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]

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

Good or bad news for the web developers?

[YA_Python_dev]

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]

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]

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]

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:

[BalanceOfJudgement]

The wonderful folks at PositionIsEverything have resolved those problems [positioniseverything.net]. It's a pain in the royal ass to fix but definitely possible.

Since browser compliance testing is something I do when I build websites I'll need these instructions when I (unwillingly but necessarily) install IE7 on my machine. I have not done so yet because I don't want to test IE7 until it is essentially complete. No point in coding for a bug that will disappear on final release.

Re:

[pe1chl]

Although I hold the same position, to my disappointment I read that there are not going to be any essential bugfixes before the release.
They will just be looking at the things important to MS (i.e. the eye-candy, the smoothness of the installer), not the CSS bugs.

Re:

[Kjella]

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:

[Antiocheian]

If it still breaks, well... then the browser is marginal and broken, who cares?

None important, just the customer and the visitors.

Crawl back to CIWAH you moron!

Re:

[suv4x4]

Rather that testing everything in browsers that aren't on the radar, test against W3C.

If you can run your sites against text specifications, more power to ya. The rest of the world uses good ol' fashioned browsers, and check against them to confirm they work.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

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:

[xENoLocO]

The windows virtual machine method is a pain. I wasn't aware that method was reliable, since the last time I read about it they were still having issues getting it to work properly.

"... I wonder how you manage with CSS? I personally use dreamweaver ..."

Says he with 20 validation errors on his website. :)

Re:

[Frizzle Fry]

That gives you a weird hybrid registration containing the dlls from whichever cab you unpacked along with the registry info for the version you actually have installed.

Re:

[Tim C]

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

Re:

[mackyrae]

It's a good news in that they've taken leaps and bounds as far as standards support. Still not as good as it should be, but at this point I'll take anything.

Except now, the Holly Hack doesn't work, but not all of the positioning stuff was fixed. If they weren't going to fix it all, they could've at least left that container around <html></html> so the * html body p (the Holly Hack) would still work correctly.

Now, if you want your site to work correctly, you need 3 style sheets. One is for all

Re:

[pe1chl]

This has always been the only reasonable way to do it...
Don't use hacks that rely on CSS parsing bugs. Use conditional comments.

Re:

[Overly Critical Guy]

IE7 has the worst interface I've ever seen in a browser. Stop and refresh are over on the right side of the address bar, and a bunch of toolbar buttons are sitting below that on the right side of the tab bar, so you get less space for your tabs unless you run full screen, which I'm not going to do on a widescreen monitor (the proliferation of wide screen displays has made Windows' maximize feature obsolete and ridiculous).

every time I try firefox, I go back.

[krell]

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]

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]

"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:

[APLowman]

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.

glitch [webster.com]
1 : a usually minor malfunction ;
2 : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
3 : a false or spurious electronic signal

I'm not sure how putting options in the "Options" dialog is a "glitch". I'm pretty sure implementing a clean UI free of clut

Re:

[robertjw]

Tools->Options->Privacy->Passwords = handy I bet you write software for a living.

Re:

[ElleyKitten]

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]

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:

[edmicman]

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.

Which version are you using? Maybe it's a new feature of v2, but on mine the popup has an option for "remember password", "not this time", and "never for this site". And as others have said, the option to turn the whole thing off is in the preferences options, anyway.

Re:Thank God

[Mateo_LeFou]

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]

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:

[Tim C]

To be fair, it's "Internet (Internet Explorer)", just like my default email client is "E-Mail (Mozilla Thunderbird)" (parenthised bits are on a separate line).

They've not renamed IE to "The Internet", they're making it obvious for the less technically savvy that that's the program you use to access the Internet. You're free to change it to whatever you want, in which case it'll say (eg) "Internet (Mozilla Firefox)".

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

"It's not the program you use to access the Internet. It's the program you use to access the web."

Aye. In my "start menu" (which is actually a smelly footprint) There's a whole submenu called "Internet", with 20 applications in it, including a couple different browsers.

Re:

[Fred_A]

In a similar vein, trying to explain the difference between the Web and the Internet to a random user nowadays is an exercise in frustration... :-/

Re:

[nuzak]

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

Because it's good enough for them.

The article says this month

[alta]

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]

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?

Re:

[Kelson]

I would guess not. IIRC, only "critical" updates are available to systems that haven't passed WGA, and this is a "high priority" update. It looks like even the automatic update next month is only going to be semi-automatic [msdn.com] (it'll offer the download, but require user confirmation).

What about IE6 updates?

[a16]

So if MS are pushing out IE to it's genuine customers, but won't let non-genuine advantage machines get the update, are they going to continue to put out security updates to IE6 - which in theory will only be used by non-genuine customers?

I fear not, especially with Vista and it's uber anti-piracy coming along in the not to distant future. They need something to get people to see the upgrade as worthwhile.

I personally think the days of being able to run a non-genuine key are over, it'll be near impossible s

Re:

[Kelson]

are they going to continue to put out security updates to IE6

Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends on what version of Windows you're using [msdn.com].

Basically, as long as your version of Windows is supported, the version of IE that came with it will also be supported. Keep in mind that Microsoft considers service packs to be different "versions" for purposes of their lifecycle policy, and older SPs drop out of support before the newer ones do.

So IE6 will get security patches as long as Windows 2000 SP4 and

Re:

[cheshire_cqx]

Unless they install this update [mozilla.com].

Praise Allah!

[drinkypoo]

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]

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

Yeah, IE7's CSS is still broken

[CritterNYC]

IE7 fixes enough stuff in its CSS handling that the old IE6 hacks don't work anymore. But it still has enough broken CSS stuff that a valid CSS layout with floats and clears in a containing DIV will wind up borked in IE7 even though it will work right in every modern browser (Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror).

So, essentially, IE7 isn't really a modern browser, it's a slightly hacked IE6 rendering engine with a prettied up interface (though "prettied" is certainly in the eye of the beholder... I, personall

Re:

[unapersson]

It's mostly not true. Your best weapon in the IE hack arsenal is the IF IE conditional "comments". Lots of people are currently using hacks that would best be replaced with IF IE.

They don't work in CSS files though do they? So require you to provide a separate stylesheet. We would rather not maintain a seperate stylesheet for each version of IE.

If you could do: /* [if(ie6)] body { background: red } */

then that would be great, but the last time I looked the best they could manage was conditional HTML comment

Re:

[thelost]

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]

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]

This is the stable one

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

Actually, 'Yay!'

[Odin_Tiger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Re:

[Kjella]

Ha funny. You sir, are a mental midget.

To answer the GP, no, no it can not. If you want IE6 to be safe get a hardware firewall and configur eit correctly.

Funny hearing insult from someone who has absolutely no clue at all. What exactly would you do with a hardware firewall to make IE safer? Blocking outbound port 80 might help, but I doubt you'll be happy with the results...

Use DropMyRights

[bogie]

Article here http://msdn.microsoft.com/security/securecode/col u mns/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dncode/html/s ecure11152004.asp [microsoft.com]

So for example this is my shortcut to IE

C:\DropMyRights\DropMyRights.exe "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" /c

If you try to install something like Shockwave you get an error. Now I don't use IE much at all but if your in a situation where you have to use it and have to login as Admin this is a decent solution.

As an occassional web developer

[arevos]

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]

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]

Re:

[arevos]

Oho! That I have to try! Do you know if it allows for transparent PNGs referenced in the CSS background-image property?

Re:

[Per Wigren]

From the list:
background-image | PNG alpha transparency (IE5.5+)

Note that by default it only enables transparency on images ending with "-trans.png". You can change that by setting IE7_PNG_SUFFIX to something else before loading IE7, like IE7_PNG_SUFFIX = ".png"; to enable transparency for all .png images (can be slow if you have lots of them).

Re:

[Kelson]

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 :)

Ah, if only!

Even with Microsoft pushing it out via automatic updates next month, I expect it will take at least a year before IE6's marketshare declines to the point where we can ignore it.

Consider:

• People who don't update (and don't have automatic updates set up).
• People who are still on Windows XP Service pack 1
• People who are still on Windows 2000 (still common in business)

Re:

[misleb]

Sadly, there are still quite a number of people still running Windows older than XP which will never run IE7. I don't have the figures handly, but I imagine it is somewhere around 30%. So unless you want to alienate a good chunk of users, you'll have to continue supporting IE6 (and maybe even IE5.5) for several years to come.

-matthew

The article says "could be"

[origamy]

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]

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]

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.

Re:

[VGPowerlord]

This is the first time I have ever heard someone try to make the claim that putting out a new version of their software every couple of years and trying to charge money for it constituted a lack of ethics.

Does the name "Symantec" or "Norton Anti-Virus" ring a bell?

Tomorrow is not accurate

[DigitlDud]

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.

Tomorrow is accurate...

[Hillgiant]

...for sufficiently large values of Today.

For a Firefox user:

[jbeaupre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Re:

[CheeseTroll]

IE7 won't run on Win2K, AFAIK, no matter how well it's patched. That's a lot of corporate machines being left out.

Re:

[plopez]

as a scarred veteren of the 90's browser wars, I feel for you. It took me several years to get the twitching under control.

Oh, and check your hacks again. Odds are you will have to roll out the IE6 hacks and replace them with IE7 hacks. A site that renders will in IE6 will probably not work under IE7 now.

Like I said, I feel for you.

The biggest inconvenience

[ezratrumpet]

...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]

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.

Re:

[Sylver Dragon]

On my system, Task Manager reports that the two executables for IE7 (iexplore.exe and iuser.exe) are taking up about 10MB of memory total. By contrast FireFox is taking about 20MB. Both are freash instances of the browser sitting at the main google page. Of course, I have a bunch of extensions installed for FF along with all of my bookmarks, so it is probably a bit high.
Of course, this is running on Vista RC1 so, YMMV.
In all, if the security of IE7 is even half as good as MS is claiming, I'll be happy.

Re:

[Kelson]

I've never understood why the guys at Firefox can't (or won't?) fix something as simple and serious as memory leaks.

You are aware that they've fixed memory leaks in nearly every point release since 1.5, right? (Check the release notes.) And that they've fixed more memory leaks in 2.0?

It's not a matter of fixing a couple of big leaks. It's a matter of tracking down a bunch of little leaks and fixing each of them.

New exploits to ship on Wednesday

[Animats]

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

Don't expect miracles

[suv4x4]

IE7 will come with the WGA checks, and we know more than half of those 8x% that have IE6 now don't have legit Windows. They will not get IE7, even if they want it (of course, a small minority of them wil crack it).

Unless they go on a crackfest, all of them, we can expect steady 50% or more of IE6 for the next few years. Pitty, but remember IE5.0 guys! IE6 is bearable in my humble opinion (I'm a web dev).

The couple of points where IE's adoption increased: we have over a million people (half a million only of

Significantly Higher?

[webword]

When it comes to switching browsers, I really only care when I see value. In general, I stick with what works until (a) it breaks or (b) the positive value of switching is significant.

For each person, the significantly higher will be different. Extremely minor updates are enough for those folks that want the latest and greatest. For others, it takes a crazy value propostion to be enough for a switch. Obviously this kind of thinking can be mapped to an innovation adoption curve [wikipedia.org].

I'll wait. My browser isn't b

Re:

[DoorFrame]

I switched to Firefox for adblock, which has made web surfing a considerably better experience for me.

How to avoid a possible disaster - For Admins

[mgpeter]

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]

Re:

[Chris Brewer]

Microsoft provides a toolkit with which you can roll out the registry changes via Group Policy:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=4516A6F7-5D44-482B-9DBD-869B4A90159C&displa ylang=en&Hash=GJ3Y7L7 [microsoft.com]

Why so cagey?

[LordSnooty]

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?

Re:

[Kelson]

My guess: They don't want to see headlines saying "IE7 delayed again!" if they find some last-minute problem.

As for the deluge of incompatible users, keep in mind that the summary is incorrect, and it's not going to be an automatic update until next month (the exact wording is "a few weeks after it's available for download"). So that should limit the initial problems to early adopters.

Incidentally, IE7 RC1 has been out since August. I trust you've been working on updating your apps for the last six weeks,

Re:

[LordSnooty]

I trust you've been working on updating your apps for the last six weeks, and just need time to finish?

Actually it's the vendor at fault, so what can you do? We only support it.

Re:

[Kelson]

Actually it's the vendor at fault, so what can you do? We only support it.

Sorry to hear it. Good luck with the damage control (and, more importantly, convincing the vendor to fix their product!)

Firefox the memory hog

[DrDitto]

This morning I loaded Firefox 1.5.something on my Windows XP laptop, entered cnn.com for news. 10 minutes later Firefox was chewing up 65MB of memory and causing my laptop to drag.

I'm thrilled to get tabs on a browser that doesn't have a memory leak.

Re:

[bunratty]

65 MB of memory usage is normal for a browser. I tried Opera 9 when it first came out, and it was using over 100 MB on the first day. I wouldn't consider either browser a "memory hog".

IE7-Only sites start soon

[alohatiger]

Probably a few days after IE7 comes out we'll have "new and improved" websites that only work on IE7.

Well hells donkeys...

[Kenja]

Guess I'd better get started testing it for compatibility with my web application.

Is this Goodbye Non-MS Browsers?

[Toreo asesino]

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.

Only those who purchase Vista....

[GuyverDH]

The article notes that the IE7 "containment wall" protected mode will not be available on XP, but only to those who purchase Vista.
In other words, "No one will have the containment wall?"

But it still has serious usability bugs

[SpryGuy]

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]

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

Re:

[Kelson]

Hasn't IE's marketshare increased every summer for the last few years, wth Firefox and company catching up again in fall?

Re:

[Dan Ost]

That sounds suspiciously like it follows the school year...

Re:

[bunratty]

I can't see a pattern that regular in the historical record of browser usage [wikipedia.org]. But IE posting a gain one reporting period only to lose share the next is common. The trend still seems to be IE usage decreasing and Firefox and Safari usage increasing. To verify that there's a new trend in browser usage share, we'll need to see more than just one data point from one stats source.

You've got a few weeks to prepare

[Kelson]

MS won't be pushing it out to automatc updates until a few weeks after it's been released for download. I'm guessing November's round of patches.

Even then, it looks like even the "automatic" installation will still be interactive [msdn.com]. So instead of just installing it, it'll bring up a screen saying "You can get an updated Internet Explorer! Do you want it?"

Re:They just need to make our jobs a little harder

[LanMan04]

Check out this service (yes, it costs money):

http://www.browsercam.com/default.aspx [browsercam.com]

Lets you VNC (or whatever) into a huge bank of machines (virtual or not, I don't know) that allow you to test your pages in every platform/browser combo in the known universe. Pretty cool, I wish I had thought of it.