Posted on 10/18/2006 9:32:00 PM PDT by Eagle9
Microsoft on Wednesday launched the first major update to Internet Explorer in five years, and posted the new browser for Windows XP to a download site.
IE 7, which has was announced in February 2005 by chairman Bill Gates, has been touted by the company as a significant update in the areas of security and usability. The interface has been streamlined and tabs have been added to compete with rivals such as Mozilla's Firefox and Opera's flagship browser. On the security front, IE 7 adds anti-phishing defenses as well as additional features to control ActiveX controls, which historically have been a pain point for Microsoft's browser.
IE 7 for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 can be downloaded from here.
"It's here, it's final, and we're excited," said Margaret Cobb, the group product manager for the browser.
The most controversial aspect of IE 7 has been Microsoft's decision to push the update to all users who have Automatic Updates enabled. Although users can reject IE 7 -- and continue using their current edition of Internet Explorer -- Microsoft will begin rolling out the browser as a "High priority" update next month. In July, when Microsoft offered up a toolkit to indefinitely postpone IE 7's installation, it justified using Automatic Updates, a mechanism for providing patches to Windows, because of the new browser's security implications.
"We've told enterprise customers to be ready [for IE 7] by Nov. 1," said Cobb. "It won't begin Nov. 1, but they should be ready."
The IE 7 update will also not add to the burden of Microsoft's monthly security patch delivery, scheduled for Nov. 14, promised Cobb. "We won't do it on Patch Tuesday."
Microsoft will also throttle back IE 7's delivery to keep the server load under control, she added. "We're starting with English, and then moving to the localized versions as they come available. At first we'll run it very slow, to a low percentage of users." After assessing the impact, Microsoft will increase the amount of traffic from the servers. "I'll have a 10 a.m. call every day to go over the impact on support or services," said Cobb, who can then order downloads to be scaled back or increased.
It will take as long as three months to deliver IE 7 to all users worldwide. "As each localized language comes online, we'll wait a few weeks after posting it for download before delivering it through Automatic Updates."
Microsoft has made one change late in the game. After IE 7 has installed, it will tell the user which search engine is the current default -- grabbed from IE 5 or IE 6 -- and then ask if they want to make a new choice. The process is similar to, but not identical, to the choice that Windows Vista users will face when they upgrade from Windows XP.
"We added this after RC3," said Cobb. "We're letting users know what engine is the default, and asking them if they want to keep it or do they want to switch. We're also going to be supporting IE 7."
Beginning Thursday, Microsoft will open a free, toll-free support line for IE 7. The help desk will be manned Monday through Friday 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. PDT, and on weekends from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. PDT.
Internet Explorer's chief rival, Mozilla Corp.'s Firefox browser, is nearing the final release of version 2.0. Currently on Release Candidate 3 (RC3), Firefox 2.0 should make it out the door before the end of the month.
Users who want to block the download and installation of IE 7 through Automatic Updates, as well as the Windows Update and Microsoft Update sites should steer here, where they can retrieve the Internet Explorer 7 Blocker Toolkit.
Whatever, I never even read your BS posts defending Russian hackers, I knew it was all a lie or some other BS from the very beginning which is why I always ignored you starting with that first thread. That's why I found and posted it, so people could see what a liar and idiot you are, trying to insult me while glorifying Russian Hackers, on and on forever on that thread, finally admitting he wasn't even a Russian but you wanted to glorify Russians anyway. You even called me a liar when I pointed out you were defending the Russian hackers on a thread about breaking US copyright, and tried to claim it was "training videos" or some other ridiculous lie you came up with.
The issue, and the person who received the bulk of your ire in the thread, was with an American, a maintainer of CentOS. Your main defense of the Tuttle idiot was in that this American responded to a nonsensical, irate and slanderous attack by saying he feels sorry for the idiot's city.
The foreign press simply truthfully reported on the story, with a bit of understandable editorializing due to the egregious idiocy of the Tuttle town jester.
Yes religion now applies to this thread when an atheist is caught making endless lies
Again, still has no bearing.
But please link to one lie by me, in context. This doesn't count me leading you down a hole of your on making (Mr. Security Guru), and it doesn't count things were I admitted being wrong.
You haven't proven CentOS wasn't ripped off those servers
You made the assertion, so the burden of proof lies on you, so I win by default if you can't support your assertion.
But I know this is you we're talking about so I'll do the work for you. A quick lookup using tools probably beyond your comprehension shows that the IP address of the Tuttle site at the time of the dispute (it's in the exchange) is still running CentOS. Tuttle now has a new IP address (whose block is owned by a different hosting company) that is serving off of IIS.
I'm kind of confused. How is that MS and mozilla.org can be considered "rivals" and "competitors" when browsers can be downloaded for free?
Does it run any faster than IE6? Although web browsing speed is mainly dependent on your internet connection speed, it seems like the IE6 browser itself runs about half as fast as Firefox.
That is interesting, but not to your favor. The village idiot apparently moved tuttle-ok.gov to a new ISP, but he left cityoftuttle.org on his old ISP, still running CentOS. He didn't even have the smarts to have the DNS for cityoftuttle changed (unless that's their email server).
If you don't think it's official, please note that at the time of the exchange, they were using cityoftuttle.org for email, and that http://www.cityoftuttle.org currently is a redirect to tuttle-ok.gov.
I believe I posted earlier about his obsession with china.
It is my belief that Linux Torvalds ran over Ge's dog while riding a chinese bicycle on his way to an interview with IBM. That would just about explain his rantings here.
Quit wasting bandwidth with your lies and endless defense of all things foreign. I've shown the city's site no longer runs on Linux, despite the attempted falsified link by your buddy N3WBI3, so go sulk somewhere else.
Nice try at a coverup, I'm not buying it.
BTW, a big part of what those hackers did was to emulate EFI to get OS X to boot. It's sort of the opposite of what Apple's own Boot Camp does, and perfectly legal.
I also contribute financially on the monthly plan. How about you troll?
I wonder if the mods can determine if someone is a contributing member or not? Does anyone else know?
They're fighting for marketshare. Mozilla has deals with Google, etc., for searches sent from Firefox. Microsoft needs to maintain the monopoly.
You remind me so much of my ex wife that it's not even funny. She lives in her own little dream world too.
BTW, what foreign OS do I run again? Oh yeah, you claim that all linux is foreign, whether or not it's made/distributed by American companies. Are you mad that I exposed you so thoroughly for the troll you are earlier on this thread?
No it isn't, it is a violation of Apple's license that governs that code, which you surely know about. It is truly amazing how far you are willing to lie to defend the Russian hackers. You and your lying buddy FLAMING DEATH, as I showed in those links he claims Russians invented Multics! LMAO!
Again, exactly like my ex-wife. She has never, to this day, ever admitted she was wrong about anything, or ever apologised for anything she's ever done wrong. Amazing. The pathology is interesting.
Wrong. Nobody here claimed the main Tuttle site still runs Linux.
You, however, claimed as fact "Linux was ripped off those systems." I showed you proof that those systems still run Linux, and N3WBI3 brought up another domain used at the time by Tuttle that is still being run on Linux at the same ISP.
You can't twist it. You can't weasel. You are simply wrong. Linux in fact remains used on those systems to this day, although Tuttle no longer hosts its site on them.
Did you initially think this guy was running his own web server, and dumped Linux for Windows on it? Given his ignorance-spewing exhange with CentOS, he is in no way competent enough to do that. The sad thing is that the mayor of Tuttle says he knows less about computers than this guy and defers to him. He must be at the "What's that TV-like thing on my desk?" stage to be more ignorant than the city manager.
Another lie. I have admitted when I have made mistakes on this site, and will again. Liars like antiRepublican are so pathological he just admitted he was lying, on purpose, from the beginning, and perpetuated his fraud for months. What supposedly noble cause did he perpetuate this lie for? His defense of Russian hackers, on a thread where they were obviously violating Apple's intellectual property protection.
So they dumped their linux provider, instead of ripping it off themselves. I must have been wrong when I claimed they dumped it on their own, all I knew was they had ditched it. Linux was flushed, period, which was the point, it's not like I made up a lie on purpose and perpetuated it for months like you've now had to admit to doing. Along with your other lies you weren't defending Russian hackers on a thread about violations of Apple's intellectual property, or that they weren't even violating the license, your latest lie, although you've probably posted another one now while I'm typing this LOL.
I love how you cut the context out. Let's look at what you posted of me saying:
what those hackers did was...perfectly legal.And what I actually wrote:
BTW, a big part of what those hackers did was to emulate EFI to get OS X to boot. It's sort of the opposite of what Apple's own Boot Camp does, and perfectly legal.Notice that I did not address the breaking of the encryption that ties OS X to Apple's computers. I addressed only the perfectly legal emulation of the open Extensible Firmware Interface (Apple does the reverse, emulating BIOS because x86 Windows can't understand EFI). Also, much of the code for EFI was released by Intel as open source.
You are truly vile for such blatant misrepresentation.
Yep, another lie, I just had to actually read your post again since I don't usually being so full of lies and defense of foreign hackers. Your hacker buddy N3WBI3 posted a falsified link that attempted to claim the city's website was Linux in post #297, which I corrected in post #298, so you were lying again. There's probably even more lies in that long post of yours if I felt like wasting any more time reading it, but there's no need, I've already caught you in so many here it's not really worth even reading or posting to this thread anymore. It will be a good one to refer to in the future though LOL.
Quick research shows exactly what happened. OTOH, I am surprised, although it was hardly sincere, you finally admitted when you were factually wrong.
Linux was flushed, period, which was the point, it's not like I made up a lie on purpose and perpetuated it for months like you've now had to admit to doing.
Not now, I admitted long before on my own volition. I was sure you'd catch me on it, but you never did, so I finally told you. It was a test of your security knowledge, and you failed miserably.
or that they weren't even violating the license, your latest lie
My question was not whether they were violating the license, which they surely were, but whether that clause of the license is actually enforceable. If it is not enforceable, then what they did would not be a violation of copyright (which was the subject).
Aside from that, emulating EFI is in itself not a copyright violation. Wait a few years into Vista (probably SP2), and that step won't be necessary, as PCs will have finally moved to EFI.
I downloaded IE7, as the screwed up computer they gave me at work locks up with Firefox, but when I tried to install it, it told me it wouldn't install unless I installed WGA, so I cancelled the installation. It gave me the usual Microsoft FUD that WGA was a critical component to the proper operation of my computer and may God have mercy on my soul if I passed up on this critical and essential upgrade to my computer, and that they didn't really want to play with me and were going to pick up their dolly and dishes and go home if I didn't install WGA.
I continued to click cancel until they gave up. Maybe IE7 is good, but it's not worth it to me to install WGA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.