IE7 To Ship With Windows Patches Tomorrow [Not]

An anonymous reader writes, "Microsoft plans to push out Internet Explorer 7 as a 'high priority update' when it ships security patches tomorrow, according to Washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog. That means anyone who has Windows configured to download and install patches automagically from Redmond will be greeted with IE7 next time they boot up their machines. In related news, it appears IE's worldwide market share actually increased a couple of points since July, despite a number of high profile zero-day attacks this year." The article notes that the IE7 "containment wall" protected mode will not be available on XP, but only to those who purchase Vista.

Update: 10/09 21:26 GMT by kd : An anonymous reader points to this Microsoft blog posting where it is revealed that the article linked above is incorrect. IE7 will not be pushed tomorrow.

Thank God

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

I've been looking forward to that whole tabbed-browsing thing they invented

Good or bad news for the web developers?

[YA_Python_dev (885173)]

So this is a good or bad news for the web developers (not end users) that want to create useable standards-compliant websites?

Re:Good or bad news for the web developers?

[drinkypoo (153816)]

It's a "bad news" if you want to test in IE6 *and* have a fully patched OS.

Sure, unless perhaps you know what you are doing [google.com]. Then you can have multiple IEs installed. I have IE5.5, IE6, and IE7 installed on my laptop alongside FF 1.5.whatever so I can do testing. To my right is a dual G5, running safari and ff/mac. IE/mac and Opera aren't even on the radar, the number of visitors using them is statistically insignificant for us. Really that's true of Safari as well but I like to support default web browsers.

Re:

[pe1chl (90186)]

This does not really work. You can install multiple versions but they will all send the same browser version to the website and the "conditional comment" evaluation is also done using one version.
That will break the methods you can use to have different versions of the browser looking at the same content in a way compatible to each of them.

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

This does not really work. You can install multiple versions but they will all send the same browser version to the website and the "conditional comment" evaluation is also done using one version.

Ah, that is good information, which I did not have before. Although there are ways to change the useragent, the conditional comment thing is pretty serious.

Guess it's time to make myself more Windows 98 VMs.

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

Sure, unless perhaps you know what you are doing. Then you can have multiple IEs installed. I have IE5.5, IE6, and IE7 installed on my laptop alongside FF 1.5.whatever so I can do testing. To my right is a dual G5, running safari and ff/mac. IE/mac and Opera aren't even on the radar, the number of visitors using them is statistically insignificant for us. Really that's true of Safari as well but I like to support default web browsers.

Well, I missed one thing in your list and that's W3C compliance checks. Ra

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

It's a pain? It's neither a pain nor even slightly difficult. you unpack the cabfiles into a directory and create a file called iexplore.exe.local in the directory. (You can delete some files, but it's not actually necessary to do so.) If that's hard for you, then I wonder how you manage with CSS? I personally use dreamweaver and it even allows me to specify multiple browsers that can be selected from the preview menu, so I don't even have to go hunting for icons. How much easier can it get?

Re:

[Tim C (15259)]

Just as releasing IE6 was bad if you wanted to test in IE5?

It'll be a pain for small-time web shops for a little while, but if IE7 really is going to be pushed out as a high priority, most people will end up getting it relatively quickly.

More serious shops should already have a range of different OS and browser combinations setup for testing; this will only add a couple more. Certainly it's no worse than testing under (eg) a couple of combinations of OS X and Safari, or various distros and various versions

every time I try firefox, I go back.

[krell (896769)]

I keep going back to the "Bad" one after using Firefox. Reasons including pages that don't display right in Firefox and that nasty "do you want to remember this password?" or whatever pop-up that LACKS a basic "no, and never ever ask me again for ANY site!!!!" option right on the popup. Better yet, it shouldn't ask this in the first place.

Re:

[APLowman (968256)]

I'm going to assume you never looked under Tools->Options->Privacy->Passwords because there is this handy checkbox that turns off saving passwords. The reason it is on by default is because many users would think Firefox didn't have that feature, since most users don't look at the options screen. Firefox has always had the ability to turn this off completely, as well as the ability to turn it off by domain; offering much better control then IE. Really there is no reason to use IE as your primary br

Re:

[krell (896769)]

"I'm going to assume you never looked under Tools->Options->Privacy->Passwords because there is this handy checkbox that turns off saving passwords"

You are right. I didn't dig deep in obscure menus to kill this annoyance that (1) should not be the in the first place and (2) should have a turn off option right on the pop-up. I know, it's an old glitch. Netscape has had it going WAYYY.... back.

Re:

[ElleyKitten (715519)]

If you go to Tools->Options, then Privacy->Passwords, and uncheck Remember Passwords, it won't ask you again.

What sites do you go to that don't work right in Firefox? It's been a long time since I've seen one, though I know a few sites that don't work well in IE6, mostly because of the stupid PNG transparency issue. IE6 is so old and outdated, I don't know how people can stand it.

Re:

[fprintf (82740)]

My guess is that if you cannot spell "HIPAA" correctly, you won't be working for your current employer for very long. Remember, there are no hippos in HIPAA.

HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. It is so commonly misspelled that the link you provided redirects to the appropriate link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA [wikipedia.org]

Re:Thank God

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

I think that the majority of people click on anything that says "Internet" when they want to use the internet. Since MS long ago renamed Explorer "The Internet" (via the start menu) that's what they'll use for the foreseeable future.

Re:

[thebdj (768618)]

You aren't kidding. Little story: I was working in mail order at the time, and a gentleman called up in reference to a product the company sold. One of the requirements for the item being sold was that you needed a web browser. The device in question was a GPS system for a laptop, though I am not 100% sure why it needed a browser. Well, this gentleman obviously had a hard time understanding what a web browser was. I even said, "If you are surfing the internet, you have a web browser." The old fool st

Re:

[nuzak (959558)]

> Why do people, the MAJORITY of people, keep using it?!?

Because it's good enough for them.

The article says this month

[alta (1263)]

The article has been updated because microsoft will not confirm "tomorrow" but will confirm this month.

Tomorrow seems a likely time to me...

WGA?

[Honest Olaf (1011253)]

Formerly IE7 was only available to folks who passed WGA, but Windows Update is available to all. Does this mean that IE7 will be distributed to users with non-genuine XP?

Praise Allah!

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Anything to get people away from IE6, with which we have to use stupid hacks that don't work reliably to get PNGs to display properly. Not to mention all the box model bullshit. Now maybe I'm just not using esoteric enough markup but every page I've designed for Firefox has worked right in IE7... so, BRING ON THE UPGRADE! IE6 is a sad joke from both the security and standards compliance points of view and Microsoft is doing the right thing.

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

I'm wondering if it's really an improvement. Can't find them, but a while back there were complaints on /. that IE7 fixed enough things that IE6 hacks won't work anymore, but didn't fix the things that people had used the hacks to fix. I haven't seen this myself (I'm not doing web development these days), but supposedly the result of these "fixes" was that pages that displayed properly in IE6 and Firefox (and maybe other browsers) would not display properly in IE7. Therefore, web developers would have to

Re:

[thelost (808451)]

It sounds great, but let's be realistic. What this means for web devs is having support IE 5.5,6 & now 7 too. People won't automatically migrate to 7 because they can. Even worse than that I've read far too much stuff about IE7 having very little extra support for CSS standards.

yay!

[Klaidas (981300)]

Well, I've been waiting for this - I mean, let's face it, about 80% of computer user use IE as their default browser. And since tomorrow, they are getting tabs, new GUI, features, features, more features security updates, etc...
Even being a long-time Firefox user, I'm looking forward to test it (ya, I know, there were betas, there was a RC, but this is the stable one!)

Re:

[sqlrob (173498)]

This is the stable one

And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you

Actually, 'Yay!'

[Odin_Tiger (585113)]

Hopefully, it will be weird enough for users to call and ask about it, thus allowing me to weed out the few who are still using IE when they know they're supposed to be using Firefox.

Re: Fabricated Recommendation?

[bunratty (545641)]

Actually according to Secunia 'they' should be using Opera.

I must have missed that Secunia is recommending users to switch to Opera. Can you point me to where they say that?

Re:

[Kelson (129150)]

Its funny how the best tool for the job theory goes out the window when it comes to Firefox.

That depends on "the job." For Firefox 1.x and Opera 7-8, if "the job" required WYSIWYG text editing or heavy AJAX functionality, then Firefox was the best tool. If "the job" involved highly advanced CSS, then it would have been Opera.

Don't assume everyone uses the web the same way you do. That's the same mentality behind the "Oprah sux b/c it don't have no extenshuns" attitude.

no no no

[jaiyen (821972)]

The RFTA references a post on the Microsoft IE blog that says IE7 is coming 'real soon now' and that it "will be delivered to customers via Automatic Updates a few weeks after it's available for download". How the submitter took that to mean it's going to be automatically for everyone from tomorrow is a mystery.

Re:

[Chapter80 (926879)]

From TFA:

Update, 1:14 p.m. ET: The above post was changed to say IE7 would be released this month. Microsoft declined to confirm whether it would release IE tomorrow as part of its patch process, only to say that it planned the release sometime this month.

I think it DID say tomorrow, and has since been updated.

Re:

[Kelson (129150)]

On top of that, even after it does become available through automatic updates -- which will most likely be in the November patch cycle, given that it's "a few weeks after" the October release, you can block the update [msdn.com] (at least for now).

Containment Wall

[TubeSteak (669689)]

However, one of IE 7's most useful security features, a protected mode -- billed as a "containment wall" to prevent the browser from installing software or changing computer settings without the user's consent -- will not be available for XP users. That feature will be reserved for users who upgrade to Windows Vista, the next version of the operating system, due in January.

Is this "Containment Wall" something that can be hacked into working on XP?

Re:

[emarkp (67813)]

Yes, it's typically done by installing Firefox or Opera on XP. It's the proven solution that I use.

As an occassional web developer

[arevos (659374)]

I was dreading the inevitable process of trying to get a new CSS design working in IE 6; but hopefully now I don't have to :)

Re:

[Per Wigren (5315)]

I was dreading the inevitable process of trying to get a new CSS design working in IE 6; but hopefully now I don't have to :)

Actually, IE7 [edwards.name] is THE solution. Don't confuse it with Internet Explorer v7. IE7 is the best tool a modern web developer can have. It's a JavaScript library that automatically convert standards compliant modern CSS to IE 5+6 workarounds so you can code your pages using clean W3C-compliant CSS2+3 and XHTML and your pages will work fine in IE 6, IE 5.5 and even IE 5.0. It's magic!

Here is [edwards.name]

The article says "could be"

[origamy (807009)]

Please RTFA before posting: "According to a post on the company's IE blog, that high-priority update could be IE7"

If you dont want to install it...

[jorghis (1000092)]

If want to prevent the automatic install MS has a page for you here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/updatemanagement/ windowsupdate/ie7announcement.mspx [microsoft.com]

It looks like you have the option to just click "no thanks" when it asks you if you want to upgrade to IE7.

A proposal that cannot be rejected?

[rumith (983060)]

How nice. It's like I come and replace your old rusty garage door with a brand new one, with all the bells and whistles, some heavy armor and even an electronic keypad to open it. However, I will not allow you to change the password to open the door from the factory default "1234". Unless you pay me, that is.

Tomorrow is not accurate

[DigitlDud (443365)]

The blog post the article is referring to says it will be pushed out via Automatic Updates a FEW WEEKS after it's available for download. And it's not available for download yet. Somehow I doubt they ment tomorrow.

For a Firefox user:

[jbeaupre (752124)]

For a Firefox user such as myself, can someone give me a link or explanation of the pro's and con's of putting IE7 on my XP box? Browsing experience doesn't factor in, so are there other factors to consider?

Re:

[Rosco P. Coltrane (209368)]

explanation of the pro's and con's of putting IE7 on my XP box?

Sure:

- Pros: you get the latest Microsoft software that hopefully *fixes* the previous version
- Cons: you get the latest Microsoft software that *hopefully* fixes the previous version

Yay for CSS!

[Lord Ender (156273)]

I recently started using CSS for the first time. I went right from the spec. The HTML and CSS validated strict. It looked great in Firefox. Then I tested it with IE6, and started to cry. I spent more hours trying to hack my way around the bugs in IE6's rendering than I spent making the page design in the first place.

With this news, though, I can go back to writing real CSS! This will save me so much time! The only people who won't be able to see my page properly are people who don't maintain their machines

Re:

[pe1chl (90186)]

not too quick... the CSS support in IE7 still sucks badly when compared with competing browsers.
sure it is better than IE6, but don't assume your valid CSS will work OK in IE7, it probably will not.

Re:

[diegocgteleline.es (653730)]

With this news, though, I can go back to writing real CSS! This will save me so much time!

No, it won't. IE7 doesn't improve CSS support that much. Yes, they fixed it a bit, but it's mostly the same.

IE7 = tabs + new UI

What I don't understand is why it took them so much time to release this crap. I guess that because IE is tied into XP and so many things depend on it they spent most of the time trying to track down regressions from crappy 3rd progarms

The biggest inconvenience

[ezratrumpet (937206)]

...will be to those people who have no idea when they start their machines that they must endure a lengthy install and restart process before they can get to work.

Am I The Only One Concerned?

[The Real Nem (793299)]

I'm sure IE7 is a positive step from IE6, but how big of a resource hog is that shinny new interface? When I updated to Windows Messenger Live (yes I'm aware of the alternatives, but 99% of my friends use it) I couldn't believe how much resources the thing ate up. Right now it's sitting at a ridiculous 48 MB of memory usage.

More to the point, how much of IE7 is integrated into the kernel and how much memory does it consume when I'm not even using it? How does it affect boot times? I'm unlikely to use it for anything I don't have to so I think I'll be avoiding it for as long as possible.

New exploits to ship on Wednesday

[Animats (122034)]

Following the push of IE7 on Patch Tuesday, new IE7 exploits will be deployed on Exploit Wednesday. Coming soon to a computer near you.

How to avoid a possible disaster - For Admins

[mgpeter (132079)]

This is for all the Network Admins for Windows Networks.

If you do not want Automatic Updates to Install IE7 when it is released then just set the following registry key on every workstation:

Registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Setup\7.0
Key value name: DoNotAllowIE70

* When the key value name is not defined, distribution is not blocked.
* When the key value name is set to 0, distribution is not blocked.
* When the key value name is set to 1, distribution is blocked.

NOTE: This is highly recommended as everytime I dealt with any Major release from Microsoft things started getting trashed. Microsoft should NOT Automatically deploy this in this way.

For lazy/Proficient Admins here is a Kixtart Script to do this on a list of computers over the network: NoAutoIE7.txt [pcc-services.com]

Why so cagey?

[LordSnooty (853791)]

I've spent the day co-ordinating my department's response to the auto-install of IE7, since several of our apps are incompatible. We've had to block it with the reg key. But why are they so cagey about the actual release date? "This month" isn't good enough, I need a precise date if I'm to avoid a phalanx of users unable to use business-critical web sites. What can be so hard about it? Have they not set a date themselves? If not, why say "this month"? They bang on in their blog about how we ought to be ready, and here's a load of tools to help you, but we won't give you the exact date, that would ruin the game, right?

Is this Goodbye Non-MS Browsers?

[Toreo asesino (951231)]

Bearing in mind for the majority of users, when presented with a question - they'll just click "yes" to make it go away, I suspect this is a very under-hand tactic to render non-IE browsers as non-default.

Think about it - a message will pop-up saying "Want to upgrade to the new shiny IE? (y/n)"....one restart later, and the next question will be "Want to make it your default browser? (y/n)".....and just like that, poor Firefox/Opera is sat there collecting dust.

It's funny; I have a good friend working in Microsoft. Apparently, Microsoft aren't worried about Windows being pushed to the side, nor Office, nor any of the "paid" stuff....it's IE and WMP that's getting Microsoft hot under the collar right now. I believe it's starting to show.

But it still has serious usability bugs

[SpryGuy (206254)]

I have not once been able to get IE7 to launch a windows media player file (audio MP3 or video WMV) successfully. It launches the Media Player as expected, which then hangs consuming tons of CPU forever, until you actively kill it with Task Manager.

The suggested work-around of disabling the anti-phishing filter doesn't work (and isn't acceptable anyway).

LOTS of people are experiencing this problem. I can't believe they're pushing it out with this serious of an issue. I've provided them logs and such, but they only got them last Thursday, so I doubt there's been any fix (hell, I doubt they've even looked at them yet).

It's completely irresponsible to be pushing it out. Looking at the list of outstanding "large" bugs, and knowing the problems I myself have had with it, it's not yet ready for primetime.

Re:

[Timesprout (579035)]

No the IE team specifically made a design decision against using tabs back when they were building version 5 of IE.