Internet Explorer Drops WGA Requirement

Kelson writes "The Internet Explorer team has updated the installer for IE7. Mostly they've adjusted a few defaults and updated their tutorials, but one change stands out: The installer no longer requires Windows Genuine Advantage validation. Almost a year after its release, IE7 has yet to overtake its predecessor. Was WGA holding back a tide of potential upgrades, or did it just send people over to alternative browsers?"

A cup of wine

Lets see how long does wine take to install ie7 now ;)

With ies4linux? A couple minutes

IES4Linux [tatanka.com.br] installs IE on wine in a matter of minutes, no WGA required ... :)

In fact, I ran WGA a few months ago under wine, it validated my non-existent Windows license :)

Re:With ies4linux? A couple minutes

IE on linux? But isn't that like duct taping kite string to a wii controller and running it to your xbox?

Re:With ies4linux? A couple minutes

Almost like that....except it has to be an Xbox360, the Xbox wouldnt pick it up - thats the only way I got it to work. Some College websites require IE and only IE....IE4Linux saves the hassle of windows.

I can relate with you there, but wouldn't a simple plugin like User Agent Switcher [mozilla.org] for Firefox work for you? It could fool a website into thinking that you're running IE, and I'm pretty sure that's all you'd need, because as far as I know, getting ActiveX to work under linux, even with IE4Linux, is a pain in the ass, and there's no guarantee that it'll work every time.

Alternatives...

Was WGA holding back a tide of potential upgrades, or did it just send people over to alternative browsers?

Not only alternative browsers, but also alternative systems. OS X and Ubuntu are gaining grounds. And Vista is a serious reason to consider those alternatives!

Market share beats anti-piracy

It's finally clear where Microsoft's priorities lie. You can pirate until they have a dominant place in the market.

Most people...

...wouldn't have known it was there. The WGA requirement means that you actively have to log into Windows Update and say "yes, I want IE7" or actively locate an IE7 installer. Your average computer user won't even know which version of IE they're using, much less will have any idea there's a new version out and why they should bother installing it.

If IE7 doesn't have the WGA thing, then presumably it's going to be automatically installed with the rest of the updates whihc most users have set to automatic (since that's how the computer came configured).

So yes, expect the installed base to increase significantly, and I imagine a reasonably increase in usage as well - alot of people will find it better than any other browser they're using (stupid, uncustomisable button layout notwithstanding).

Gone! The only genuine advantage!!!

of a pirated Windows XP was that it never downloaded and force-installed the crappy IE7. After the sneaky updates, it seems it is the turn of IE7 now to get in on all XP systems. Whatever for?

If IE7 provides more security, then it should be available only for genuine editions. Why incentivise piracy? Now, the Firefox exploits that work only when IE7 is installed will start working on pirated editions of XP.... even though the user may be using FIrefox only. Way to go, I say!

IE7 and firefox

I know its slightly off topic, but I still don't have IE7 installed on my only windows computer and won't until I hear from a reliable source that the bug mentioned here http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/26/1719236 [slashdot.org] has been fixed. I use firefox and am not even going to consider upgrading software I don't use to a more secure version if it introduces a security hole in software I do use.

and menu bar enabled by default (finally!)

I think the re-enabled (by default) menu bar is just as important as the dropped WGA requirement. For novice/intermediate Windows users, IE7's hidden menu bar (revealed by pressing "Alt") was needlessly confusing. Every time I've checked a friend's IE7 setup (on both XP and Vista), I've asked if they wanted the menu bar back. Not surprisingly, the answer has been "YES" every time.

I'm guessing Microsoft wanted IE7 (and some of their other apps) to follow Office 2007's lead and get rid of the menu bar. This made sense for Office because the new contextual ribbon interface negates the need for a menu bar. It was hard to believe at first, but Office 2007 really does work better without the menu bar.

However, removing the menu bar from IE7 made no sense IMO. IE7 didn't implement a ribbon interface (which wouldn't work for this app anyway), but they still removed the menu bar and seemingly tried to put all important functions on the button bar. Requiring a keyboard shorcut ("Alt") to access the menu was annoying to me and probably frustrating to novice/intermediate users.

I think this simple change will significantly improve usablility. I'll still be an Opera man, though.

IE7 on MS VirtualPC

As a web developer I've been using Microsoft's own VirtualPC doodad which they provided - for free - with a working XP Pro image that had IE6 installed on it. Since you can't really run IE6 and 7 on the same machine this was useful. One IE on my real drive, the other in the virtual machine. The problem was, I really did not want to put IE7 on the real machine.

So anyway, I figured I'd just download IE7 on the virtualized XP Pro. Imagine my surprise when that copy of Windows, freshly downloaded from microsoft.com, failed to pass WGA validation! :-/

Tredosoft came to the rescue of course with their various clever ways of getting different versions of IE to play (moderately) nicely together, but it still wasn't ideal.

Now I guess I can get IE7 to work on that XP image.

StarForce?

It is rather common for game manufacturers to remove StarForce or other cd-tethering protection after the game has been out for a while. So, like, MS issued a no-cd patch for IE7 then?

Oh, now I see...

...why I got last night another proposal to install MSIE7.
I was like "WTF, I already said NO. And dont remind me again AGAIN".

Hope it finally listens =)

Good! Well maybe...

Just the other day I was trying to repair a PC where IE7 was having a variety of issues. I installed Firefox, explained the benefits, and then attempted to use Firefox to download IE7 since he needed it for some apps for work. However, the WGA was failing with all the same problems that IE7 was failing with. The irony (yes yes, not the right word) of it was I was actively trying to get IE from Firefox, and MS wouldn't let me do it without getting a validation code from all the WGA nonsense.

He was happy to hear about Firefox and plans on using that now instead, and after uninstalling IE7, found IE6 to be functional enough for those few times he needs it. So, while WGA is a pain in the ass, it helped convert one more person to Firefox. So I don't know how I feel about them removing it. ;-)

That's why I did it!

"...or did it just send people over to alternative browsers?"

That's what happened to me -- I needed to upgrade to see a page, I went to IE's upgrade site, and it asked me for stuff I hadn't seen in at least a year. So, this post isn't being typed into an IE window.

Windows 2000

So, does this mean it can be installed on Windows 2000?

I use Win2K in a virtual machine, and have never had the need to upgrade to XP or Vista.

One of the few issues I have run into with staying on Win2K is the inability to run IE7. Not that I want to run it.. I am quite happy with Firefox. But, some projects I am working on have www components that I would like to verify with IE7. So, this would be nice to have.

monopoly violations

I don't use IE hardly at all. Only when the occasional website screws up in Opera and I for whatever crazy reason decide it's really worth whipping out IE. I know I don't have the latest version so I didn't even know it required WGA. How do they get away with that anyway? I thought part of the DoD's monopoly complaints had to do with how integrated the browser was with the OS. I suppose the WGA requirement only shrinks their install base for IE, but it also doesn't go a long way in separating IE from the OS. How can MS use WGA for anything other than core OS updates? Aren't they otherwise abusing their monopoly? Just seems strange that something like IE is supposed to be just another browser to compete against and yet it's also a tool for MS to police their Windows installations.

Now remove it from Vista!

Buying volume license copies and then having to activate each copy, or run a key management server is a pain in the ass. My company still has not upgraded to Vista and does not plan to, unless the draconian activation policies are reversed.

We are, however, buying tons of Macs and only running windows where necessary. Web-based apps and terminal server are dramatically reducing the need for a windows desktop machine in the business world.

Microsoft has everything to lose and little to gain - making products harder to buy, deploy, and use is not a wise strategy.

-ted

Probably a legal liability issue...

With IE being part of the operating system, and commercial software companies being required by law to provide free security updates, I imagine Microsoft was opening themselves up to all sorts of legal liability.

Before locking IE7 up with WGA, they could avoid fixing huge security holes in older versions of the browser, telling everyone to upgrade to the latest version, or shut-up and live with it. With WGA routinely denying legitimate users, and apparently no method provided for users to have problems with WGA resolved, this could really have forced Microsoft to continue relasing patches for IE6 for several more years.

Micrsoft seems to be intentionally trying to avoid such legal problems for the rest of their security updates, by allowing automatic updates to be downloaded, even if WGA checks fail and you aren't even allowed to use the windowsupdate website directly.

DRM... Does using it shift legal liability onto companies that were previously able to avoid indemnity, and were previously otherwise just raking-in free money with each copy sold?

Unexpected 'advantage'

Well I rebuilt a laptop with XP (SP3 Beta actually) and messed up some registry permissions, so IE7 would never install. Followed ALL the remedies to no avail (well, I prefer Firefox, but I do need IE7 too - and validation was never a problem here). So today I tried again with the identically-named download. It spent 5+ minutes thrashing on the hard drive (repairing things?), then went straight through sweetly. So a few extra issues have been fixed under the covers. Grudging credit where credit is (eventually) due.

I totally forgot ie7 existed

I use IE at most once a month, usually to fill out some form on some backwards government website or something similar, that for some stupid reason has to have IE. Other than that, I haven't bothered in years. However, FF is starting to turn into a bloated pig, and is now being targeted by attackers too, so who knows maybe I'll check out IE again one of these days.

how about...

how about putting the GODDAMNED RELOAD BUTTON back where it's supposed to be?!?

assholes.

To Get More IE7 Customers, Make It Work!

There is a good reason I uninstalled IE7: it just doesn't work very well. In attempting to make it follow standards more closely, not only did they dump some of the famous IE "quirks" that people accounted for when designing their websites, they did not replace that with adequate "standard" behavior. As a result, a lot of fancy page layouts simply do not display correctly: their engine does not display it according to the standard, nor according to the old "quirk" that people knew. Which is really bad news.

When I could not get some simple <div> and <table> layouts to be the right size or place in IE7, I just tossed it and went back to 6. And I am talking pretty basic HTML4.

I think Microsoft still needs to get it through their heads that in order for something to be an "improvement", it has to be an improvement from the user point of view, not just their own.

...and the real kicker is...

IE7 is now flagged as a Critical update, whereas the "Update Rollup 2 for Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005" (KB900325) is an Optional update. And guess what? If you install IE7 first - for example, if it is done for you automatically courtesy of Automatic Updates - the KB900325 update fails to install!

Re:Not likely

Well, I think this is a push to increase security; it's harder to get any of those crappy ActiveX exploits through IE7 because of it's insane "please confirm installing a plugin 3 times" methodology. With WGA enabled you have all your legitimate Windows users using IE7 (or at least having it installed, remember IE7's browser components are used throughout XP - help files, embedded in other apps..) but everyone pirating it still uses the previous versions with no security updates installed.

You could easily claim (and be right) that disallowing the vast majority of pirated Windows copies the latest security updates contributes to the spread of viruses, trojans and generally misappropriation of networks.

After all, until Firefox implements some kind of MSHTML.DLL replacement scheme (would this be so difficult, really?), it is not possible to completely remove Internet Explorer from a standard Windows system (WinXP Lite etc. notwithstanding) and have it still function the same way.

Someone should port the Wine MSHTML.DLL back to Windows.. and have it use Gecko, in order that we completely reduce the requirement of Windows on the obvious things. I think it'd have to be modified to use ActiveX controls though, there was a project for this once, I really can't work out why they abandoned it though (ActiveX security policies may be easily broken etc. but it would have the happy benefit of enabling everyone with IE-requiring internet banking etc. to use those sites, too!)

I basically think if the guys at Firefox were really serious about putting themselves as a true alternative to IE, they would focus a little more on truly replacing IE rather than just being installed side-by-side.

Re:Not likely

That is no excuse. You can load up a computer with all the software you're likely to need [ubuntulinux.com] without ever paying a single penny for it, and without going against the wishes of the copyright holders.

As an aside, using serious alternatives to Microsoft products will most certainly annoy Microsoft far more than using pirated copies of Microsoft products ever could.

Re:Not likely

While I was not 'just a kid' in a developing country (being a white american), I grew up and worked in IT in a developing country, and here are the problems with your argument:

1. I can get a Windows XP VLK disc from a friend. I have to download Ubuntu's installer over 28.8k (on a good day)
2. Preparatory schools will require Windows and many Windows applications without exceptions
3. I can't think of any other ones, but having three bullets is the least I can have for the desired visual effect.

But really. I think Ubuntu is an excellent alternative for those who can pull it off, but you have to get a Windows computer with a CD burner, get it online, set up a download manager, download Ubuntu over the course of a few days, then install a new OS that you don't know, and access the support community from a slow-ass Internet connection. So I think 'I live in a developing country' is a quite reasonable excuse.

In Mexico, once Microsoft introduced product activation and it failed a couple times for me, causing hours and hours of extra labor, I started suggesting to people that they not pay a week's salary (these are not the super poor people, mind you) on some crappy software, and instead just pirate the crap. It's a more user-friendly experience if you pirate it. You can install MUIs if you pirate the corporate version. It's really a no-brainer. Plus, nobody's going to investigate a dry patch of dirt in Mexico for software piracy.

What has happened to /.???

Speaking of IE.

Like many...I'm stuck using IE6 at work. Something must have changed overnight with Slashdot...maybe some weird new CSS?

Whatever it is...it is really messing up. It is hard to read any article....many comments don't appear to even have a reply button on them.

That..and I'm afraid it looks like /. has implemented a automatic PAGE REFRESH mode? I hope not..I like to keep a browser open on /. all day...but, if it starts auto-refreshing, that can look like too much surfing at work.

A the top of pages I see it autochecks an option to "Try new Slashdot discussion system". I try unchecking it each time to no-avail. I checked my preferences...and it is also set to NOT use the new system, but, it appears the new system is still being fed to me.

Please fix this...it was bad enough that the firehose page has recently been made unusable by IE6...now the normal pages are really screwing up.

I used FF, Safari, and the native KDE browsers at home...and they seem to work fine, but, I've got NO choice at work. Please make /. work like it did before. Simple HTML and CSS are just great....we don't need an ajax Slashdot..it is the content and the people that make the site.....not the fanciness of the site. Especially with all that added 'zing' messes up on a majorly used (unfortunately) browser.

Re:The real reason uptake is slow...

In my company, all the web based application that doesn't work well in IE7 and firefox were application developed with IEism and activeX components... Some have some minor displays bugs but vastly due to some IEism corrected in IE7 in the interpretation of the CSS :/

Re:The real reason uptake is slow...

Same problem at my work. Loads of shitty web-based corporate apps rely on IE6-isms that won't work in IE7, resulting in the entire enterprise being forced to use IE6 (plus severe update lags due to inefficient and ineffective testing of patches). As such, we've had a couple of breaches via 0-day exploits targetting unpatched IE6 installs.

Yay for the Intranet Microsoft Built.

Oddity: IT staff don't eat their own dog food, and everyone uses FF whilst telling the users they can't have it because intranet apps "don't work with firefox". However, bring IE into the equation and the same staff will tell you "the app is shit and won't work with IE". Odd how such a pro-MS shop changes the burden of proof depending on whether the target is asociated with Linux or not

Re:give them a few months to make it silently upgr

Good thing my "windows" machines don't run windows. :-)

yeah I know it's cliche to post about running another OS, but honestly, what's the motivation to run windows anymore?

I recently swapped gentoo for ubuntu on my laptop, and out of the box ubuntu booted up to Gnome, had a bunch of useful software installed, was easy to add more OSS to it, it detected my wireless card, and even found my access point right away, sound works, etc. If I take an XP SP2 CD and put it in my laptop, it will fail to find my wireless AND sound. Yet, a free ubuntu CD does that and more. I just don't get what would motivate me to run Windows. This isn't a fanboy issue, it's just pragmatism. Windows is shit by comparison.

As for the issue of IE7, to be honest I'd rather run IE4 than either IE6 or IE7. Loads a hell of a lot quicker, and the interface is a bit more sane. Even without tabbed browsing it's still better than 7.

Tom

Re:give them a few months to make it silently upgr

Sometimes it's worth repeating because it's a valid rhetorical question.

You can edit documents, run spreadsheets (even multiply correctly!), design software/hardware, compose music, etc, just as easily in an OSS OS as Windows. And if people stopped worshipping Redmond they'd actually realize that *they* have the power to choose, not the producers.

Why isn't photoshop ported to GNU/Linux? Because customers aren't demanding it enough. Watch people hold up updating CS, demand Linux ports, and you'll probably see it happen. But if you just blindly do what they tell you, you get less options. And in certain cases the alternatives are better. I'd rather use OO.o than MS Office. I'd rather use firefox than IE7. I'd rather use pidgin than the MSN client, I'd rather use lilypond than Finale, I'd rather use mplayer than WMP, I'd rather use a lot of things than their "traditional proprietary" counterparts.

I'd suspect for 99% of computer users out there (home users included) they could get by just as well or better with a good Linux distro than Vista. Certainly my experience with Ubuntu has been such that if you can't figure out how to use/install it, you probably won't get much out of owning a computer anyways. It's just so damn simple to use, not to mention free, and gives access to an entire library of OSS software.

Tom

Re:Not likely

You know people won't "upgrade" until they are forced to.
 
People simply fear change. If it is different than what they are used to then they will resist it and say that the new way is somehow worse than the old.
 
Personally, I don't care which flavor of browser people use, however, I would have to say that I trust IE7 more than >=IE6.

Good.

Yea, I'd hate to be forced to give up IE 6...

Geeks will install whatever they want to, browser-wise. I usually have several, and I switch back and forth depending on my mood/needs.

But for the vast majority of people, who use whatever browser happens to be in the task bar? Force 'em to IE 7! I don't know why they didn't do it in the first place.

Re:ALTERNATE

Every alternate day I choose alternative browsers.

Did I get that right?

Re:Does it...

Well, at least the rendering engine seems to work... http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Beta [tatanka.com.br]

no, it's the other way around

M$'s website point-blank refuses to work with any other browser.

Re:ALTERNATE

alternative |ôltrntiv|
adjective [ attrib. ]
(of one or more things) available as another possibility : the various alternative methods for resolving disputes | "Microsoft Internet Explorer is teh sux. Luckily, there are various alternative web browsers available."

"available as another possibility" ...

[/dumbass]

Re:ALTERNATE

Um...no, that's "alternative." If you're going to be a word-usage Nazi, get it right first.

Unless you're trying to suggest that they're switching back and forth repeatedly.

Re:Great but...

Actually, its not that other browsers refuse to work with it, its that Microsoft uses ActiveX to run Windows Update, and nobody wants to use that in alternative browsers (ActiveX is one of the problems with MSIE security model).

Btw, if you REALLY REALLY want to use an alternative browser to run Windows update, you can always use IETAB and run an instance of MSIE inside a tab in Firefox.

Re:nah

Even though i am pro M$ (despite having a mac at home) i still find ie7 annoyingly glitchy and counterintuitive. You can't reorder feeds (and sometimes your favourites) in the side bar by drag'n'drop. Sometimes RSS entries need several clicks to launch the relevant article. And don't get me started on the whole menu/toolbar thing.

Re:ALTERNATE

You are wrong - To use something in an alternate manner is to switch between that and another "alternative". In this case the word is alternative NOT alternate.

Re:Not likely

i'm sure lots of people "pirate" (I put pirate in quotes because a lot of people have legit licenses but use dodgy copies of corp because they can't be assed with all the activation and bios locking bullshit) windows yet stick with IE as the familiar browser.

also there have been some scare stories about wga rejecting legit copies so some people even with legit copies may have just decided not to risk it.

Re:Well with the WGA

Even better. With all the popups your computer seems to find porn all by itself! You should be THANKING Microsoft!

A couple quick points

1) I have seen as many issues with IE7 migrations as issues solved by migrations to IE7.

2) IE7, however, does correct a number of insane deviations from standards that IE6 and earlier made. One notable example is the fact that IE7 submits the button value attribute back to the server instead of the innerHTML (as IE6 and earlier do). Furthermore, before you pull MSDN documnetation to prove me wrong, I will note that MSDN was not updated for some of these changes.

So IE7 breaks backwards compatibility with IE6 in a few areas (and about time...) but Microsoft isn't documenting the browser properly and so I can imagine that web devs are confused.

Re:No WGA means, MS allows piracy

You should start using it to download Wubi. ^_^