I would call intuitive; I do wish Microsoft had provided a version with IE6's GUI but IE7's rendering engine.

    We should be trying to make the web incrementally better whenever possible, instead of making snide remarks because it's not a 100% solution.
  • by webmaster404 ( 1148909 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:17PM (#20882483)
    Because from an end user's prospective, IE7 fails. Its slower, has a totally different GUI, and uses up more memory then IE6. On people's computers who have upgraded from a Windows 98/2000 computer to XP it can make their computer just about unusable because it wasn't meant for use by people who have 256 MB of RAM on a 1 Gzh machine, and yes there is a lot of them out there and IE6 is about the only web browser that will run decent on there except possibly Opera (well Konqueror might work but these people have Windows) on XP. FF won't because it uses up around 50 MB of memory even when compiled from scratch after an hour or two of browsing.
  • Re:Competition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zarel ( 900479 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:29PM (#20882593)

    I'm inclined to say they're removing the WGA restriction because the popularity of FireFox is now rivalling IE.
    I, on the other hand, am inclined to say they're removing the WGA restriction because the popularity of IE6 is now rivalling IE7.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:43PM (#20882715)
    Almost all patches are easy to uninstall

    The fucking SUMMARY mentions how to uninstall IE7

    Idiot
  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @05:55PM (#20882831) Homepage
    At every turn you see Microsoft backing down on different things. They backed down (a little, but not enough) on their XP at year's end thing. Now they're backing down on the WGA thing. (That's still confusing to me though... If I ever ran into a WGA problem, I'd install a better release of XP that overcomes that problem.)

    Gone are the days when people are excited by the next thing from Microsoft. (I remember lines outside of CompUSA when Win98 was released!) Gone are the days when people just blindly 'upgrade' to whatever is the latest thing from Microsoft. People have learned to mistrust them. Microsoft granting 'concessions' isn't really enough! They've lost TRUST. That can't really be restored with concessions and free stuff. Regardless of whether people actually accept the concessions or not is no indication that trust could be earned back or restored.
  • forced updates (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @06:12PM (#20882971) Homepage Journal
    While its nice they are going to drop the WGA requirment, *forced* updates are just wrong.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06, 2007 @06:14PM (#20882983)

    Oh I don't mean the linux or the mac or the firefox or the opera people, these people I don't care about. NOT because they don't matter, but because if a website doesn't work for their browser version they know that they must upgrade.

    But the windows people, that is a different bunch of idiots, and I for one am sick to death of having to design each and every site to cope with the most obsolete version of IE. IE is already bad enough to code for, but the different version (Extreme cases 4) are a nightmare, not only do they not support any kind of standard, among the versions there is no standard. That is not even beginning to talk of the horror that is the mobile versions of IE.

    I finally managed to have to only support from 5 onward and just accept that those with IE's older then that can just go and stuff themselves, IF (and I doubt this will happen) the cattle is FORCED to go to IE7 it will still mean I got to code to a crap browser but at least only one version of it.

    Offcourse that won't happen, you still got people not on XP and people running CE and got knows what else kinda MS crap that has been making website design a living nightmare since MS found out about the web.

    It is still amazing to me that in 2007 we still can't do implement those "cool things" from the mozilla demo page like the moving shadow because IE users can't be bothered to upgrade. This is 2007, and if you want to change the bankground color of a page, you better include a new set of images for all those "transparant" effects like the slashdot logo has (png support).

    I would go further then just a forced upgrade, use IE7 or a real browser of you just don't get on the net anymore. Or maybe I should just work on sites where the audience is educated enough to upgrade their software. I am just sick to death of having to say "no, we can't do that cool thing because X% of our customers browsers don't support it and NO I cannot do a "this page best viewed with X link" because it ain't the 90's anymore.

  • by Myria ( 562655 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @07:46PM (#20883583)
    IE7 64 is the browser I use for high security. Its market share is very small, even among Win64 users. It presumably has the same undiscovered security bugs as IE7, but x86-32 shellcode just crashes on x86-64. They'd have to specifically design support for x86-64, and that market share is far lower than Firefox.

    There was at least one exploit against IE that didn't involve shellcode - you could ask a particular ActiveX control to download and run a program. Obviously IE 64 wouldn't be immune to that...
  • by Miamicanes ( 730264 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:42PM (#20883951)
    Excellent point. Think about how new versions of Windows USED to become universally-deployed within a matter of days following their release:

    * People bought a copy, and upgraded every computer they owned. And probably their parents' computer, too, if they were feeling particularly masochistic. Even the old, lame, and barely-running PCs & laptops that nobody would EVER spend $200 or more buying a separate copy of Windows for.

    * People upgraded their work computers. This made admins unhappy, but it also forced them to deploy new versions of Windows a lot faster than they'd have otherwise liked, because they knew that the longer they waited, the more guerrilla upgrades they'd have to deal with. Most people who'll install a "free" copy of Windows to their work PC won't spend $200+ of their own money to buy a new copy of Windows for it.

    In short, by locking down Windows to a single installation, Microsoft has gained very, very few actual new retail sales compared to what they would have had... but they've lost a HUGE amount of mindshare and free PR. Is there anyone who SERIOUSLY believes that Vista's issues with apps & drivers would have dragged on as long as they have if Vista had become ubiquitous overnight the way Windows95 did? By limiting Vista installations, Microsoft has effectively ensured that Vista represents a minority of Windows users. A minority whose wails have thus far been largely ignored by the next group... ... the Technorati Elite. You know, the people who got bitten by Windows Genuine Advantage for installing a virgin corporate copy of XP Pro on computers that probably DID have a Genuine Certificate of Authenticity, but only came with a dysfunctional "System Restore" disc and tons of crapware from the laptop/pc vendor's Strategic Partners of the Week. The guys/girls with at least 3 computers of their own (usually a high-powered desktop, a laptop, and the limping, scavenged remains of their desktop's previous incarnation -- most of whose components are STILL higher-end than currently-available "mainstream" PCs... and probably one or two more computers that mostly sit unused, but occasionally get fired up for some experimental purpose. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY -- not even someone for whom the cost is almost irrelevant -- is going to go out and blow the retail cost of Vista on computers #3 and beyond. And for these users, installing anything less than "Ultimate" (or at least "Professional") is unthinkable, anyway.

    THESE are the REALLY dangerous users, because they're the "influencers" who others turn to for advice. And these are the same users who are currently pissed as hell at Microsoft for annoying them with WGA, and want nothing to do with Vista due to its DRM (real or imagined). God forbid, they might even be playing with Ubuntu on one or more machines. So... when Joe Sixpack asks his coworker Joel Aleet what he thinks about Vista, Joel is going to roast Microsoft and Vista, regardless of whether he's ever actually touched Vista. And Joe is going to walk away convinced that Vista is the Spawn of Satan, and when he orders his new PC from Dell, he'll ask to get it with XP. Stir, rinse, and repeat a few hundred thousand times, and you have Vista's current plight.

    IMHO, Microsoft had the product breakdown mostly right with Windows XP -- a "Home" edition that's cheap, but lacks networking & management features businesses want, and a "Pro" version with everything else for about 50% more. If they really, REALLY had to, they could add a third level -- "Enterprise" -- that cost a lot more, but with a twist: it would come on the same CD/DVD as "Professional", and simply ask you at installation time which version you had. In other words, enforced purely by legal license rather than by technical means (like a different CD key). Why? Because it's a wonderfully-elegant way of ensuring that TRUE "Enterprise" users pay the higher cost, without burdening or pissing off everyone else. IMHO, the defining trait of an "Enterprise" (vs simply a "business") i
  • by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @11:02PM (#20884651)
    I've been considering the idea of only support Firefox, Opera, and IE 7 for my new project and this move makes my choice easier.
    Please support all gecko based browsers. I run Seamonkey and it is very irritating when sites only support Firefox.
    There is no reason that a gecko based browser has to masquerade as Firefox
  • by DragonTHC ( 208439 ) <Dragon AT gamerslastwill DOT com> on Saturday October 06, 2007 @11:41PM (#20884823) Homepage Journal
    bullshit.

    It's in Microsoft's best interest that they regain market share.
  • Re:IE7 on Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mjjw ( 560868 ) on Sunday October 07, 2007 @06:42AM (#20886681)
    I'll probably get modded down for saying this but ... Those figures are kind of redundant. The majority of people browsing the web use IE. Therefore the majority of webmasters make websites that look as intended in IE.

    I used to work for a company where the attitude towards Firefow web browsers was "They are a small percentage of the browser market. If your page works in Firefox then that's great but if it doesn't we don't really care enough to fix it."

    In other words it doesn't matter how much of the official standards IE supports because IE is a standard in its own right.

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...