| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft's New Browser Plan Miffs Win2k Users | |
|
||
| Time: 13:35 EST/18:35 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
This month's announcement by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates that Internet Explorer 7.0 will be made available only to users of Windows XP SP2 and the upcoming Longhorn release of Windows isn't sitting well with some IT managers. Although corporate users contacted last week said they're happy about the security-focused improvements that Microsoft plans to make to its Web browser, several added that they think IE7 should also be supported on Windows 2000. "Windows 2000 was built for the Internet and bought with good-faith expectations on security," said Charlie Ward, manager of IT architecture at Duke Power Co. in Charlotte, N.C. "If IE7 works only on Windows XP SP2 and above, Microsoft is forcing customers with no other compelling reason to upgrade to spend additional money to protect themselves from flaws in Microsoft's products." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:25:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 2/28/2005 1:49:48 PM |
| I wasn't aware that they were done complaining about SP2 for IE 6 not getting to them. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 2/28/2005 2:43:08 PM |
| When it comes to Microsoft, there's usually lots to complain about. |
| #3 By 9589 (66.57.197.203) at 2/28/2005 3:17:21 PM |
|
Leave it to ComputerWeird to not know what they are talking about. It slays me that article after article is written by these so-called tech rags as if medium to large corporations didn't exist.
Medium to large corporations have enterprise licenses with Microsoft. Those contracts state that you can use any supported version of Windows and any version of Office. The reason that this is so is because it takes sometimes years for a large corporation to move to another operating system and version of Office. This is because of both the huge numbers involved and the dispersion of those office producivity assets at some of these companies. Important also is corporations reluctance to upgrade hardware to be used with the latest software (some corporations are trying to keep their desktop computers 5-8 years - well past productive usage). If corporate IT managers are complaining or if they are "miffed" it is because they are too lazy to move to XP and Office 2003 on the desktop. Or their hardware is so slow that they would actually lose productivity instead of gaining it by moving to the newest OS and Office software. |
| #4 By 10022 (24.39.227.107) at 2/28/2005 3:57:11 PM |
|
if they havent upgraded to XP after all this time, what makes them think they are going to upgrade to IE 7 anythime soon?
Really, all they want to do is bitch. It doest take 4 years to verify that XP is ok to switch to. They just want it because they know they cant have it. Office 2003 isnt that much diffrent (user end) from Office 2000- and of course they're the same ones that bitch that they dont want to upgrade because there isnt much diffrence in functionality, but when it comes to compatibility -oh- theres SO many things to consider. Ignoring the fact that 2000 is now unsupported (or will be soon?? At the very least it is clear that new stuff will be rare) doesnt help you long term. You need to start moving on, and you need to be ready for stuff like this. This sort of thing isnt new, so dont pretend that you havent seen this before. $ |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 2/28/2005 5:01:13 PM |
| Ever notice (at least I have) how the upcoming version of Windows is always billed as the solution to everyone's security nightmare, and the old version is crap? Now the apologists are screaming that W2K is shit and everyone should upgrade to XP. Funny how W2K was Nirvana on a biscuit when it came out, promising to solve the security nightmare of Win98/NT4. Now XP supposedly solves the security nightmare of W2K. But wait, you're still not protected until Shorthorn, because XP is crap. I wish I could time-travel forward about 10 years so I can see how lousy MS says Shorthorn is compared to the new Windows due out around 2018. Call me cynical, but it almost seems to be more about marketing and generating cash flow from non-stop upgrades than any real reason for users to upgrade. |
| #6 By 2332 (204.9.221.60) at 2/28/2005 6:52:12 PM |
|
#11 - Or it might be because people keep buying their products because, despite their flaws, they're better than the alternatives. This post was edited by RMD on Monday, February 28, 2005 at 18:53. |
| #7 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at 2/28/2005 8:34:40 PM |
| kevn: You are a bit off topic, but anway... I'm sorry, but Office 2000 and Office 2003, heck even OfficeXP is VERY much improved. If the only extra feature included in OfficeXP was smart tags, it would be worth the upgrade. |
| #8 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/28/2005 10:18:30 PM |
|
"Do you realistically expect operating systems in this day and age to last more than 4-5 years and also manage to have all the latest bells and whistles?"
There are no "bells and whistles" in IE6 for XP SP2 and IE7 also doesnt promise much beyond improved security. These people arent complaining about bells and whistles such as clear type font smoothing, remote desktop or an ugly theme. These people basically want a security update to their browser bringing it up to par with XP at least. If it weren't for Firefox XP wouldn't have seen IE7 even. |
| #9 By 415 (69.245.189.5) at 2/28/2005 11:44:35 PM |
|
Very few software companies on this dear earth of ours add new features to deprecated software in the maintenance phase of its lifecycle. They patch bugs, and that's it, but only to a point. A lot of software, like expensive and specialized database systems for example, isn't supported near as long as a Microsoft OS.
Why does eveyone think that Microsoft should be any different? Why the double standard? |
| #10 By 415 (69.245.189.5) at 3/1/2005 1:05:11 AM |
| #10 - If only we could see the future and never screw anything up... and never had to fix anything we'd screwed up... and never had to admit that we'd screwed up... and never had to deal with someone else's screw up... and never had to tell someone else that they screwed up... if only... |
| #11 By 19992 (164.214.4.31) at 3/1/2005 10:10:53 AM |
|
#7 It doest take 4 years to verify that XP is ok to switch to.
Actually it does. The org I'm working in right now takes forever to move to new versions of software. This is due to a large amount of in house custom applications that need to be updated to work with XP. I'm not referring to simple scripts here, I'm talking about 10+ million lines of code in some of these apps. Personally I don't care if MS makes IE7 available to Win2K users. As long as they roll out security patches for the existing software (IE6) I could care less if they introduce new software for the platform. |
| #12 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 3/1/2005 10:53:00 AM |
|
Just built a new Athlon 64 computer at home... installed Windows 2000. Why? I have an unused license and it works, fast. I have other computers running Windows 98, XP and 2003, but Windows 2000 is the best combination of stability and performance for me. I will consider Windows XP 64-bit once reliable drivers are available.
Why pay to upgrade something that works just fine? |
| #13 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 3/2/2005 10:24:33 AM |
| lol, I think ActiveWin should release a "Best of ClosedStandards" compendium! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:25:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
