| 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 to secure IE for XP only | |
|
||
| Time: 11:15 EST/16:15 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
If you're one of about 200 million people using older versions of Windows and you want the latest security enhancements to Internet Explorer, get your credit card ready. Microsoft this week reiterated that it would keep the new version of Microsoft's IE Web browser available only as part of the recently released Windows XP operating system, Service Pack 2. The upgrade to XP from any previous Windows versions is $99 when ordered from Microsoft. Starting from scratch, the operating system costs $199. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:59:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/23/2004 11:22:57 AM |
| viva firefox. free and safe. |
| #2 By 415 (199.8.64.248) at 9/23/2004 12:45:13 PM |
|
Halcyon, your logic is a bit flawed and you actually just help to prove Microsoft's point. Windows XP IS the same code base as Windows 2000/NT, which means Windows XP IS in effect older, worked on more and longer, and thus IS more secure.
If you apply your logic to other software, say Firefox for example, you're implying that 0.5 is more secure than 1.0. Which could be true I guess if code was completely rewritten between versions, but in reality that almost never happens. |
| #3 By 860 (68.62.203.187) at 9/23/2004 1:27:24 PM |
| Isn't it considered a breach of their agreement with the government if they do this? |
| #4 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at 9/23/2004 2:14:35 PM |
|
Microsoft has shot itself in the foot before, but this time they used a friggin' cannon.
TL |
| #5 By 7797 (63.76.44.19) at 9/23/2004 5:59:08 PM |
| I don't think this will go over well especially with people who are running Windows 2000 and especially Windows 2000 Server .. and I think Microsoft could very well change their mind on this. |
| #6 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/23/2004 7:58:13 PM |
|
i would only say to those open source people who have bashed ms for so long about software features bloat that the primary argument for firefox over ie6 is its better feature set (not security).
i’ll say it again innovation counts. viva firefox. |
| #7 By 24027 (12.154.143.130) at 9/23/2004 8:47:06 PM |
| Will $99 get me tabbed browsing and live bookmarks (RSS integration)? The only reason I use IE is for sites which use Active X. Firefox outshines IE in every category and as others have said, it's only in pre-release. MS quit innovating IE after Net-scrap succumbed to a browser which was an "integral part of Windows". Those who think IE is superior than all browsers in the market right now have been smoking way too much MS crack pipe (or work for the mother ship). |
| #8 By 24027 (12.154.143.130) at 9/23/2004 9:45:56 PM |
| #18 "Or you can use IE on XP SP2. And be secure. " Yea, maybe this week. |
| #9 By 8556 (12.217.111.74) at 9/23/2004 10:31:16 PM |
| No one ever biatches about Apple's OS. Apple charges for incremental upgrades and does not support old versions of the OS. Chuck your old Mac and go OSX. Why should Microsfot be less interested in making a profit than Apple? |
| #10 By 135 (69.7.134.5) at 9/24/2004 5:15:59 AM |
| Thanks to the security of Microsoft Windows XP, my desktop is now 100% tgnb free! |
| #11 By 19992 (164.214.4.62) at 9/24/2004 8:15:05 AM |
|
How in the hell did Linux get dragged into this. Any problems Linux may or may not have is beside the point.
As I read the article it seems fairly plain that MS is using this to 'force' users to upgrade to the latest version of their software. This is unacceptable. It was crappy of Apple to do this and it's crappy of MS to do the same. Speaking of which, I seem to recall several of the people on here mocking Apple users over the Apple 'tax' for a security update. Why is it now OK for MS to do this when it was a source of derision for Apple at the time? On thing that nobody seems to have brought up that I wonder about is: Since MS is no longer releasing security update for IE on Windows 2000 Pro, what are their plans for Windows 2000 Server? |
| #12 By 135 (69.7.134.5) at 9/24/2004 9:13:18 AM |
|
How in the hell did Apple get dragged into this. Any problems Apple may or may not have is beside the point.
Windows XP has been out for 3 years now... Why should Microsoft back port substantial improvements to the OS to versions of the product 4 years older or older? If Chevy comes out with a new truck this year with a bigger, more reliable engine than the truck they had in 2000. Do you expect a free engine upgrade? |
| #13 By 19992 (164.214.4.62) at 9/24/2004 9:27:10 AM |
|
#27
" How in the hell did Apple..." Very funny. A diatribe about the amount of security holes in Linux is completely unrelated to MS not supporting IE on older versions of Windows. Apple did the exact same thing back in November 03 (around then) - so I see a direct correlation between the two. You don't? "Why should Microsoft back port substantial improvements to the OS to versions of the product 4 years older or older?" I'm not talking substantial improvements to the OS. I'm not asking them to backport XP SP2 to Windows 2000. I expect them to continue to maintain and fully support IE 6.X until the end of it's lifecycle. "If Chevy comes out with a new truck this year with a bigger..." That's a little dishonest and you know it. Try this. Chevy finds out that the engine they used in their trucks back in 2000 is likely to burst into flames once the vehicle reaches 70K on the odometer. This problem affects 90% of all owners of that vehicle. Should Chevy replace or 'patch' the engine so as to prevent these engine fires? [EDIT] Or should the proscribed fix be for Chevy to tell all owners of said truck that they will need to buy a new truck in order to fix the problem? This post was edited by happyguy on Friday, September 24, 2004 at 09:28. |
| #14 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 9/24/2004 1:01:59 PM |
|
I can't believe I'm stepping into this pile of doo.....
#27, it's not about features or money. It's about SECURITY, and Microsoft not FIXING major security issues in a product that millions and millions (and millions) of people still use, and purchased in good faith. I do realize that the words Good Faith and Microsoft do not always belong in the same sentence, however. TL |
| #15 By 19992 (164.214.4.62) at 9/24/2004 1:21:42 PM |
|
#30
"Actually, the point I was trying to make is that while OSS supporters attack Microsoft for not rewriting Windows 2000 to make it as safe as Windows XP SP2, they won't even discuss the atrocious record of Linux in supporting its operating systems for more than 12 months" I see your point. However, I don't think anyone is calling on MS to rewrite Windows 2000. Continueing to provide security patches for IE 6.0 on Windows 2000 is not a rewrite. "What I really want to know is why the OSS weenies keep running away when I discuss things like RedHat charging a fortune for support and droppping support for older versions after 12 months. Why do they hate their customers so much? " Couldn't say. I dropped RedHat when they did this. This post was edited by happyguy on Friday, September 24, 2004 at 13:24. |
| #16 By 19992 (68.232.102.14) at 9/25/2004 8:59:16 PM |
|
#36 Thanks for pointing that out - I missed the one liner about continuing security updates for IE under supported versions of Windows.
With that being the case I could care less if MS decides to add (or to not add) new security features to IE on older OS's or not. I retract my original complaint. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:59:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
