The same ones that prevent them from pushing IE7 in Service Packs. And perhaps not even an existing ruling, but the strong likelihood that they would get taken to court immediately after doing so and get mopped up in every market outside of the US.
Really? So IE7 isn't even available as a high priority item on Windows Updates in the EU?
I'm pretty sure it is. I know for a fact that IE8 is.
They should just include the installers for IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera and let people choose. Or a single installer where you choose what browser you want and it just grabs the latest installer for you.
Hell, if they're really lazy, they can just give consumers a batch file of what Recoil posted.
Good idea, have a prompt when you install with the different browser options. No doubt they would have IE in big letters and arrows saying "this is fucking ace".
As much as i don't like IE, not including it with Windows is generally a bit stupid considering the amount of people who use the internet and don't know the difference between a search engine and a browser.
And why should MS have to bundle a competitors product? MS doesn't stop or inhibit anyone from installing their browser of choice or setting it as default.
And why should MS have to bundle a competitors product? MS doesn't stop or inhibit anyone from installing their browser of choice or setting it as default.
Anti-trust issues. Read up on the whole Justice Department vs MS concerning web browsers, along with recent EU rulings against them. In a nutshell, because MS controls the OS they have clear advantages when it comes to controlling what people use and install. They abused their OS monopoly by destroying competition in non-OS markets.
FUCK YOU RECOIL! FUCK YOU RIGHT IN YOUR FUCKING ASS! WHO ASKED YOU ANYWAYS!?
It was a silly response. A technically correct one, sure, but a silly one. And he knows why.
Technically correct - the BEST kind of correct!
But yeah, the chances that someone non-tech savvy is going to do that are pretty much nil. The point is that some tech-savvy person shouldn't have to show them how to do it.
It makes sense that the OEMs will be able to install their own browsers and make that the default.
Microsoft should just create a "msweb" pack which includes IE and include it with Windows (on a seperate disk). After all that is how Apple get around those pesky rules on MacOS and no one appears to have a problem with that.
No one has a problem with Apple (or anyone else) bundling a browser because none of them have been convicted of abusing their monopolies (in this case because no one but MS has an OS monopoly). There's nothing inherently wrong with the act of bundling a browser, media player, etc. It's only an issue at all because the EU feels that Microsoft is harming the free market by doing such things. I don't agree (or at least I think this "solution" is ridiculous), but I do see their thought process.
Microsoft should just create a "msweb" pack which includes IE and include it with Windows (on a seperate disk). After all that is how Apple get around those pesky rules on MacOS and no one appears to have a problem with that.
This right here. MS has the new "Live" applications, so they should just sell a "MS Live Applications" pack at retail, and offer an instant rebate to make it free if purchasing Win7. All they need is a CD or flash drive with the installs and if it detects internet connectivity download the latest versions/patches while it's installing.
Problem solved, and they could probably continue to legally hold a majority browser usage.
Except MS never had an OS monopoly, and the only reason EU keeps jumping on their balls is because it's an easy way to continue milking money out of them. Apple and so on are not affected because their money isn't $bottomless and therefore are not as easy to squeeze money out of.
It is kind of like that bullshit patent that flash apps cannot start automatically in a browser. This is why IE was updated to where you had to click on a flash object to make it start, because the submarine patent holder threatened to sue them and publically stated that they would not go after Firefox. Except nobody is falling for that so every browser but Firefox now has to implement that stupid click-to-activate to avoid being hit by a submarine patent holder (which youtube gets around with javascript, by the way)
Microsoft should just create a "msweb" pack which includes IE and include it with Windows (on a separate disk). After all that is how Apple get around those pesky rules on MacOS and no one appears to have a problem with that.
I have a feeling that wouldn't do much either. Even if MS shipped a MS-super-duper-web-pack that featured every Windows browser in existence I really don't think it would stop any lawsuits. Even this, shipping Windows without a browser probably won't do anything. This seems entirely about some greedy EU countries and a few angry vendors. I mean, these vendors are claiming that its too hard for people to install another browser. You download it. You click run. You're done. How much easier do they want it to be?
I think you could even make a great argument that IE's dominance from 1999-2005 had nothing to do with bundling, and everything to do with Netscape's release of the worst browser ever known to mankind, NS6 in 1999. Then then did nothing until 2005 when Firefox 1.0 finally came out and has done really really well. But its much easier to just say that the reason your product died was because the competitors were cheating.
ya, I don't say this very often, but Microsoft has been unfairly targeted for the anti-trust stuff. Maybe if the competitors didn't suck for so long, they would have had better competition.
IE was the dominant browser because it was the only browser that was any good. Windows took off with Win98 while OS 8 and OS 9 from Apple either stagnated or faltered.
Make a good product, and it will gain traction, and do well. Firefox is the prime example of that.
So does Windows still shit itself if you change motherboards?
I don't remember but I am guessing most likely without at the very least a System Repair.
Got a very nice seven clean install here with everything pretty much put where i like it but am getting a new mobo/cpu/gpu in a month or so
You could always try going into device manager and uninstalling all the motherboard "devices". Then shutdown the computer, install new mobo, boot the computer and Windows should detect all the new hardware and install drivers for it.
I dunno if this has been covered yet, but google SYSPREP.exe and ye shall find your answers.
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
Except MS never had an OS monopoly, and the only reason EU keeps jumping on their balls is because it's an easy way to continue milking money out of them. Apple and so on are not affected because their money isn't $bottomless and therefore are not as easy to squeeze money out of.
That's not a very convincing argument. Have everyone involved in two separate cases in the courts in both the US and EU just been greedy, money grabbing scoundrels? Even if Microsoft's monopoly could have in theory just been psychological (perceived; oh, I should use this because it's better), weren't they convicted because they were actively focusing on structural monopoly ("next we'll use or dominant position to put those guys out of business!") control of the market?
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
See, that was the thing; IE wasn't "replaceable" until, coincidentally, after the EU told Microsoft to stop pretending they couldn't remove it. Sure you could install other browsers along side, but if you didn't want IE installed at all, because you don't like having a big fat security hole embedded permanently into your system? Sorry buddy, IE ain't coming out.
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
See, that was the thing; IE wasn't "replaceable" until, coincidentally, after the EU told Microsoft to stop pretending they couldn't remove it. Sure you could install other browsers along side, but if you didn't want IE installed at all, because you don't like having a big fat security hole embedded permanently into your system? Sorry buddy, IE ain't coming out.
Technically, you could remove IE... but it required a process akin to recoil42's immensely popular display of command line FTP knowledge back there. Actually, it was rather worse, IIRC. And things broke.
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
See, that was the thing; IE wasn't "replaceable" until, coincidentally, after the EU told Microsoft to stop pretending they couldn't remove it. Sure you could install other browsers along side, but if you didn't want IE installed at all, because you don't like having a big fat security hole embedded permanently into your system? Sorry buddy, IE ain't coming out.
See, I would assume the solution to this problem would be "Don't use IE dumbass. You see that icon? Don't click it! Click the icon that looks like an orange rat humping a blue medicine ball whilst on fire. That's the one you want!"
But I'm also a tech-idiot who can't figure out why Firefox needs 140MB of memory to open three tabs, yet continue to use it like the sheep I am. Assuming somone defaulted another browser (like Firefox) to the various internet, would IE still be considered a security breech? Especially in this day and age? Or am I just a naive fool?
it's going to be interesting to see what breaks in the EU version of windows that doesn't have IE installed. There are a ton of apps out there that have browser/engine type things that use the IE engine exclusively, and will not use another browser engine even if present. Steam is the best example of this. Steam has horrible issues if the IE engine is not present in the OS.
there's a reason that even if you "uninstall" IE, the actual program still lives on the system, it just removes the ability for you launch it manually.
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
See, that was the thing; IE wasn't "replaceable" until, coincidentally, after the EU told Microsoft to stop pretending they couldn't remove it. Sure you could install other browsers along side, but if you didn't want IE installed at all, because you don't like having a big fat security hole embedded permanently into your system? Sorry buddy, IE ain't coming out.
See, I would assume the solution to this problem would be "Don't use IE dumbass. You see that icon? Don't click it! Click the icon that looks like an orange rat humping a blue medicine ball whilst on fire. That's the one you want!"
But I'm also a tech-idiot who can't figure out why Firefox needs 140MB of memory to open three tabs, yet continue to use it like the sheep I am. Assuming somone defaulted another browser (like Firefox) to the various internet, would IE still be considered a security breech? Especially in this day and age? Or am I just a naive fool?
Yes because there are other ways to have IE run than to have a user explicitly open it.
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
See, that was the thing; IE wasn't "replaceable" until, coincidentally, after the EU told Microsoft to stop pretending they couldn't remove it. Sure you could install other browsers along side, but if you didn't want IE installed at all, because you don't like having a big fat security hole embedded permanently into your system? Sorry buddy, IE ain't coming out.
See, I would assume the solution to this problem would be "Don't use IE dumbass. You see that icon? Don't click it! Click the icon that looks like an orange rat humping a blue medicine ball whilst on fire. That's the one you want!"
But I'm also a tech-idiot who can't figure out why Firefox needs 140MB of memory to open three tabs, yet continue to use it like the sheep I am. Assuming somone defaulted another browser (like Firefox) to the various internet, would IE still be considered a security breech? Especially in this day and age? Or am I just a naive fool?
There have been cases where malware websites have had Firefox browsers redirected to open links in IE, though I believe the FF redirection was itself an exploit, albeit a fairly harmless on except that by loading IE (which would always be there) the user would then be exposed to any IE related vulnerabilities.
I still maintain that (regarding recoil's FTP instructions,) someone asked a question on a -tech forum- and someone else answered it. No panties should be in a knot over such behaviour, here.
Ego on
Erik
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
See, that was the thing; IE wasn't "replaceable" until, coincidentally, after the EU told Microsoft to stop pretending they couldn't remove it. Sure you could install other browsers along side, but if you didn't want IE installed at all, because you don't like having a big fat security hole embedded permanently into your system? Sorry buddy, IE ain't coming out.
See, I would assume the solution to this problem would be "Don't use IE dumbass. You see that icon? Don't click it! Click the icon that looks like an orange rat humping a blue medicine ball whilst on fire. That's the one you want!"
But I'm also a tech-idiot who can't figure out why Firefox needs 140MB of memory to open three tabs, yet continue to use it like the sheep I am. Assuming somone defaulted another browser (like Firefox) to the various internet, would IE still be considered a security breech? Especially in this day and age? Or am I just a naive fool?
There have been cases where malware websites have had Firefox browsers redirected to open links in IE, though I believe the FF redirection was itself an exploit, albeit a fairly harmless on except that by loading IE (which would always be there) the user would then be exposed to any IE related vulnerabilities.
The other issue is/was that you have to have IE installed in order to update your OS with the latest security patches, unlike every other decent OS. And I've lost count of the number of times the security patch for "windows" was in fact fixing yet another IE exploit.
I can't see how anyone claims Microsoft is "pushing" their browser any more, since for the last decade including a web browser has to be considered an essential part of any operating system. What OS doesn't come with a browser? Should they also take out the text editor, file manager, hell even the solitaire game, because other software competes with them? Hardly, and if you did it wouldn't be an operating system any more.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
See, that was the thing; IE wasn't "replaceable" until, coincidentally, after the EU told Microsoft to stop pretending they couldn't remove it. Sure you could install other browsers along side, but if you didn't want IE installed at all, because you don't like having a big fat security hole embedded permanently into your system? Sorry buddy, IE ain't coming out.
See, I would assume the solution to this problem would be "Don't use IE dumbass. You see that icon? Don't click it! Click the icon that looks like an orange rat humping a blue medicine ball whilst on fire. That's the one you want!"
But I'm also a tech-idiot who can't figure out why Firefox needs 140MB of memory to open three tabs, yet continue to use it like the sheep I am. Assuming somone defaulted another browser (like Firefox) to the various internet, would IE still be considered a security breech? Especially in this day and age? Or am I just a naive fool?
There have been cases where malware websites have had Firefox browsers redirected to open links in IE, though I believe the FF redirection was itself an exploit, albeit a fairly harmless on except that by loading IE (which would always be there) the user would then be exposed to any IE related vulnerabilities.
The other issue is/was that you have to have IE installed in order to update your OS with the latest security patches, unlike every other decent OS. And I've lost count of the number of times the security patch for "windows" was in fact fixing yet another IE exploit.
Is IE still required for windows updates on Win7? It's all handled in the control panel now, so if it does use IE, it's fairly invisible to the user.
The same ones that prevent them from pushing IE7 in Service Packs. And perhaps not even an existing ruling, but the strong likelihood that they would get taken to court immediately after doing so and get mopped up in every market outside of the US.
Really? So IE7 isn't even available as a high priority item on Windows Updates in the EU?
There's a massive difference between being bundled with an SP and just being available on Windows Update.
Why?
Because Microsoft sells SP patched retail copies of XP, so copies of XP being sold with even SP3 still have IE6 on them. Why? Primarily for legal reasons.
This is the same legal and consumer bastard force that throws a fit about the fact that Firefox self updates. It's not *just* IE that gets targeted, but it's mostly IE since people have decided to incorrectly focus their ire only on Microsoft for the disaster that is IE6.
There are two things that drive this anti-trust movement against Microsoft.
1) Companies like Opera who take Microsoft to court for anti-trust cases. If it wasn't for the recent success of OSX then Vista and Win7 would *still* not have things like snippet tools and a media player that was worth a shit. Why is this? Because assholes like Opera take MS to court and win, and then MS has to keep their thumb in their ass until Apple comes along, does what MS was trying to do almost a decade ago with XP, thereby setting a market precedent in the United States that boils down to something along the lines of "You can't bundle this with Windows until Apple does it first", because in the US you can't win an anti-trust case against Windows if OSX is doing the same thing. This gets ignored in the EU, and wrongly so.
2) Security nitwits who think that cookies are a bad thing and freak out at the notion that any software corporation can manipulate files on your hard drive without your permission, no matter how innocent it is or how helpful it is to the user. This is why Firefox takes heat for auto updating minor revisions and why Microsoft doesn't even attempt it because they are already maxed out on negative press.
It's these two forces that have been keeping Windows and IE in the stone age up until recently. It's also the reason MS Paint is still terrible.
Nothing wrong with IE coming with the OS. They should just make sure you can uninstall it if you want.
You can now in 7. You can also uninstall WMP, WMC and other programs. The components are still there, but you can't actually launch IE.
I think that's also true in Windows Vista, but I am not certain.
Unfortunately not. I'm pretty sure there is some convoluted way of doing it, but 7 actually has it listed in the Add/Remove Windows Components dialogue.
Nothing wrong with IE coming with the OS. They should just make sure you can uninstall it if you want.
You can now in 7. You can also uninstall WMP, WMC and other programs. The components are still there, but you can't actually launch IE.
I think that's also true in Windows Vista, but I am not certain.
Unfortunately not. I'm pretty sure there is some convoluted way of doing it, but 7 actually has it listed in the Add/Remove Windows Components dialogue.
Woo! I just confirmed with my sister-in-law who works for the college that she can definitely get Win7 for me and it's supposed to be about $20. I can't wait for this to drop.
I believe she can get a few copies since she is an employee and not just a student there, but she already needs to get 2 or 3 for family (myself, father-in-law, and herself).
It's well into July 1st and my computer's been on for three hours now (plus a separate three hours earlier this morning). Hopefully this means I can stick to build 7057 and don't have to reinstall everything again again again.
I believe she can get a few copies since she is an employee and not just a student there, but she already needs to get 2 or 3 for family (myself, father-in-law, and herself).
It's well into July 1st and my computer's been on for three hours now (plus a separate three hours earlier this morning). Hopefully this means I can stick to build 7057 and don't have to reinstall everything again again again.
Two options:
1) Upgrade (modify the setup.ini or whatever to accept version 7000 and up instead of 7077 and up). I did this to go from 7077 to 7100. No problems yet, except my work computer had a BSOD when hitting "Switch User" the first time after first login.
2) Windows Easy Transfer. I used this when going from 7000 to 7057 and then again for 7077. It works great.
Posts
I'm pretty sure it is. I know for a fact that IE8 is.
It was a silly response. A technically correct one, sure, but a silly one. And he knows why.
And why should MS have to bundle a competitors product? MS doesn't stop or inhibit anyone from installing their browser of choice or setting it as default.
Anti-trust issues. Read up on the whole Justice Department vs MS concerning web browsers, along with recent EU rulings against them. In a nutshell, because MS controls the OS they have clear advantages when it comes to controlling what people use and install. They abused their OS monopoly by destroying competition in non-OS markets.
Technically correct - the BEST kind of correct!
But yeah, the chances that someone non-tech savvy is going to do that are pretty much nil. The point is that some tech-savvy person shouldn't have to show them how to do it.
It makes sense that the OEMs will be able to install their own browsers and make that the default.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
This right here. MS has the new "Live" applications, so they should just sell a "MS Live Applications" pack at retail, and offer an instant rebate to make it free if purchasing Win7. All they need is a CD or flash drive with the installs and if it detects internet connectivity download the latest versions/patches while it's installing.
Problem solved, and they could probably continue to legally hold a majority browser usage.
It is kind of like that bullshit patent that flash apps cannot start automatically in a browser. This is why IE was updated to where you had to click on a flash object to make it start, because the submarine patent holder threatened to sue them and publically stated that they would not go after Firefox. Except nobody is falling for that so every browser but Firefox now has to implement that stupid click-to-activate to avoid being hit by a submarine patent holder (which youtube gets around with javascript, by the way)
I think you could even make a great argument that IE's dominance from 1999-2005 had nothing to do with bundling, and everything to do with Netscape's release of the worst browser ever known to mankind, NS6 in 1999. Then then did nothing until 2005 when Firefox 1.0 finally came out and has done really really well. But its much easier to just say that the reason your product died was because the competitors were cheating.
IE was the dominant browser because it was the only browser that was any good. Windows took off with Win98 while OS 8 and OS 9 from Apple either stagnated or faltered.
Make a good product, and it will gain traction, and do well. Firefox is the prime example of that.
I dunno if this has been covered yet, but google SYSPREP.exe and ye shall find your answers.
Almost all of the programs bundled with Windows are replaceable - I use Notepad++ over Notepad, Firefox over IE, etc. A company has to improve on the basic functionality to compete, but that isn't even always that hard. Notepad is pretty basic so its not difficult to improve on it; you could even make that argument about IE.
That's not a very convincing argument. Have everyone involved in two separate cases in the courts in both the US and EU just been greedy, money grabbing scoundrels? Even if Microsoft's monopoly could have in theory just been psychological (perceived; oh, I should use this because it's better), weren't they convicted because they were actively focusing on structural monopoly ("next we'll use or dominant position to put those guys out of business!") control of the market?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Technically, you could remove IE... but it required a process akin to recoil42's immensely popular display of command line FTP knowledge back there. Actually, it was rather worse, IIRC. And things broke.
See, I would assume the solution to this problem would be "Don't use IE dumbass. You see that icon? Don't click it! Click the icon that looks like an orange rat humping a blue medicine ball whilst on fire. That's the one you want!"
But I'm also a tech-idiot who can't figure out why Firefox needs 140MB of memory to open three tabs, yet continue to use it like the sheep I am. Assuming somone defaulted another browser (like Firefox) to the various internet, would IE still be considered a security breech? Especially in this day and age? Or am I just a naive fool?
there's a reason that even if you "uninstall" IE, the actual program still lives on the system, it just removes the ability for you launch it manually.
Yes because there are other ways to have IE run than to have a user explicitly open it.
There have been cases where malware websites have had Firefox browsers redirected to open links in IE, though I believe the FF redirection was itself an exploit, albeit a fairly harmless on except that by loading IE (which would always be there) the user would then be exposed to any IE related vulnerabilities.
I still maintain that (regarding recoil's FTP instructions,) someone asked a question on a -tech forum- and someone else answered it. No panties should be in a knot over such behaviour, here.
The other issue is/was that you have to have IE installed in order to update your OS with the latest security patches, unlike every other decent OS. And I've lost count of the number of times the security patch for "windows" was in fact fixing yet another IE exploit.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
If they wanna crack down on things being pre-installed, they should look at pre-built laptops/pcs before they bitch about web browsers.
Norton and McAfee can die in a chemical fire.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Is IE still required for windows updates on Win7? It's all handled in the control panel now, so if it does use IE, it's fairly invisible to the user.
There's a massive difference between being bundled with an SP and just being available on Windows Update.
Why?
Because Microsoft sells SP patched retail copies of XP, so copies of XP being sold with even SP3 still have IE6 on them. Why? Primarily for legal reasons.
This is the same legal and consumer bastard force that throws a fit about the fact that Firefox self updates. It's not *just* IE that gets targeted, but it's mostly IE since people have decided to incorrectly focus their ire only on Microsoft for the disaster that is IE6.
There are two things that drive this anti-trust movement against Microsoft.
1) Companies like Opera who take Microsoft to court for anti-trust cases. If it wasn't for the recent success of OSX then Vista and Win7 would *still* not have things like snippet tools and a media player that was worth a shit. Why is this? Because assholes like Opera take MS to court and win, and then MS has to keep their thumb in their ass until Apple comes along, does what MS was trying to do almost a decade ago with XP, thereby setting a market precedent in the United States that boils down to something along the lines of "You can't bundle this with Windows until Apple does it first", because in the US you can't win an anti-trust case against Windows if OSX is doing the same thing. This gets ignored in the EU, and wrongly so.
2) Security nitwits who think that cookies are a bad thing and freak out at the notion that any software corporation can manipulate files on your hard drive without your permission, no matter how innocent it is or how helpful it is to the user. This is why Firefox takes heat for auto updating minor revisions and why Microsoft doesn't even attempt it because they are already maxed out on negative press.
It's these two forces that have been keeping Windows and IE in the stone age up until recently. It's also the reason MS Paint is still terrible.
Nope. It wasn't required in Vista, either.
I think that's also true in Windows Vista, but I am not certain.
Ah. I stand corrected.
Gettin' close
go ahead and fit me in there if you can
Two options:
1) Upgrade (modify the setup.ini or whatever to accept version 7000 and up instead of 7077 and up). I did this to go from 7077 to 7100. No problems yet, except my work computer had a BSOD when hitting "Switch User" the first time after first login.
2) Windows Easy Transfer. I used this when going from 7000 to 7057 and then again for 7077. It works great.
SC2 NA: exoplasm.519 | PA SC2 Mumble Server | My Website | My Stream
I think that one's got to be darned close to the final build, it's even using new keys. *excited*