Internet Explorer 7 to be released

[Kite]

im looking at the similar threads box and all i see are posts like 'Internet Explorer Buffer Overun' and 'Internet Explorer interfacing problem'. that to me speaks volumes.

[Egaladeist]

No Kite...I was responding to XTC's tongue-in-cheek remarks with my own tongue-in-cheek remarks in reply.

zencoder...when it comes to Google and market share expect the unexpected...you know they're already considering free phone service and now have an inside track to Firefox...I'm not saying it's going to happen...just don't be surprised if it does.

[Double//Cut]

Im just sick and tired of installing updates for IE 6.

Im looking forward to seeing IE 7, i may not use it much because im sure there wont be a .deb release for it, but im looking forward to seeing what M$ thinks it takes to make "virus, scam and phishing" proof web browser....

Im also curious to watch which FireFox etc functions M$ takes and places them into their browser....

Either way, once IE7 is out, on my windows systems it goes, default browser it will never be.

[a morning chill]

Im also curious to watch which FireFox etc functions M$ takes and places them into their browser....

Careful. Firefox got tabbed browsing from Mozilla, which got it from Opera, which got it from Excel, which got it from UNIX tabbed terminals. Firefox got plugin capability from Kmelon, which got it from gaim, which got it from a trillian other orignations.

Don't think firefox is origonal on their ideas, in the same way that IE7 won't be either.

but im looking forward to seeing what M$ thinks it takes to make "virus, scam and phishing" proof web browser....

Careful there too. They are fully aware that it isn't 100% foolproof, just as you and I are. They are talking about implimenting things to help prevent and stop virus spreading/scamming/phishing. They are not talking about putting and end to something that everyone one of us knows there will never be an end to, in any operating system.

[Egaladeist]

This new browser will only be available for XP SP2 users...everyone else gets the shaft again...in Microsofts bid to force people to upgrade...

http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,414...10KTX2B2200436

[moxnix]

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
This new browser will only be available for XP SP2 users...everyone else gets the shaft again...in Microsofts bid to force people to upgrade...

Well of course it will be for XP SP2 only........why in the world would they try to take 5 steps back?

If I built a super after market addon for a chevrolet car, that made use of their Northstar systems, why would I even consider attempting to adapt it backwards to a 57 chevy???? The 57 has absolutely no electronics in it.

[Egaladeist]

I use Firefox...so I don't care about the browser...still...it's just episode three in Microsoft's bid to upgrade people. Sorry mx...the car analogy just doesn't work for me...a computer is not a car...I wouldn't try to upgrade my toaster either.

[a morning chill]

This new browser will only be available for XP SP2 users...everyone else gets the shaft again...in Microsofts bid to force people to upgrade...

Have you forgotten the history of Windows compatability? XP SP2 can still run 16bit applications from Windows 3.1

Don't try and play down their backwards compatability as some tin-foil-hat theme.

They are only going to support their newest operating system for what I feel are two solid reasons:

1. Only worrying about XP SP2 and Longhorn means a LOT less worries about support for 95, 98, and 2k. This means less time on tech support for them, meaning more time they can work on solid code that ONLY windows XP SP2 (remember.. the LARGE amount of whitepaper changes to the kernel?) and Longhorn that windows 2k and lower can't even begin to touch. See that part? The windows 2k and lower kernel does not have the buffer overflow level of protection and AMD security of what SP2 gave the XP kernel.

2. If you went to Linus, and complained that your were upset that Firefox was requiring certain depedencies that your Redhat 4 doesn't support without a complete overhaul. Basically leaving you with a system almost identical to RedHat 9. Linux would laugh at you if you refused and kicked&screamed about not wanting to leave the 2.3 kernel for the proven/stable/more flexible/driver supporting 2.4 kernel in RedHat 9. Why? Because if you are still running Windows 95 or 98, then you deserve what you get while being DoSed. And if you are still running Windows 2k (a 5-6 year old operating system. What is this... OpenBSD 1.0?) then it's time to upgrade for multiple reasons. From kernel latency handling to internal security capability on the kernel level, that win 2k will never be able to accomidate.

In other words, Monix is right on the button here.

it's just episode three in Microsoft's bid to upgrade people

Okay, tinfoil hat time. them only supporting XP has nothing to do with kernel level executable checking not capable in 2k and lower. It also couldn't have anything to do with HTT capability for dual-core buffer checking that 2k and lower are not capable of.

Nah... it has to be their marketing scheme.

[Egaladeist]

Obviously mc...Microsoft is making all these changes to force upgrades to XP to increase sales and reduce their service costs...

they've admitted that they are doing things to force upgrades...

this is not some kind of hidden conspiracy they are doing behind people's backs..I'm just stating a fact they have admitted to doing themselves...

you're defence of the integrity of Microsoft is wasted.

P.S. I very much like tin foil hats...thank-you !

[a morning chill]

I give up. There isn't a thing I can say to you, because you need to sit down and read the white papers yourselves.

Windows 2k and lower are not capable of an XP SP2 kernel core functonality. It's that plain and simple. I've worked on a lot of products for Microsoft, and I know their reasoning behind this.

Now, I don't know why I feel like you didn't read my entire post, but I still feel that way. If you understood how the xp sp2 kernel functioned on a low level, you wouldn't try turning this into a tinfoil-hat scheme. They do want people to upgrade, you are completely correct. They want people to upgrade because the 2k and lower kernles are not capable of the same immense amount of security buffer checks that the xp sp2 kernel can.

Upgrade, like you would with any other OS, and move on. If you won't read the white papers and kernel specifications for Windows (found on ms's site), then you are either going to have to continue complaining about a situation that isn't going to change.. or just trust us on the differences.