digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Microsoft warns of IE7 lock-in with XP SP3

computerworld.com — You can't go backwards or forwards with SP3, truly 'screwed' down.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bamafun, on 05/09/2008, -22/+17now they tell us lol
    • krystalo, on 05/09/2008, -5/+22Actually, they said it a few days ago (before xp sp3 was released). Computerworld is just slow, this is old news.
    • misterjangles, on 05/09/2008, -3/+43Please for the love of god - everybody install SP3 and we can be rid of IE 6 forever!
      • WoollyMittens, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10As a web-developer I can only cheer this on, but I know it'll never ever happen. People don't update anything. We'll be stuck with that excuse for a browser for years to come yet.
        • popfrogs, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11At many companies, they still don't trust IE7 although it's much better than IE6 security-wise and it's better at rendering some pages. Firefox 3 pwns both of them, but that goes without saying.
          In short, I agree. IE6 must die.
        • kmg90, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2IE 6 is faster than 7 and its seems ie 7 is memory and resource hog
      • therightclique, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6the problem is that the user interface for IE 6 was highly superior to IE 7. they should've just added tabs and left all the other ***** under the hood.
        • ucg1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Anyone who cares is probably using Firefox, Safari or Opera
      • mossblaser, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4IE 7 is not that much better than IE6 in terms of support for web standards. It supports PNG (Yess! no more stupid IE6 png hacks) but its javascript support is buggy at best and it still struggles with even the most basic CSS bits and bobs.
    • rpgmaker, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Well, is not like if IE6 is better than IE7 so...
  • allowners, on 05/09/2008, -19/+7No warning was issued about Microsoft lock-in. :-)
    • RogerStrong, on 05/09/2008, -1/+13Not being able to go back to a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD browser is a lock-in? C'mon, be serious. Nothing says you can't use FireFox, Safari, Opera or any other browser. Nothing says you can't use IE8 when it's released.
  • krystalo, on 05/09/2008, -4/+12Actually that should be http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/journals/ ... (I hate digg's comment system)
    • allowners, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5I have found that, if I decide to edit a comment with an embedded link, the link invariable becomes truncated. The lesson is: get it right the first time if you have an embedded link.
  • lucidguru, on 05/09/2008, -21/+137Does anyone actually use IE6 anymore?
    • cyberwiz01, on 05/09/2008, -17/+36Yeah seriously, why would someone want to go back to IE6?
      • faceless323, on 05/09/2008, -3/+52i still use it at work...we use proprietary software that implodes with IE7 and firefox.
        • TheGuruStud, on 05/09/2008, -9/+35pretty lame stuff then, huh?
          • popfrogs, on 05/09/2008, -6/+5I blame Microsoft. If the app(s) die(s) on any browser except IE6, it's clear the designers targeted that browser and all its weird extensions and interpretations of (what used to be standard) HTML. Then again they could be using custom ActiveX controls and they're too cheap to rewrite them.
            If only everyone stuck to published international standards...ah to dream.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6My buddy has an HP all in one from 2003 that has software which implodes when the machine is upgraded to IE7 in Windows XP. So fortunately for him he can upgrade to Vista, it has the drivers so everything works out of the box. With all the bitching Vista gets I betcha didn't see that one coming eh?
        • dig1x, on 05/09/2008, -4/+3@jereydevfil88

          "My buddy has an HP all in one from 2003 that has software which implodes when the machine is upgraded to IE7 in Windows XP."

          yeah, that makes a lot of sense....
          • MioTheGreat, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5If it interacts with the mshtml renderer, why not? This kind of stuff happens all the time when you upgrade libraries like that.
          • jer2eydevil88, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Yeah that was my reaction too but its not just his model there are a lot o HP all in ones from that era that were shipped with software that makes calls through IE6 and ends up broken in IE7.
            http://www.google.com/search?q=hp+aio+ie7
      • jebaird, on 05/09/2008, -0/+17same here i have to test all my sites in ie6 because most of my clients still use ie6
        • ctonks, on 05/09/2008, -4/+14well MS is doing you a favor then. when they all update to SP3 you won't have to test in ie6.
        • WaruiKoohii, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Why's that, ctonks? They'll still be using IE6 if they want to. SP3 doesn't install IE7.
          • popfrogs, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Yup, I RTFA'd also. You're 100% right. You get an oatmeal cookie which is slightly dried out.
          • SSUK, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Because IE6 is messed up in SP3 meaning people will have to upgrade. Or get a better browser, but they still use IE6... So, that's highly unlikely.
          • sinembarg0, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1@SSUK

            What the ***** are you talking about? I have IE6 on SP3 and it runs just fine.
        • diggathome, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Time for new clients?
      • qwertydvorak, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2who uses ie6 ? ask who uses win 98 still ? i know a guy who has some cnc equipment that won't work under anything but win 98. talk about suckage. think of trying to keep that old crap running.
        • diggimator, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2About half the population of IE users still use version 6.
      • doshindude, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5IE6 is much less bloated than 7..
        Firefox is still much better than either.
    • bobbyschultz, on 05/09/2008, -19/+98Does anyone actually use IE anymore?
      Firefox = Win
      • whataboutdave, on 05/09/2008, -5/+30If you can't install Firefox because of admin privileges, IE7 is worlds better than IE6.
        • Loonacy, on 05/09/2008, -16/+8So... you can't install Firefox because of admin privileges, but you can install IE7?
          • trogdoor, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Why would he need to install IE7? Unless his admins depend on IE6 for in house hacks they probably installed IE7 for him.
          • xyqxyq, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4He didn't say HE could install IE7. Perhaps in this situation his admin rolled out IE7 on all workstations but gave users the option to stick with IE6. No Firefox due to lack of admin privileges, but still the choice between IE6 and IE7.
        • ctonks, on 05/09/2008, -1/+21or you could use FF portable - then you don't need to install it as an admin.
          • PueSi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9Yeah that's how I'm able to use GIMP and Firefox on my work's Vista box.
            http://www.portableapps.com
          • Eezyville, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2PueSi thanks alot. Now I can use Gimp at work instead of MS paint. Its freakin hard to edit pictures the way you want it for powerpoint presentations using MS paint.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10Ladies and Gentlemen who are forced to use IE 6 because of company policy and legacy apps at work I introduce you to a whole new world.
          http://portableapps.com/
      • jermm, on 05/09/2008, -2/+8On the locked down XP SP2 computers at my school, Firefox installs fine
        On Vista, use Portable Firefox, should install on anything: http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_port ...
        (don't have a Vista computer to test with, but I think the school laptops with Vista took Portable Firefox)
      • InfernoBob, on 05/09/2008, -14/+14I prefer IE7 over Firefox.

        /brace for ***** storm
        • iDe1337, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7IE is hell for developers. You're getting the same experience in IE7 because developers spent much their own time making workarounds for that crap browser.
        • h4ppydotcom, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7Why do you prefer IE7? I've tried to like it, but it doesn't do anything better than Firefox - as far as I can see.
        • Tahiri, on 05/09/2008, -11/+3I prefer IE. It's more userfriendly, and more sites render properly.
        • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2I've concluded you're either a troll, or a retard.. There's truly no other explanation.
      • Maver1c, on 05/09/2008, -11/+11Does anyone actually use Firefox anymore?
        Opera = Win



        =)
        • Wootstapler, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4I digg it.
        • actionscripted, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5Firebug > Dragonfly
        • ucg1, on 05/09/2008, -5/+1You're saying that as if Opera suddenly became more compelling to use than before. Yeah, they got rid of the stupid banner ads, but it was too late at that point, people still remember Opera as that annoying adware browser. Opera is a pretty decent browser with a couple of great features, but doesn't have enough to compete with Firefox + extensions.
          • DarkShroud, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2"Firefox + extensions" You seem to have this wrong, The only thing Firefox has is extensions.. Opera is faster, more secure, and standards complaint.
      • antdude, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4I only use IE6 for Windows and Office Updates and whatever Web sites that doesn't work with SeaMonkey and Firefox.
      • Gman1223, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3My job requires me to be in peoples houses, and generally use their computers, over the last year, I'd say 90% of the computers I've had access to used IE6, and the rest IE7, I've only been to one house in one year that has had a computer with Firefox installed. A year before that, it was more like 100% IE6.
        • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3What's your job? Getting rid of spyware? It aaaaallllllllllllllll makes sense now, doesn't it?

          No seriously, what is your job?
          • Gman1223, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Satellite Installation, Satellite Internet Installation, TV and Home theater setups, most of the time I have to give demos and such on peoples ' computers.

            Weirdly, the only customers computer that I used this year which had Firefox installed belonged to a 60 year old grandmother (she was a fanboy about it too).
      • diggimator, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3> Does anyone actually use IE anymore?
        It's the most widely used browser by far.
    • RudeTurnip, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11I had to stick to IE6 at work up until a little while ago because the Thomson ONE Banker service didn't work properly with IE7. Since we pay for the service, being able to use it had more priority over upgrading to IE7. Now, the site works great with IE7.
    • jpjandrade, on 05/09/2008, -34/+8Does anyone actually uses Windows anymore?
      • fkr3, on 05/09/2008, -2/+17Not in the world according to digg, where nobody uses Vista, nobody uses IE, nobody watches TV, nobody goes to the movies, nobody reads the newspaper etcetera. They were going to make a movie about it at one stage, then they realised it was just too far fetched even for a work of fiction.
        • PopcornDave, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6You forgot nobody has a date, knows what a three dimensional woman looks like or has had sex beyond their own hand.
          • fkr3, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4And also that the man and the mainstream media are always collaberating to supress and censor them from sharing the truth, and infringing their civil rights by subjecting them to the law.
          • specialK16, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2@fkr3: Well, that was just overkill.
          • Amiga500, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6Ron Paul
      • whiteguysamurai, on 05/09/2008, -1/+12Only 99.9% of the world.
        • specialK16, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2There are 6,666,464,106 persons in this world. Of course, not the %100 of the world population use computers, but according to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm there are 1,355,110,631 million persons online (ONLINE!), so basically you are saying that ~1,341,559,524 out of those 1,355,110,631 are using windows. According to Linux counter there are (and this is very speculative) ~20M linux users, or 1.47%.

          Even though you were joking, that was ***** close! That or I suck at math. (For funny purposes, we are not counting offline computers because I have no ***** clue how much offline computers are using linux.)
        • specialK16, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2No wait! I was wrong. If the percentage of Linux users is correct, we cannot assume that the other 98.53% are Windows users. I forgot to count other *nix users, bsd's and macfags.So you were not that close after all whiteguysamurai.
          • fkr3, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2lol @ counting the minority users of the minority.... you're really pressing for that extra 0.0001% factoring in the other nix and bsd users. Mac users are about 5 or 6 percent though.
          • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Mac is 14%
    • michelspc, on 05/09/2008, -1/+12Since IE 6 has been around for so long, many business intranet sites have web apps designed only for IE 6. In most situations, keeping IE 6 around is cheaper than upgrading your machines and recoding the site. Believe it or not there are still organizations that are standardized on Windows 2000 Professional. The newest version of IE W2K can run is IE 6.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Business that haven't updated their platform in 8+ years.

        You can't pin that on MS or any other software company and then pretend that Apple broadly dropping support for it's previous platform is ok.

        Let's face it, the machines that are running Win2k aren't going to be able to install IE7. Their hardware fails from over use like any other, and eventually one of two things happens.

        Either they gradually migrate to newer systems as older systems are replaced, or the cost of using the older systems exceeds that of getting newer ones.

        It's a fact of life in the business world. It has no real importance to the typical home user.
      • ucg1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Microsoft not releasing IE7 for Win2k was a major win for competing browsers. Businesses still on Win2k can just switch to Firefox (for a number of reasons).

        .Net 3.0+ doesn't support Win2k either, all the more reason to use something else for client software. Preferably something cross-platform.
    • dvsbastard, on 05/09/2008, -1/+17About 30% of users according to W3Schools site statistics...
      http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a ...

      I'd say that is a pretty significant number...
      • KaneElson, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Actually that is lower than I expected but that doesn't mean anything really. They could just not run automatic update, they might be completely fine with IE7 if they actually updated, they are also unlikely to run SP3 if they don't even update IE....
      • Malovech, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5w3schools is hardly a good source for the worldwide user of IE6 - it's probably more like 65% but w3schools is mostly visited by web developers that use FireFox primarily.
      • stretch611, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1More people run IE6 than IE7. (30% run IE6, 22% run IE7, 37% run Firefox according to w3schools.)
      • synyster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2i thought is more than that, something like 80% of windows use IE6
    • hokie47, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9I have it at work still. I keep it around to still test if my web pages work in it. I wish it would just die.
    • altgeeky1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11You would be surprised... MANY corporations paid good money for "works on IE only" corporate infrastructure... these things break under FireFox (and IE 7)
      • iDe1337, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2Well normally they just make it need the IE user agent but there is a great Firefox addon called User Agent Switcher which would circumvent this.
    • marcushe, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Yeah, it's still default at my 22,000 student university.....
      • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The default at my 50,000 student university is Safari or Firefox on Mac.
    • Useight, on 05/09/2008, -21/+5I still use it. I want to avoid tabbed browsing for as long as possible.
    • kenplaysviola, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5Yes, because whoever developed this in-house web based application at my institution only works on IE6! We can't use IE7 because it isn't compatible with it. I tell my users to use Firefox for everything and ONLY use IE6 for that web based application.
      • Axim, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6instead of making them juggle like that you should upgrade the firefox installs with that IE tab extension, you can whitelist certain URLs that will force it to use the IE rendering engine, keeping it all under one roof!
        • DarkShroud, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Unless it requires ActiveX. And now there is Silverlight for IE7 & IE8.
      • mithrasinvictus, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4find a better developer
    • Kerath, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3I'm using IE6 right now (on an SP3 machine). I don't like the layout of IE7. I have the menu bar, toolbar, address bar, and google toolbar all on the saw row. Then below that the links bar. It maximizes the page viewing area, and IE7 doesn't allow it.
      • Tahiri, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Funny, I do it.
      • roosterjm2k2, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Why are you using IE for general browsing anyways? (not being snide, just an honest question) I understand why so many people use IE (lack of knowledge of alternative, to some people, the IE icon is "the internet") but being on digg, you no doubt are aware of all of the alternatives...so im curious.
        • natenovs, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2protected mode.
          i have no need for firefox extensions (i like them, i just dont use them)
          ff3b5 is nice, but ff2 is slower and more of a memory hog than ie7
      • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2IE7 doesn't allow it eh? How about Safari, Firefox, Opera, or anything else? You know... those.. better ones?
        • Kerath, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I use Firefox sometimes, and have nused Opera but not recently (except on my HTC Kaiser). Safari can burn in hell.
    • demonic, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I'm still having to coding for it... which means its still used EVERYWHERE.... also alot of Enterprises still use it too..
    • firecow, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4I'm a web developer at a company doing contract work for the governement. The organization we work with is still using Windows 2000 and IE 6. I hear talk of upgrading to XP by 2009 (yay?).
      • Misanthrope, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Wow, you must be doing work for a government office where I work. We still use Win2k because our systems admin. hates Microsoft and refuses to move forward for fear of giving them more money.

        It's a miracle we use Windows at all.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1This would be the best damned thing that could happen. I think the first security update after IE7's release should have foreced it. 1) it was a security update, and 2) it would have my the lives of web developers alot easier...
    • broeks, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I use it. Don't like the ie7 layout... but i use firefox anyways so it doesn't matter. Also I keep it so I'm one of the few at work who can test our site with it.
    • rjt69, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Since Win2000 Server should have been supported thru 2010, IE7 should be ported to Win2000. Otherwise, there are many unsafe Terminal Server / RDP installations. When Win2000 was released, MS promised 10 years of support for Servers and 5 years for desktops. Licensing is the real reason MS split the the development of workstation and server.
    • mattmy, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2***** IE7 ie6 isnt much better but IE7 is a piece a trash
    • barnett25, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3IE7 hasn't been approved by the DOD yet, so the entire military is on IE6.
    • yodasama, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Yeah, I mean who actually goes through the bother of installing IE 6 or 7 under Linux anymore? Not that it'd take long or be hard, but you'd still have to break away from your better browsers long enough to do it...
    • Junto, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Read this article by Joel Spolsky, and you'll realise why Microsoft are scared to release a standards compliant browser: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.htm ...

      Out of interest for all the Firefox fan-boys out there, Firefox 2 also fails the Acid2 test, as do 94% of the browsers out there. No browser will ever be fully "standards compliant", because of the nature of standards. What standards define is different to what and how something should be displayed.

      If Microsoft have the balls to release a standards compliant browser, they bizarrely risk alienating a lot of people by stopping a lot of websites from working. They really seem to want to release a fully standards compliant browser, but they are petrified to do so. The IE Team blog post here illustrates this quite well: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/micros ...
  • GRTWHT, on 05/09/2008, -10/+22I wouldn't want to uninstall IE7 (unless it meant I could uninstall IE entirely), but this is exactly why I plan to wait a bit before I apply SP3 to my personal system. Too typical of Microsoft to add a stealth install/change/uninstall that only comes to light after people start having problems and complaining loudly and publicly.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8Windows shares API's with Internet Explorer... and there's a lot of stuff that's built using those api's.

      I could see them removing the ability to launch Internet Explorer and perhaps the exe with an install, but completly removing all of it is understandibly impossible since part of the OS is built upon it.

      And it was a decision made back in 1998, and people (the silent 90% of MS customers) expect full backwards compatibility. Which nobody else provides. I mean there's 20 year old dos apps that still run in Vista...

      This story says that you can't downgrade to IE6 from IE7. There's no reason you'd want to anyway.
      IE7 is a lot better than IE6 in every way, except that it looks different.

      Also you can't really complain about stealth installs, when you set your computer to automatically install updates anyway. If you manually pick and choose the updates, you avoid that mess entirely.
    • rjt69, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0The "Quick Launch" feature in the taskbar should never have been part of IE. Should be part of explorer.exe. Don't know how that ever made it past the antitrust case.
  • xerodustrial, on 05/09/2008, -11/+47As long as this doesn't effect my ability to use FireFox for pretty much everything I do on the net, I don't really see what the big deal is. IE7, while a pile of *****, is no more or less a pile of ***** than IE6 was, but is slightly more secure.

    Is this the only issue of contention with SP3, or are there others like this?
    • WaldoX, on 05/09/2008, -12/+1IE7 adds more lagg and crap to your XP install over IE6
    • pigfister, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2i concur.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Actually, its alot less a pile of *****.

      More secure and better standards compliance ... not perfect by far, but at least it ***** understands min-height....
  • gplpark92, on 05/09/2008, -28/+7what the hell is IE7?
  • FallOutBoyTonto, on 05/09/2008, -19/+8Other than Vista users, who would want to downgrade¿
  • Phil13, on 05/09/2008, -10/+93Good, ***** IE6. At least IE7 is somewhat more tolerant of good code. Easier and faster to get 7 behaving than it is 6.
    • mossblaser, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Yeh but make no mistake it is still a massive chunk of development time you have to spend while writing your page layout (that is, of course, if you write proper code... people still using tables for layout (really you should have grown out of that years ago) probably wont notice much more than PNG support...)
  • estvir, on 05/09/2008, -24/+142What a stupid article.

    Oh no, you can't downgrade to IE6, boo-freaking-hoo. You guys and ComputerWorld (What a joke of a website) so pathetic and desperate for anti-'M$' news.
    • hardD, on 05/09/2008, -19/+7***** MACINTOSH
      • suriyou, on 05/09/2008, -3/+11You just had to be the guy, didn't you?
        • Aensland, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7Somebody had to take one for the team.
    • xenuxenuts, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10There are some corporate web based programs that require IE and some of them don't work with IE7 yet. I wouldn't design it that way, but the truth is the truth. If someone doesn't have a compatibility issue, I see no reason for anyone to stick with IE6. For me, the ieview plugin for firefox is the only way IE sees any action.
      • WikiEasy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5This move will force them to upgrade the software so they're not stuck in the Jurassic era, forcing website developers to write nasty css hacks just for them.
    • CC440, on 05/09/2008, -10/+6It would help if 70% of all businesses didn't use IE6.

      RTFA?
      • qwertydvorak, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1companies don't like change. if microsoft were smart they would set it up where windows from today on forward would run 2 versions of ie. one old and one new. one web and one intranet. believe it or not there are still companies that still use punch cards. there are still companies that use fabricatioin machines built in the early 1900's. there should be an intranet version of ie that only changes once every 10 years or so.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1IE8 has an IE7 mode. There is some similar coding to add to a page that tells IE7 to render pages as IE6 would. IE7 is merely a stepping stone for future versions.
    • MrTito, on 05/09/2008, -1/+17To top it off, the article contradicts the headline...

      "Users who want to retain the ability to downgrade from IE7 to IE6 should uninstall the former before upgrading to XP SP3. Once Windows XP has been updated to SP3, users can then install IE7. That process allows for reverting to IE6 in the future."

      So, uninstall IE7, install SP3, the re-install IE7 and you can still downgrade. Sounds like a pain, but it shows that SP3 doesn't "lock-in" IE7.
      • dig1x, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0How about an "update" to the story then?
      • Tahiri, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1How about a service pack to the store then?
    • HigherLogic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6I don't mind that SP3 will lock IE7 in, what I do mind (now this is only for Vista) is that I can't even install IE6. As a web developer, it's my job to make sure the sites I produce look the same in the major browsers (Opera, Safari, IE6/7, Firefox). At least on XP you can do a standalone install, but in Vista (HE at least) you can't. There's a program available (IETester) that emulates IE5/6 but it doesn't render 100% so there's usually little things I can't test all the way. Still, this is certainly a good thing since I don't mind developing for IE7 because it supports a lot of the pseudo-selectors I prefer to use.
      • iofthestorm, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Dude, use a VM. Microsoft even made Virtual PC 2007 free and has free XP SP2 images with IE6 and IE7 available so you can check stuff in IE6 or IE7 if you don't have one of them installed. You might also want to use VMWare or something, but I think that costs money (not for VMWare player afaik, but I don't know how you would get an XP image without the more advanced VMWare software).
        • dig1x, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1You can run a XP image with IE6 in Vista Virtual PC for free.
        • HigherLogic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Vista Home Edition doesn't support Virtual PC 2007. Believe me, I've seen the article on MS and tried. But you're right, I could try alternatives (preferably Parallels since I'm used to their virtualization technology for Linux).
          • estvir, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1There is no 'Home Edition,' there is Home Premium and Home Basic both of which Virtual PC 2007 work in.
    • Scatropolis, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5This is the exact problem Microsoft is in right now. People are wanting them to move forward, but demand that all previous versions of everything are supported. If a company really relies on IE6 then they could probably download the standalone/noninstall version - http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone
      • stretch611, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I do not like Microsoft but the only deserve a small part of the blame. The blame needs to be on the corporations that decided to only support IE instead of open standards. The corporations coded all their web applications for IE5 & 6 and now they do not want to spend the money to get them to work in modern browsers. There are still a lot of internal websites at big corporations that will not work with IE7. (I know from personal experience at AT&T.)
  • neodude237, on 05/09/2008, -8/+97Or I could just use Firefox, and not have to worry about it.
  • bobbyschultz, on 05/09/2008, -23/+5Microsoft can suck my balls.
  • travis6690, on 05/09/2008, -7/+32*ahem*

    So?
    • etement, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5It matters to web designers. IE6 renders CSS absolutely horrific. IE7 isn't much better, but its a step up.
  • bwdd, on 05/09/2008, -3/+44Oh no!
    Now web designers will have an easier job! *****' Microsoft.
    • dig1x, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1XP3 makes the likelyhood of users running their older IE6 more difficult ("MSFT has warned users updating to SP3 that they won't be able to downgrade from Internet Explorer 7 to the older IE6 without uninstalling the service pack").

      MS is making your life *better* by moving past the old IE6 so you're testing is easier.

      What the ***** is your problem?
      • grumpyrain, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9Call for dig1x - it's your mother. You left your sarcasm detector at home.
    • mossblaser, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1In all fairness while IE7 is an improvement, anyone who writes their own code will tell you its still a fsking pain in the arse to make it work propperly.
  • aznhomig, on 05/09/2008, -4/+56Oh no, I can't go back to IE6 spyware rapage! :(
  • dmkemick, on 05/09/2008, -3/+29Who is actually still using IE6 and bummed that they can't use it on SP3? Seriously. If you don't like IE you're using Firefox and don't care, if you DO like IE 7 is better than 6 so...
    • jp12380, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8You did not read the article, you CAN use ie6 with sp3. You just have to uninstall ie7 then install sp3 and it will work and also allow you to downgrade back to ie6 if you find that you do not like ie7.

      I use firefox almost exclusively, but like others have mentioned there are certain sites that work better with IE.
    • grumpyrain, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4and 8 is better than 7.
      Not 'better' enough to get me to switch back though.
  • ElBeh, on 05/09/2008, -9/+5On no! Now I have to use FireFox! Damn. :(
    • Atomic1fire, on 05/09/2008, -6/+6why
      IE7 works just fine for fanboys aside from a newer ui (firefox 2 closer resembles ie6 then 7 but has more features)
      The favorites/history/rss bar is not that hard to navigate
      the only issue is learning tabs and what rss actually is
      • luchid, on 05/09/2008, -3/+4No, IE7 is still terribly bad with standards, it's still slow and it still lacks features. Stop keeping the web in the dark ages.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because most of the web is standard complaint. As for features check out the IE7 pro add-on. www.IE7pro.com
  • zonk3r, on 05/09/2008, -0/+21Article description is inaccurate. You can go "forward" with IE 8 beta. You just have to install IE 8 beta AFTER you install SP3.
  • MalDON, on 05/09/2008, -1/+29This is make a lot of developers happy though. I have wasted may hours writing css hacks just for IE 6.
    • supermanKD, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I am fairly new to webdesign and whole ie thing is really pissing me off this is a good move for Microsoft. Best thing they have done for the internet since making a browser so bad people started downloading Firefox.

      Props to M$
    • HigherLogic, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Anything to speed up the process right ;)
    • mossblaser, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1IE7 isn't perfect, 7 times out of 10 your first draft of code that works perfectly in firefox, opera, safari, konqueror or whatever will still fail to work well in IE7 - Javascript is the biggest issue but there are some blatent issues - i.e. align a page background image to the right of the screen on a page where a scroll bar is used and it ignores the scroll bar, yet other things aligned to the right align properly meaning you get random parts that don't join up right.
  • AppleMacStud, on 05/09/2008, -21/+6Does anybody really care? I mean what is IE6? If your using this dinosaur browser called "IE6" as your primary browser, your a nostalgic loser.
    • aznhomig, on 05/09/2008, -5/+25You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're.
      • AppleMacStud, on 05/09/2008, -9/+1YOUR right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. Your right, thank you. YOUR right, thank you.
        • aznhomig, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.
        • celkin, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2AppleMacFail
        • jenel, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1THE BES-

          Just kidding.
  • NOFXY, on 05/09/2008, -6/+11Buried as unimportant non-news.. orr the closest thing we have "Ok, This is Lame". Honestly who gives a flying ***** if you can't use an old and obsolete browser that's riddled with more holes than your sisters fishnet stalkings?
    • KaneElson, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Stockings?
    • iofthestorm, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2It's inaccurate too, you just have to uninstall IE7 before installing SP3 and you can always downgrade to IE6 afterward. Not that you would ever want to, but I did that just in case it breaks something later on down the road.
  • unmarked, on 05/09/2008, -8/+4Nevermind Locked-in to IE7. XP SP3 seems to be more about LOCKED-UP -- as in your machine will be...
    (and who in their right mind uses IE at all?)
    • mpeters13, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I hope this is anecdotal, as SP3, for the most part, is an accumulation of updates you're probably already running. Fortunately, I haven't had any issues yet.
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -12/+1Microsoft, always putting the customer last, will eventually become defunct!
  • Atomic1fire, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10This is a good thing webdev wise
  • gemlarin, on 05/09/2008, -13/+4WTF. Im techno-literate and that explaination confused the ***** out of me. Do they really (microsoft) rally think that the average computer user is going to understand any of that crap? Here is how I read it....Lazy programming on the part of M$ results in removal of any browser choice from your system. M$ THIS IS WHY YOUR DROPPING IN MARKET SHARE>
    • whataboutdave, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Who said they wanted anyone to understand it? Informed customers are difficult customers.
    • KaneElson, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Err, you can still install pretty much any browser in SP3, this article is largely inaccurate.
    • ryuujin, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2dude.. no
      it's not a lazy programming thing, it's an 'IE is ***** insecure and they'd rather take flack for cutting off IE6 than have stupid people like you get hacked even easier' thing. techno-literate my ass, since when was IE6 ever a browser 'choice'? it was forced upon windows users from day one. You want choice, install firefox.
      • lacronicus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah! if you want to decide for yourself what browser you want, listen to him!
  • wiretapped, on 05/09/2008, -10/+3Just don't download SP3.
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2Why do you suppose they were downloading SP3 in the first place?
      It is used to fix an older version of Microsoft Office(2000,2002).
      It's either upgrade Microsoft Office(2000,2002), or download SP3.
      Can you say dilemma?
  • InorganicMatter, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Real big loss there.
  • pharekyz, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Let's hope you don't get stuck on meatspin.com
  • shadowkiller137, on 05/09/2008, -8/+9IE now thats the thing that people use to download firefox so they can download linux right?
    • KaneElson, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5No.
      • jenel, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Actually, the first part is quite right: the first thing I (and all my above-average-computer-savvy acquaintances, for that matter) do after (re)installing XP is run IE, type in "firefox.com" and proceed with the download.
  • craighamnett, on 05/09/2008, -0/+14IE7 > IE6... we've been complaining that IE6 should be banned for sometime now, I don't see a reason for a backlash, this is good news. This makes life better for us web designers. It doesn't prevent people from installing FF or Opera, so this is a step forward.
    • Vician, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2IE6 isn't getting banned though. What's happening is SP3 locks you into whatever IE you happen to have at the time (This includes IE 8 Beta 1). Whatever version you have when you install is what you're stuck with. So, the simple thing is to downgrade to IE6, then install SP3, and then you can re-upgrade/downgrade IE all you like: just like normal.
      • iDe1337, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2He said it should be banned, not that it is banned. If it was I would throw a party at the IE6 funeral.
    • Nextrix, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Exactly, I just can't wait for IE8 to come out so I can stop supporting IE6 in all my websites. It's too bad we can't just keep support for Firefox only, but as web developers we have to keep compatibility for all types of browsers. I like to keep my development to the 2 version rule.
  • ptFoe, on 05/09/2008, -6/+5Lets see if this will force the knuckleheads still using IE to find a better browser.
    • HigherLogic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3If users don't take the time to upgrade to IE7 (which probably means they don't have automatic updates on, or if they do they never install them), what makes you thnk they'll take the time to upgrade to SP3?
  • lundman, on 05/09/2008, -4/+0And still no TLS/SNI.. Thanks for holding back all the ISPs MS...

  • soopafly, on 05/09/2008, -7/+17¡¡¡ǝldoǝd ƃuıɥʇ pooƃ ɐ sı sıɥʇ
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8˙pıɐs noʎ ʇɐɥʍ ɥʇıʍ ǝǝɹƃɐ ʇ,uop ı ʇnq 'looɔ ʎllɐǝɹ sı ʇxǝʇ ǝpısdn ǝɥʇ
    • iDe1337, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Dugg because that must have taken you a bit to type those characters, I don't see keyboards with them on em. Also dugg because it's true.
      • usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4¡ʇou sı uı pǝʞɔol ƃuıǝq 'ƃuıɥʇ pooƃ ɐ sı ǝɔıoɥɔ
      • grumpyrain, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7Mine does, do you see the .... , hmmm nevermind, my keyboard was upside down.
    • stretch611, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Ok, I'm impressed. How did you do it?
  • sa9e, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6Total non issue, not worth the article or the digg.
  • ap44, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7Holy ***** people need to stop using IE6. ***** ruins websites and just doesn't display CSS properly. I'm so sick of developers modifying their CSS files to work on IE 6. That browser needs to be destroyed, forever.
    • Nextrix, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Agreed! But there are still users running on windows 2000 where their limited the last install to IE6. I think for those users if they haven't made the jump to Firefox or Opera by now, we should not keep supporting web development to these ***** IE6 CSS hacks. I am just wating for IE8 to come out before I made that jump as I like to keep to a past 2 version rule of compatibility.
  • sambapati87, on 05/09/2008, -4/+6Sounds like terrible software/OS design to me.
    • dig1x, on 05/09/2008, -2/+0RFTA:
      "Microsoft Corp. has warned users updating to Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) that they won't be able to downgrade from Internet Explorer 7 to the older IE6 without uninstalling the service pack. "
      • stretch611, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2RTFA yourself...
        "Users who want to retain the ability to downgrade from IE7 to IE6 should uninstall the former before upgrading to XP SP3. Once Windows XP has been updated to SP3, users can then install IE7. That process allows for reverting to IE6 in the future."
  • over900000, on 05/09/2008, -7/+5Why would anyone want to downgrade to IE7. People have been bitching about IE6 all this time.
  • Darkyuubi, on 05/09/2008, -9/+6I don't understand what the point is...why would anyone want to downgrade into IE6?

    Wow...buried for the lack of common sense
    • stretch611, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2As a web developer I have a machine with IE7 and one with IE6. I use them to check for browser compatibility. All other times I personally use Firefox.
  • harvested, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8It's good because it'll start to phase out IE6 (about time).
    Developers can just use a stand alone version to test sites in.
    • WaruiKoohii, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1It's not phasing out IE6. IE6 is included in SP3.
  • AngeloM3, on 05/09/2008, -9/+7SURPRISE!!!! Seriously though... who still uses IE?
    • WaruiKoohii, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Lots of people.
    • Wacer, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Companies that have software that will only work with IE6. Not all companies use COTS software for all their needs and upgrades are painfully slower.
    • protium, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2People who are sick of firefox's memory leaks. Firefox sucks balls.
  • cataractmoon, on 05/09/2008, -10/+4As a linux user, I am proud to say that I can upload any version of Mozilla Firefox I desire.
    • DarkShroud, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, enjoy playing with that since you can't play games or do anything else that's fun.
  • freqk, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6Fine with me, but I'll keep using firefox.
  • mayanks098, on 05/09/2008, -6/+5Who cares....we use ff(or opera)
  • SirMolle, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Look at our Numbers Look at our Numbers .. 30 million users have installed IE7.. We are Blowing Firefox out of the water states the Microsoft Press Release.

  • TheGreatTK, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Buried for lame.
  • zc456, on 05/09/2008, -15/+2Score 1 for Apple.
    • aznhomig, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Firefox: 1
      Safari: -45
      • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3I prefer Safari. Firefox is a memory hog, even after improving the memory leaks.
  • LemmingJesus, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2I wasn't aware you could roll IE back without using system restore.
  • pedo, on 05/09/2008, -5/+4doesn't really matter since i don't use IE anyway
  • hadak, on 05/09/2008, -10/+6Whenever I tried installing IE7 on a machine, that machine felt slower and less stable. I don't use IE for anything, ever, so why sacrifice speed and stability (even if it's only perceived)?
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/09/2008, -3/+4LOL . The program isn't even running, and you are using apps that have no dependency on IE7 yet the system is slower?

      Does installing IE7 give us a new Process scheduler or memory manager?

      And how does a machine feel less stable? Did it begin to catch errors? Crash? Shake?
      Gut feeling? Was it running in the background leaking memory?

      Did you simply find IE7 slower than IE6?

      Can you support any of your assertions with facts or details?
      • mpeters13, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3I'm glad you commented on this commen first, because I would have been next in line. What a stupid comment... Thank you for clearing up this person's obvious confusion.
      • stretch611, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4MaSuxWindowsSux, your own comment above in this article states "Windows shares API's with Internet Explorer..." That in itself proves that a windows system is dependent on IE even when IE is not being used. Or do you just write technical things without even knowing what they mean?
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3"The program isn't even running, and you are using apps that have no dependency on IE7 yet the system is slower?"

          That was my first question. All I did was ask questions. I STATED NOTHING.
          • stretch611, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1But windows as an OS depends on IE. Just booting windows and looking at the desktop uses DLL's from IE. That is why you can view your desktop as an HTML page.
            It is also why you can start explorer (or double click on My Computer or My Network Places) for file access and replace the current directory with a URL and go to that website. If explorer has a problem and you do an end task on it the entire desktop reboots in the background. If that does not show dependency I do not know what does without going into the source code.
          • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2@stretch611
            "Just booting windows and looking at the desktop uses DLL's from IE"
            That's not true. You need to enable Active desktop.

            "start explorer (or double click on My Computer or My Network Places) for file access and replace the current directory with a URL and go to that website"
            No, It launches the Web Browser when you do that. (Firefox)

            "If explorer has a problem and you do an end task on it the entire desktop reboots in the background"
            The start Menu, and explorer windows, and the icons on the desktop only. You can boot windows without Windows Explorer and all you'll see is your wallpaper. You can even have it launch another exe in it's place.

    • zongamin, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2what a stupid comment.
    • lacronicus, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2I am honestly amazed that someone actually dugg that comment up.
    • hadak, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Ok, since you guys seem to think that IE is it's own separate entity... keep in mind that Explorer itself is heavily bound to IE. The APIs used in IE are heavily bound to Windows itself. Not to mention, I've worked in the industry long enough to have actual hands-on experience in this matter.... have you?

      Put YOUR money where your mouth is, and back up YOUR claims.
      • theculchie1, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2I really doubt this is the case if you're spouting comments like above.
  • digiguy, on 05/09/2008, -9/+2IE7 Hangs & Lockups on Windows Vista too. No problems using Firefox or Safari. Lately, Microsoft can't get their own software to work.lol
    • WaruiKoohii, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I had that problem too. Then I updated Flash. Haven't had IE7 crash in about five months now, not since December (when the Flash update was issued). It pays to read the crash info (flash9d.ocx was always the culprit).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.