| 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 |
 |
Internet Explorer 7 update: Now WGA-free | |
|
||
| Time: 11:48 EST/16:48 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft has issued an updated Internet Explorer (IE) 7 release that no longer requires Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) validation in order to download. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 177 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:35:20 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at 10/4/2007 12:21:03 PM |
| Could this be a sign of slow adoption rates for IE7? Hmm, typing this right now from FireFox 2.0.07, but I also have IE 7 installed. |
| #2 By 22601 (99.230.135.69) at 10/4/2007 12:27:49 PM |
|
But it surely still needs XP SP2, which does require WGA validation. Catch 22.
|
| #3 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 10/4/2007 1:16:02 PM |
|
#1 34.6% isn't too bad. Of course, they could have forced an update like Firefox did ...
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=6 |
| #4 By 22601 (99.230.135.69) at 10/4/2007 1:55:12 PM |
|
Ah, Notparker: the user can set an option in Firefox to say whether they want automatic updates. Nothing is forced.
|
| #5 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/4/2007 2:07:09 PM |
| #4: It should be disabled by default! |
| #6 By 22601 (99.230.135.69) at 10/4/2007 2:35:23 PM |
|
rxcall, I agree ... or perhaps it should be an installation option, so that the user knows there is a choice, and can make it, when they initially install FF.
|
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/4/2007 2:57:21 PM |
|
#4 Where are the updates for 1.5 lately?
By killing security updates for 1.5 (in May) users are forced to upgrade to 2.0. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/4/2007 3:01:49 PM |
|
How exactly is a FF upgrade forced on you? A popup appears and tells you there is a new version and prompts you to get it. How does that meet the definition of 'forced' again? Seems to me that isn't the same as silently downloading and installing things without your knowledge or consent like MS has been known to do at their whim.
Edit: By killing security updates for 1.5 (in May) users are forced to upgrade to 2.0. By your lame definition, users are *forced* to upgrade Windows & IE, but somehow there are still millions running older versions. I don't believe you understand the meaning of the word 'forced'. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary. This post was edited by Latch on Thursday, October 04, 2007 at 15:45. |
| #9 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 10/4/2007 3:41:24 PM |
| #2 -- you don't need WGA to download or install XP SP2. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&DisplayLang=en |
| #10 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 10/4/2007 3:45:34 PM |
|
#8 -- When Microsoft killed support for Windows 98 and Me last summer, there were people out there who complained about Microsoft "forcing" them to upgrade. I hope you were the first to defend Microsoft and point out that it wasn't forcing.
People also say that by not releasing IE7 for Windows 2000, that MS is forcing people to at least XP. Nevermind the fact that IE 5.01 is still receiving security updates for the next 2 years. |
| #11 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at 10/4/2007 4:44:37 PM |
|
#10 Nevermind the fact that IE 5.01 is still receiving security updates for the next 2 years.
Seriously??? Must be a residual effect of Windows 2000 still being out there. Interesting though. |
| #12 By 22601 (99.230.135.69) at 10/4/2007 7:08:46 PM |
|
#9 -- yes you do. I have a used PC with XP (no service packs) which I got from a relative, who got it from an ex-wife, who got it from god-knows-where: and I tried to install SP2 using that very installlation file; and it refused with a WGA error message.
|
| #13 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/4/2007 9:35:02 PM |
|
#8 Xp and Win2k still receive security updates. Thats 7+ years.
Firefox 1.5 was supported for 1 year. Sad. |
| #14 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 10/4/2007 10:03:06 PM |
| #11 -- IE 5.01 in Windows 2000 is still getting updates. Anyone using IE 5.01 on some other platform is out of luck. (Of course, anyone still using IE 5.01 for any reason is really "out of luck". I suspect the 5.01 patches are intended less for people who use it, but more for Win2K servers that no one even web surfs from to begin with.) |
| #15 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 10/4/2007 10:08:22 PM |
|
#13: Seven years later, it's still full of holes. Sadder.
|
| #16 By 48398 (130.13.158.96) at 10/5/2007 1:06:06 AM |
| And Firefox is infallible???? |
| #17 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/5/2007 6:59:53 AM |
|
#15: By making that comment, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge when it comes to software development. No software, regardless of complexity, is ever completely bug free or impervious to security breaches! With constantly changing technology, imperfect humans creating that technology, vigilant hackers, and careless users (and admins for that matter), software – all software - must evolve. That means patches, hot fixes, service packs – whatever you want to call them, they are here to stay.
Parker’s point about the 7+ years is valid and demonstrates that MS takes security very seriously for its current and past codebases. I’m not sure I can name another software company that supports any code that is 7+ years old. Regardless, the WGA move is good - lets hope it continues. Maybe MS will take a lessen from whats going on with DRM in the music industry. This post was edited by rxcall on Friday, October 05, 2007 at 07:03. |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2007 8:29:03 AM |
| #16,17: I said what I said to antagonize parkkker (it's the small things that get you through the day). I'm very aware that every OS & app in existence has bugs that can be exploited to some degree. However, I notice that you guys never point out these realities to him when he's going off on one of his tangents about some ancient flaw in FF or Linux. Could it be because he bangs the MS drum? Because, otherwise, it seems like a double-standard. |
| #19 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/5/2007 9:18:47 AM |
| When it comes to Parker, I think it is best to just sit back and enjoy the ride. Does he go over the top? Is he over defensive of Windows? Sure. However, is just trying to drive home the point that all software has its problems. It’s the nature of the beast. |
| #20 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2007 10:05:38 AM |
| You've gotta give credit where credit is due. SQL Server 2005 has been a massive improvement over SQL Server 2000, and has been almost completely issue free for quite some time, and I know of no major exploits against it. For something that complex, that is quite an accomplishment on it own. |
| #21 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/5/2007 10:43:13 AM |
|
#18 "some ancient flaw in FF or Linux"
Yeah. Why did it take OpenOffice 4.5 months to fix the Tiff flaw? Why is Apple just fixing a 13 month old QuickTime flaw? http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138089/article.html Don't they care about the users? Are they only in it for the GoogleBucks? This post was edited by NotParker on Friday, October 05, 2007 at 10:43. |
| #22 By 48398 (130.13.158.96) at 10/5/2007 10:43:13 AM |
| #18 Yes, exactly. The MS drum banging gets me off. |
| #23 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2007 2:59:16 PM |
|
#21 Why did it take OpenOffice 4.5 months to fix the Tiff flaw?
To get to the other side? |
| #24 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 10/5/2007 4:56:12 PM |
| #23 Without a doubt that is the most intelligent thing you've ever said. |
| #25 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 10/5/2007 11:59:09 PM |
|
NotParkker is miffed, and rightly so, because there is so little balance. MS receives about zero credit, where considerable credit opposite security is actually due.
Professionally, I regard modern MS software as both more secure and most securable than any other SW out here. Frankly, as compared to MS its SW and programs to secure it, all others are well behind and in many cases, a sad joke - masked by a lot of very bad information. How about we just care about the user - the people and protecting them rather than scoring points against MS? How about we get as serious about it and as sincere about it as the TCI and SDL are? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 177 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:35:20 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
