Microsoft Offers IE7 to All, Pirates Included

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.

IE7 on Linux?

Or was the article just overstating things again?

Re:IE7 on Linux?

IE7 also fixes a lot of HTML rendering and CSS bugs. Definately not all, but a considerable amount.

Re:But not on Windows 2000

Yep, I've been using this setup all on one machine for a while now:
http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE [tredosoft.com]
http://tredosoft.com/IE7_standalone [tredosoft.com]

Works an absolute treat. The only problem I've come across (aside from a few sporadic crashes) is that some of the IE version don't identify themselves as the appropriate IE version when using [If IE x] tags to call different stylesheets in the XHTML. There areregistry fixes for this, but I don't have links to hand.

Unfortunately...

they've fixed also the bugs that made it possible to work around the bugs that they have NOT fixed yet! :-/

Re:IE7 on Linux?

> IE7 also fixes a lot of HTML rendering and CSS bugs. Definately not all, but a considerable amount.

Considerable amount?
html/xhtml support went from 73% to 73%
css 2.1 support went from 51% to 56%

Yeah, sure that is better than before, but they are still far behind the other browsers:
Firefox 2:
html/xhtml: 90%
css 2.1: 92%

Opera 9:
html/xhtml: 85%
css 2.1: 94%

http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-summary [webdevout.net]

"open up IE7 to all users of Windows"

Of course, this being /., you didn't RTFA, but you could read just the first line. Oh, sorry, I see. You would have missed "frist ps0t"...

Competition

I'm inclined to say they're removing the WGA restriction because the popularity of FireFox is now rivalling IE.

counterpoint

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.

Re:Competition

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.

Stranger Daze||Days

I wonder what will happen to the owner of those pirated machines when they decide "phew... I'm glad MS decided to allow at least this update!" Only to find out about a week or two later MS comes back with a "Gotcha!... All your files belong to us!" Anyway, on my Windows machines I find myself swapping off and on between both Firefox and IE7. I've found there are times when Firefox is just such a memhog while Windows isn't and vice versa, so I swap off between the two. Anyhow enough sidestepping... MS allowing pirates to do anything just sounds so far offbeat I predict MS with evil plans lurking in the background.

I was robbed!

I downloaded and installed IE7, but I can not find a trace of the promised 'included pirates'

Dupe?

The same story was posted yesterday.

I'm Siding with MS on This

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.

A forced update?

This is essentially a forced update.

Yes, if you have configured your computer to automatically download and install "high priority" as well as "critical" updates, and if you haven't installed the well-publicized, one-click tool that Microsoft provides that explicitly overrides any other settings and prevents you from ever accidentally installing IE7, you are "forced" to sit there and watch as your computer does exactly what you've configured it to do.

I had a similar problem with Ubuntu the other day - I have this script that automatically apt-gets any updated packages, and damned if the thing didn't force me to update all my packages that had updates! Commie bloodsuckers won't get my money again.

Why all the hate?

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.

Not all users of Windows.

Windows 2000 users and Windows XP SP1 users are excluded.

pirates my eye, arrr

This is not about the pirates. This is about the slow take up of IE 7 on the desktops. At our site, IE 7 is still test mode (site admins only). I have no interest in rolling this disruption out to our users. I use it every day and am still not used to it. Now, as a critical update, there will be a push to get it out. Sure, we can turn it off in WSUS. But the users are going to ask why we are not keeping up with their home machines. Yuk. MB

Catch-22 is the Reason

Since a browser is what most people would use to download a new version of a browser (like IE7) then you can't have a WGA requirement, because other browsers (like FireFox, Opera, whatever...) don't support WGA validation (without some hack).

Ah

That explains why I had to tell Windows to ignore that update the other day.

Why this article posted twice on front page?!

Slashdot people, is there something I don't understand? and I thought no WGA on IE title means the same as Microsoft offers IE7 to All, Pirates Included, or am I wrong... no, I'm not wrong : Article 1.5 day ago [slashdot.org]

GIMME KARMA POINTS! It took me at-least 1.3292 min to find the other article!

My first thought

When I first saw this, by first thought was, "Yes, Pinkie, but who would want it?"

Microsoft has all but admitted to the trend

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.

Nope. Something Else is Going On

I admin a bunch of XP desktops including my work machine. The rest of them I'll let Microsoft have their way, but I want to know what's happening when they update, so I always do a manual update. IE7 was endlessly offered a few different ways every time I ran a manual updates on my machine.

E7's "are you sure?" endlessly maddening "security" model is the antithesis of innovation and Genuine Disadvantage (dude that's funny!) is not the deal maker here.

I think investors are tired of hearing about browser alternatives and are dragging out the bag of old tricks to maintain their monopoly.

forced updates

While its nice they are going to drop the WGA requirment, *forced* updates are just wrong.

Thank god, now if just everyone installed it

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.

Dropping WGA requirement

Perhaps they are starting to again realize a certain level of piracy is good for them, as it increases market penetration and 'collateral' sales.

Re:Dropping WGA requirement

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

Not News

It's funny what little impact this had on me. I had an update appear a few nights ago while checking my mail. I was alerted that a "priority update" wanted to be installed. I checked it, it was IE7, and I told it not to alert me again. Simple.

Is this news? Microsoft pushing for the latest marketable thing, regardless of need or desire?

it is unlikely i'll use IE7

As long as windows update works with IE6, i don't think i'll need IE7.

Please, just take it!!

Microsoft's next move: Instead of just giving IE7 to everyone, they offer to pay people just to use it over other browsers.

This is a good thing for webmasters

From a webmaster point of view, this is a very good thing.

A lot of people are probably still running IE6 just because their Windows installation doesn't pass WGA tests, not because they don't want to upgrade to IE7.

IE7 has still a lot of bugs and limited css support, however it's far better than IE6. As a webmaster, I'd love that all IE6 user migrate to something else. I'm waiting for the day IE6 users will be so low that I could tell the boss "no need to spent time working on IE6 compatibility, almost nobody use it anymore".

All != *nix?

I assume available to all means if I hit their site with Wine running on a *nix or MAC.... It will not download.......

That's fine and good but...

...but unless IE7 can be installed on Windows 2000, this new freedom means nothing to many users (especially in business) who didn't get suckered into an XP upgrade. Making the WMP10 update unavailable to Win2K users is one thing, but keeping a more secure native browser away from them is another.

Of course, there are better browsers for free... but tell some IT depts this. ;-)

IE7 64, very secure browser?

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...

As a web developer, I say thank you MS

The faster IE6 goes away, the faster we can have fewer CSS issues in our XHTML/CSS. IE7 is hardly perfect, but it is much improved over IE6...

not a forced upgrade at least according to MS

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/updatemanagement/bb259685.aspx [microsoft.com]

"Internet Explorer 7 will not install automatically - the Automatic Updates delivery process will include a welcome screen that offers users choices of Install, Don't Install, and Ask Me Later prior to installation."

Arrrgh!

Watch who ye be callin' a pirate there, matey!

You all are missing the point.

The bigger target is Adobe's Flash. Right now Silverlight is on about 2% of all machines out there. Are you going to wait for them to eventually upgrade to vista, or you are going to wait for them to install it themselves? Or are you going to give them something they will have to install, or want to install? Just by not restricting it, and announcing the release, they probably will jump from 2% of people being silverlight ready to 12% or 20%.

end user's best interest?

bullshit.

It's in Microsoft's best interest that they regain market share.

Of things to come?

"The IE7 update also sports a few tweaks: The menu bar is now visible by default," Now that the Office team is taking control of the next OS release, is this a sign of things to come? It's a minor but interesting backtrack on a design change. MS got it so right with Office 2007 and so wrong with Vista in terms of UI, that this one change raises a few eyebrows. Go Office team! :)

Because

Because everyone must suffer.

hmmmm

hmmm .. if i remember correctly, last month, windows update had a secret forced update to our local windows update.exe. perhaps microsoft is now bundling this secret update into ie7 so as to get it installed on to those boxes it missed?

anybody got an old version of ie7 to compare with the current version?

This is barely "to all"

The IE7 upgrade is still limited to XP SP2 only. There's still a lot of computers running prior versions of Windows (including XP without SP2).

Not to mention that only a small fraction of people actually install Windows updates.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is: IE6 won't die just yet. We Web devs will still have to support IE6 (in one way or another) for quite a long time.

To all users of Windows?

"Microsoft recently decided to open up IE7 to all users of Windows" This is not true, it's only available to Windows XP SP2 users. IE7 won't install on prior versions of Windows (Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, XP SP1).

Ummm

Uhh, ok. So is it a forced update if you have updates set to automatically install themselves?
And why would you want to remove it if you had updates to automatic in the first place? Gee, I understand that you like anyone who is biased against Microsoft, but this is just ridiculous.

IE7 has been a headache for me

Since it isn't fully compatible with all of the programs we use at my work. Many of my helpcalls lately have been "Program X isn't working!" and the solution has always been the same "uninstalled IE6."

Its not their fault really, if I saw IE7 was a critical update and didn't know it was going to break my programs I'd install it too. Luckily you can specifically block IE7 from installing from the windows update site.

Why are you automatically a 'pirate'...

...if you choose not to use WGA?

upfrading to IE7

The reality is, that if Microsoft is letting everyone install IE7 who can, legit or not, it's in their best interest to upgrade to it. IE7 is definitely an improvement over IE6 (also known as the 'Swiss Cheese' of web browsers). This of course, assumes that people (without legit copies of Windows) even want to run IE, as opposed to Firefox or Opera. It seems that the more aware and knowledgeable someone is about the security of their computer, the more they would want to use a secure browser. For the most part, IE7 isn't exactly the browser that comes to mind when you're thinking 'security'.
Still, for those websites that either require you to use IE, or that use little Frontpage gimmicks and don't look right in another browser, IE7 is a safer way to go than IE6. Plus, it has the added advantage of having better standards support than IE6, so properly coded websites will display more accurately.

Re:A good way to work out piracy rates

how many people own legit windows but after the scare stories refuse to submit to wga? my guess is it is a nontrivial number.

Also MS doesn't know how many legit copies of windows are still in active use, since OEM copies are basically tied to the PC they came with lots and lots of them are going to have ended up in the tip over windows XPs lifetime.