Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Security

Microsoft To Drop Support For Older Versions of Internet Explorer 138

Posted by samzenpus
from the kicking-and-screaming dept.
An anonymous reader writes After January 12, 2016, only the most recent version of Internet Explorer available for a supported operating system will receive technical support and security updates. For example, customers using Internet Explorer 8, 9, or 10 on Windows 7 SP1 should migrate to Internet Explorer 11 to continue receiving security updates and technical support. From the blog post: "Microsoft recommends enabling automatic updates to ensure an up-to-date computing experience—including the latest version of Internet Explorer—and most consumers use automatic updates today. Commercial customers are encouraged to test and accept updates quickly, especially security updates. Regular updates provide significant benefits, such as decreased security risk and increased reliability, and Windows Update can automatically install updates for Internet Explorer and Windows."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft To Drop Support For Older Versions of Internet Explorer

Comments Filter:
  • by CaptQuark (2706165) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @11:42PM (#47628065)
    Are they really suggesting that IE 11 will still be the most recent version in 17 months.... ?
    • by kolbe (320366) on Friday August 08, 2014 @12:14AM (#47628143) Homepage

      The problem I have is that IE11+ is such a PITA and it is difficult to get working with various Enterprise Java applications without disabling Protected Mode and completely unsecuring it or setting custom registry keys/policies. EMC Unisphere, various Cisco apps like UCSM and Fabric Manager... Even several recent Oracle tools just gag on IE11+ without spending hours configuring it to work every time you launch it.

      Well, all the more reason to dump it altogether.

      • by Z00L00K (682162) on Friday August 08, 2014 @01:10AM (#47628243) Homepage

        Not even some of Microsofts own services (Outlook web mail for example) works well with IE11 - they work with Opera or Firefox though, so something is broken in IE11.

        Many major companies also rely heavily on older versions of IE and outright prohibits other than the approved version through scripts instead of making sure that they are conformant with web standards using HTML and CSS validators. Of course - if there's Javascript involved then it's necessary to test with more than one browser since there's no good Javascript validator around ensuring portable code.

        • by _merlin (160982) on Friday August 08, 2014 @01:35AM (#47628305) Homepage Journal

          From my experience so far, IE11 with default settings renders far more like Firefox/Safari than any prior version of IE. A lot of the brokenness probably comes down to web apps detecting IE, then serving content designed for old, broken IE. When new, standards-compliant IE becomes more widespread, people can just remove the code for supporting bad old IE altogether.

          • by mpe (36238)
            From my experience so far, IE11 with default settings renders far more like Firefox/Safari than any prior version of IE. A lot of the brokenness probably comes down to web apps detecting IE, then serving content designed for old, broken IE. When new, standards-compliant IE becomes more widespread, people can just remove the code for supporting bad old IE altogether.

            Or they could fix the broken version detection code, so that it only does that with actually "broken" versions of IE.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08, 2014 @03:25AM (#47628559)

              From my experience so far, IE11 with default settings renders far more like Firefox/Safari than any prior version of IE. A lot of the brokenness probably comes down to web apps detecting IE, then serving content designed for old, broken IE. When new, standards-compliant IE becomes more widespread, people can just remove the code for supporting bad old IE altogether.

              Or they could fix the broken version detection code, so that it only does that with actually "broken" versions of IE.

              You're describing the fundamental problem with browser detection -- when you write it, you don't know how it will work with future browser versions.

              If you deploy browser detection code, you *must* take responsibility for contantly re-testing it against every new browser that gets released. That's not easy to do in practice, and nobody actually manages to do it (or remembers to do it, or even realises that the need to do it), and thus we still have sites that break whenever a new version of IE comes out, or whatever other browser that falls foul of their detection code.

              And that is why browser detection is bad practice. It puts an additional burden on you for ongoing support.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by Hamsterdan (815291)

                "If you deploy browser detection code, you *must* take responsibility for contantly re-testing it against every new browser that gets released. "

                So, every 2 days for Firefox?

          • by Z00L00K (682162)

            And interestingly enough - setting IE11 to compatibility mode doesn't resolve the issues I have seen.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              IE11 does not support CSS conditionals *at all*. That is what people have used for many years to include additional CSS containing hacks for older IE with inferior CSS support.

              This breaks my head. In IE9 and IE10, for example, there are render modes you can use to test content in older versions of the browsers. It wasn't completely perfect but it was 99%, and good enough for me not to have to run VMs with older IEs to do all of my IE testing. IE11 though - it still has support to view content in an older re

          • by satuon (1822492)

            If that's so, then why not switch to Firefox or Chrome? Wasn't the whole reason to use IE that some sites will not render properly/refuse to work otherwise?

            • by _merlin (160982) on Friday August 08, 2014 @06:08AM (#47628933) Homepage Journal

              Competition's never a bad thing. I'll take three viable web browsers over two. No-one wants to go back to the days of sites targeting specific browsers. "Best experienced with Netscape" - screw that.

              • by Wycliffe (116160)

                I agree with this. 3-5 is probably the sweet spot. Any more and developers are going to start slacking and not test all the
                browsers. Unfortunately we have 3-5 browsers and then a dozen different versions of each. This move by microsoft
                is a move in the right direction. Web developers shouldn't be expected to support 6 different versions of IE and 6 different
                versions of firefox. After 3 years you should probably get a security warning every time you open your browser
                telling you that your web browser is

              • It's worse than that. Most non-IE browsers nowadays have pretty similar rendering engines. IE isn't a WebKit-derived browser, and it's useful to have it out there competing.

          • by dannydawg5 (910769) on Friday August 08, 2014 @06:49AM (#47629063)

            The latest version of IE does not send "MSIE" in the user agent. Microsoft did this intentionally to encourage feature detection instead of browser detection. Most detection code relies on "MSIE" being present.

            If you must, it is still easy to catch IE though. "Trident" is still present.

          • When new, standards-compliant IE becomes more widespread, people can just remove the code for supporting bad old IE altogether.

            No they can't because they never Kill old IE. Even on their life cycle chart, they are supporting 3 Different Versions of IE, so devs have to code for the lowest common denominator (IE9) or force users away from IE altogether. Chances are it's going to get worse once Windows 7 goes into extended support and they quit updating IE for it as well.

            They need to Support 1 IE Version acro

        • by znrt (2424692)

          Many major companies also rely heavily on older versions of IE

          some people just don't learn.

        • I recently had a similar problem with Microsoft Test Manager. With IE11 the content of the administration web page was not visible. I could not find the reason in the security settings (and accessing the web page from the same system suggests that it should be a "trusted zone"). Firefox 31 did the job though.

          So I suspect this was another case of IE11 being broken for a Microsoft service.

      • by gander666 (723553) *
        Great, now will I no longer be able to use a supported browser as well as be forced to use a deprecated, and highly insecure version of Java to do my job (which involves far too much Oracle fluffery.

        The fact that Oracle applications demand IE at all is quite ironic...
      • by Yunzil (181064)

        it is difficult to get working with various Enterprise Java applications without disabling Protected Mode and completely unsecuring it

        Wait, are you complaining IE is too secure?

    • Since there's already a pre-release version of IE12, probably not! They've increased the release rate a good bit the last few years; Win7 shipped with IE8. Still nowhere near as fast as Firefox and Chrome bump their "major" version numbers these days, of course, but that's no surprise.

    • by CaptnZilog (33073)

      Wait... MS is going to start actually supporting IE now?!? Will it actually properly implement the HTML standards now??
      It's about time. :D

      • No browser properly implements the Markup Language. Further, too many people think they are 'developers' because they coded some little scripts inside the marked up document. Or some big ugly script, frighteningly.

    • by Mondor (704672)

      No, they are saying, that the most recent version will be supported. If it will be MSIE 13, then 11 and 12 won't be supported anymore. Isn't it the same with, say, Chrome? Just asking.

  • they might as well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @11:43PM (#47628067)
    since they have not been able to secure Internet Explorer at all for years when they did claim to maintain and have support for it

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by LordLimecat (1103839)

      Wow, using a 15 day old build of firefox to assert that IE is terribly insecure (because it has an unpatched vuln).

      Of course, you couldnt have made this post 15 days ago, because the score would have been "1 unpatched for IE11, 11 unpatched for mozilla [mozilla.org]"

      IE isnt the greatest security-wise, but Id probably trust it over Firefox these days.

      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        If you can make IE work that is - today it doesn't even work well with M$ services.

        • by mpe (36238)
          If you can make IE work that is - today it doesn't even work well with M$ services.

          Using IE8 or IE9 often appears to be an effective workaround here. For some reason webmail appears especially troublesome with IE10 and IE11.
          • Webmail?

            pop.google.com works great for me. I never even see any ads.

            • Webmail means not having to install software if you're borrowing someone else's computer to access your mail. Webmail means being able to access mail on a machine to which a proper MUA hasn't been petted, such as a video game console or something similarly locked down that happens to have a web browser.
    • by Art3x (973401) on Friday August 08, 2014 @12:26AM (#47628163)

      "Unsupported" is the magic word to get huge companies like mine to at last move on. I can't tell you how happy that will make me, an intranet programmer, if my company's official browser is IE 11 or something.

      Right now it's 8. It and 7 were wonderful improvements in CSS from IE 6, which our official browser until just a few years ago. I fought with IE 6 for years and it felt like it would it never quite go away. I know that there are some poor souls in the world still using IE 6, but since it's no longer our company's official browser, I don't have to think about it. The thing that made my company finally upgrade was because a vendor forced them to, saying that their web app would no longer work in IE 6.

      While IE 7 and 8 brought real improvements in CSS support, JavaScript is quirky until at least 9. Microsoft's unpredictable implementation of JavaScript is part of the reason JavaScript has a shady reputation. If Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari were the only browsers I had to write against, it would have been a different life.

      • by Bogtha (906264)

        Right now it's 8. It and 7 were wonderful improvements in CSS from IE 6

        Not really. The only real difference between 6 and 7 from a CSS perspective was a few extra selectors and bug fixes. The real improvements came with version 8, which finally had full support for CSS 2.

      • by operagost (62405)
        Anyone using IE6 has bigger problems, because their OS isn't even supported. No desktop version newer than XP supports IE6.
        • Does Windows 7 support IE 6 in XP compatibility mode?

          • by cbhacking (979169)

            Yes (in the sense that the XP Compatibility Mode image comes with IE6 installed), but also no (in the sense that XP in general is no longer supported).

      • It is even worse for vendors, In companies that sells services and products for other companies you have to use the lowest common multiple which was IE6 until a couple of years ago, now it is IE8.

        You are also absolutely right about your points for IE9, I had to fight with my bosses for our new product to be >= IE9 only. They wanted the latests HTML5 buzzwords but also to be able to run on old IE. The alternative was building everything using Java Applets...

  • by TWX (665546)
    Firefox will have some competition for version numbering again!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I for one welcome this. I work in a company that up till a few months ago was still on IE8. They upgraded to IE10 instead of going directly to IE11 which is totally insane in my mind and the reasoning by the folks doing the deployment was to use stable and tested.

    This same company still uses to this day a version of Java that is both old and recommended by Oracle to update immediately because it has critical vulnerabilities which is even more insane to me when you factor in that they work with so much custo

    • by mjwx (966435) on Friday August 08, 2014 @12:18AM (#47628149)

      I for one welcome this. I work in a company that up till a few months ago was still on IE8. They upgraded to IE10 instead of going directly to IE11 which is totally insane in my mind and the reasoning by the folks doing the deployment was to use stable and tested.

      This same company still uses to this day a version of Java that is both old and recommended by Oracle to update immediately because it has critical vulnerabilities which is even more insane to me when you factor in that they work with so much customer data breaches and the potential for lawsuits just seems extremely high.

      As a sysadmin, running the current version -1 is the safe bet for most businesses. The problem is that few businesses have an upgrade path, policy or methodology so you end up being current version -2 or -3 because no-one is willing to sign off on an upgrade.

      Its not that we dont want to upgrade, its that management dont want any disruption to anything. So they refuse to allow upgrades until eventually the manufacturer forces the issue (and sometimes not even then). As for running out of date versions of Java (or anything else) it's always due to one legacy application that relies on that version and that version only. Its always a critical application that was written by some rock star developer a few years ago and since that developer left a few years ago no-one know how it works or how to upgrade it to function with a more current version of Java. Whenever I hear a developer say "oh, I can write a little application to do that" for an important process or requirement I want to beat them to death with a rusty pipe.

      • by mpe (36238)
        As a sysadmin, running the current version -1 is the safe bet for most businesses. The problem is that few businesses have an upgrade path, policy or methodology so you end up being current version -2 or -3 because no-one is willing to sign off on an upgrade.
        Its not that we dont want to upgrade, its that management dont want any disruption to anything.


        Possibly also the managment does not want to spend the money on testing to ensure that any disruption is minimised. Especially when one "upgrade" can requ
      • As a sysadmin, running the current version -1 is the safe bet for most businesses. The problem is that few businesses have an upgrade path, policy or methodology so you end up being current version -2 or -3 ...

        That tradition goes back to mainframes. One difference is that in the IBM mainframe days, a "version" came out every blue moon, thoroughly tested by an itty bitty monopoly, and justifying similar thorough testing by users; whereas today a "version" can arrive every few days (or faster for people who watch commits to the archive) and testing would almost be continuous.

  • Sounds like a great reason to not use Internet Explorer.

    In the past 7 years I've only had to use it a relatively few times - For instance Illinois gubment can't be bothered to make their apps non IE friendly.

    but hey, to each their own.

  • This is sad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thieh (3654731)
    On one hand, most businesses are locked into using Windows, and on the other hand, Microsoft are phasing out everything every now and then in order to force you to pay them to upgrade. On top of that businesses usually have draconian versions of stuff that won't run without equally draconian versions of Windows/Office/IE. I wonder how do people get into that spiral
    • Re:This is sad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ron_ivi (607351) <sdotno AT cheapcomplexdevices DOT com> on Friday August 08, 2014 @01:49AM (#47628337)

      Sad? I'd say it's happy.

      So many big companies locked themselves in to "microsoft IE-6 only solutions" - and open source advocates have long cautioned them against depending too much on a vendor that might yank support whenever management changes or quarterly profits dictate yanking support to encourage upgrades.

      This will teach them a lesson they'll hopefully never forget; and look for cross platform solutions in the future.

      • by Mask (87752)

        "This will teach them a lesson they'll hopefully never forget".

        Most individuals learn, not everybody. Some organizations learn, not all of them. Humanity almost always repeats past mistakes.

        The same forces that made people use the "IE-6 only solutions" will always exist. New MBAs and engineers will keep only these forces in mind and will not even consider the impact of their decision on the "potential" distant future. It is not that they will not be aware of the dangers, it is just that feeling the pain in

  • Support??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by pitchpipe (708843) on Friday August 08, 2014 @12:36AM (#47628181)
    Microsoft supports Internet Explorer?! I wouldn't admit to it if I was them.
  • IE is supported? When did this happen?

    Last I heard, they reluctantly release updates when other parts of the OS beat them on bugs per kg of code. (They stopped measuring lines when someone googled the term.)

  • Hell No (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There is a reason why nobody should "automatically" update Windows. It's an identical reason toy why you shouldn't let Linux or MacOS X update automatically.

    If the administrative account isn't used to confirm installing updates, then it will be compromised.

    Here's one example:

    After installing X product that shall remain nameless, suddenly Windows sees a need to push 20 updates or so. Ok whatevers. So those updates are installed, but now when I try to install Visual Studio and the SDK's they all fail. Now why

    • I agree. While Windows generally works better than Linux on desktop these days, the update system in Windows is fucking flaky.
  • should upgrade to an operating system.

  • IE 10 and IE 11 are significantly buggy and seem to have broken compatibility with older sites whereas FireFox and Chrome still work on those sites perfectly well. Of course Microsoft would say fix the site but when you are dealing with sites that provide services to your business stability is king, as a result we have managed to stop IE10/11 being deployed on any of the Win 7/Win XP machines in use. Microsoft dropping support for older browsers means we will stop using IE, we had already started installi
    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      Microsoft IE11 isn't even backwards compatible with older versions of Outlook web mail, and by older I mean pretty recent versions... I had to resort to Opera to be able to access the web mail at work from home.

      Not that I use IE for anything else so I can't tell...

      • IE11 breaks loads of third-party apps and doesn't play nicely with some of Microsoft's own software like older versions of Sharepoint and Dynamics. I'm always tripping over IE11 issues at work and having to use Chrome instead because somehow the other browser makers seem to be able to not royally screw things up every time there's an upgrade. I'm not looking forward to IE12. At least the developer tools finally allow you to choose which Javascript file you want to look at rather than having to move throu

  • by Jesus_666 (702802) on Friday August 08, 2014 @03:45AM (#47628599)
    Seriously; I'd be happy if Microsoft stopped supporting newer versions of IE as well. It's not that IE is a terrible browser per se, it's that Microsoft's policy of only releasing new versions of IE for versions of Windows they still support means that many people out there are stuck using ancient IE versions. This means that web designers often still need to care for things like IE 8 on Windows XP (which, to make things even better, behaves unlike IE 8 on other Windows versions) because that's what some customers use to see if their shiny new website works.

    No, those customers aren't going to replace their still-working XP boxes with brand-new computers running Windows 8.1 Upgrade 1 Patch 1 Service Pack 1, especially not to get a browser update. As long as those computers don't physically break down they're going to keep running Windows XP; after all, replacing a working tool is unneccessary cost and businesses don't like unneccessary costs. So IE 8 compatibility remains important, at least for those customers who still use it to look at their websites.

    All of that would change if Microsoft wrote IE to support the same platforms Firefox and Chrome do. Firefox 31 runs on XP SP2, as does Chrome 36. So should IE 11. Then we could finally move on from the days of horrible IE-specific hacks and dozens of kilobytes of compatibility code and actually get some work done. As it is, the only recourse we have is to keep telling people to never run IE under any circumstance except to download a better browser; hopefully at some point we will have drilled "IE is always the wrong choice" into people's head hard enough that they will reflexively use a browser with a sane update policy and IE will be marginalized enough to be irrelevant.

    Which would be sad; more competition in the browser market would be good. But not through an obsolescence factory like IE.
    • Seriously?

      This is such an antiquated IT Industry philosophy! (if it ain't broke don't fix it).

      Thanks to this idea, Microsoft has to spend most of it's resources patching old systems, (which they no longer receive revenue for), making upgrading more expensive.
      Granted Microsoft needs to rethink how upgrades can be more efficient and provide a better model, but we could all benefit from a smoother and cheaper upgrade model especially if Microsoft didn't have to keep plugging today's security holes for yesterda

      • by Jesus_666 (702802)
        Well, to my knowledge this attitude is mostly found in non-IT companies. For them their computers are no different from, say, their plumbing. As long as the plumbing works (and there are no other pressing factors like legal requirements) there is no need to replace the pipes with new ones that may be in some way better. IT professionals understand that outdated software can (and often does) pose a security risk but most other people don't.

        Of course it would be nice if we could get people educated about th
        • They have really shiney file cabinets at the company that produces file cabinets. Their file clerks rate very high on the jobs satisfaction scores, too.

          It would be nice if we could get everybody else educated about the importance of file clerks and data custodians. And that nice gray crackle finish on the filing cabinets.

        • Of course it would be nice if we could get people educated about that sort of thing. Then the only ones we'd have to worry about would be those who just plain can't upgrade - either because they have custom software or because their job-specific hardware has no drivers for modern Windows versions.

          So true, education is the key, move forward or don't complain about redundant old functionality with security holes everywhere. It gets to the point where silicon just won't fix your leaky pipe.

          Though;
          Custom software should always be being redeveloped etc, if it hasn't changed in a long time, then it's probably time to rethink it's purpose and efficiency. Plus specific to IE, IE "should be able to" handle all web comms since the dawn of time. (maybe if Microsoft had more resources this might be better)
          Backw

          • Get out of the IT business and top management would rather not think about IT any more than they have to. Any time or energy spent on managing IT is time or energy not spent on something that might increase revenue or seriously cut costs. IT is one of those support functions that isn't really related to what the business is about, like HR. Trying to convince them that they should update without need is not going to work, nor should it. (Trying to convince them that IT is a special snowflake isn't going

      • Upgrading software isn't free, especially something like IE where each successive version breaks stuff that worked in the previous one.

      • by Khyber (864651)

        "This is such an antiquated IT Industry philosophy! (if it ain't broke don't fix it)."

        Yea, you go fuck your BIOS up just because you wanted some extra SSD speed. Watch your system brick out.

        Have fun with that BIOS hot swap, assuming that doesn't fail as well.

        There's a reason we don't fix non-broken things in the IT industry. It's called 'uptime.'

      • Thanks to this idea, Microsoft has to spend most of it's resources patching old systems,

        If MS is spending most of its resources patching old systems, they're doing something wrong. Most of their resources should be spent on trying to develop new products.

        I don't hear car manufacturers whining they have to have parts available for 20 year old cars, and cars cost significantly more than any piece of software (excluding the crap from Oracle and SAP).

        And for the record, I do support as well as m
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      All of that would change if Microsoft wrote IE to support the same platforms Firefox and Chrome do.

      IE's only advantage is being closely coupled to the OS. Remove that advantage and there is absolutely no benefit to it. And Microsoft wants you to be locked in, they don't care if it's good for you.

      • by cbhacking (979169)

        I actually like some of IE's features that other browsers don't have. Their tab grouping beats anything available out-of-the-box in Firefox or Chrome, and their Quick Tabs feature was excellent (until they inexplicably axed it in IE11). The built-in support for mapping or translating highlighted text is also quite nice. The best, though, is probably the built-in "tracking protection" (which actually makes an excellent ad blocker). I know there are other (niche) browsers with built-in ad blocking, but IE's f

  • I suggest they stop supported version 11 also, that way a lot of problems in the internet will be solved.... Making a website will become much easier, less frustration and we could get payed a little better at the hour, not having to stay awake for nights getting it working on some version of MSIE...
  • in the discussion about Skype being made to stop working with older versions of OS X and comparing it, Skype, to phone usage, when you can get Microsoft or Apple to have its software work for thirty or forty years like one can with a telephone, you let me know.

    Microsoft can stop support all it wants but that doesn't mean people aren't gong to stop using these older versions. People, particularly corporations, will tell them they're sick of constantly being forced to "upgrade" when there is nothing wrong ph

  • We are so far behind. Still using IE 8 because our systems were developed for even older versions of the browser.
  • Ok, but MSIE 11 can't be installed on Windows Server 2012, only on Windows Server 2012 R2. Unlike the Windows 8.1, the R2 wasn't the free upgrade. So, if MSIE 10 won't be supported, can we still say that Microsoft is supporting the Windows Server 2012?

    • by operagost (62405)
      The article, and the summary, say the "most recent supported version". This doesn't mean the latest version of IE for every supported platform will be the same version of IE. There's a chart right on the page. It's quite clear.
      • You'd have to imagine that the reason for MS dropping support for older IE versions is to save on bug fixes for IE, and compatibility fixes for HTTP based products.

        So it would probably make better sense for them to work to enable newer IE versions on older OS versions. That said, what's logical, and what MS actually do often ain't the same!
  • by Maxwell (13985) on Friday August 08, 2014 @08:35AM (#47629607) Homepage

    Sure, all we have to do is rewrite the internet to work with IE11 and we'll be fine. I propose Microsoft should start with Sharepoint, Project server, CRM Dynamics etc that currently don't work well with IE11...

    Firefox 3.6 has better overall compatibility than IE11!

  • Seriously, try enabling Microsoft Update with IE 11 installed...

    It just points you to a web page telling you to use Windows Update. If you need Office updates, you have to downgrade to IE 10, enable MS Update, and re-update to IE 11...
  • "Give me a modern responsive look and feel, it must be fast and single-page, and it should work on phones and ipads like the facebooks"... "Oh and half our customers use IE7 and have 512 megs of ram."

    I am counting the days until 2016!
  • I would love to put auto update on but, Microsoft among many other corporations' breaking the trust of people by sneaking in programs that are not updates. Sucks but ya reap what ya sow. I trust no Corporation, not even the FOSS ones .And that is IMO based on past actions
  • I can't use IE10 or IE11 due to the forced KB2670838 update that comes with them. For me, KB2670838 breaks the Resource Monitor in Windows 7 that you can launch after bringing up the Task Manager with ctl-alt-del. I use this quite a bit to monitor memory usage of processes, disk accesses, etc. This has been a known problem for quite some time, ever since IE10 came out. Just google for "KB2670838 resource monitor". If you uninstall KB2670838 in order to get Resource Monitor to work again, it uninstalls

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis

Working...