"IE7, known internally as "Rincon," is expected to run in reduced privilege mode to lessen the impact of browser exploits."

Let's hope there is some way to allow it manually to run as before, since the last time MS tried too much the public screamed about it (the hype about the firewall in SP2?) I DO think it is a good idea, as that will prevent alot of problems with ActiveX. Yeah, yeah, go on with your ignorant rants that ActiveX is "evil and must be destroyed", the "dumbest technology ever invented", this and that--I actually love ActiveX, and use it many times daily. Many, many, many companies REQUIRE ActiveX on their LAN including Dell's intranet if I'm not mistaken. It has many uses, and while the original idea for using ActiveX was pretty short-sighted as far as security, one must admit Internet security wasn't nearly a fraction as bad then as it is now...I think it could have been better if it was more secure at the start, but it's not.

Although it's up in the air if IE 7.o will include the tabbed browsing current users of IE6 can add the fuction. All that is needing to be done is go into the site http://microgarden.com/ or from the Windows Marketplace and choose the tabbed browser pluggin. This is a good alternative from using an entire new browser since this really is what IE seems to be missing. Along with other repairs which Service Pack 2 included.

I run Windows 2000 Pro and Server, and I don't hear much about any updates towards it? This is FuBar at it's best.

Well 2k is past it's supported life.

"Internet Explorer product manager Dean Hachamovitch indicated Microsoft is considering making IE 7 available beyond Windows XP SP2. "We're actively listening to our major Windows 2000 customers about what they want and comparing that to the engineering and logistical complexity of that work," Hachamovitch wrote in a Weblog on Microsoft's MSDN.com.

That's significant because one of the limiting factors of Microsoft's current browser strategy is that the company's most up-to-date and secure browser, IE 6 SP2, is only available for PCs running Windows XP SP2. Earlier versions of Windows are limited to running a version of the browser called IE 6 Service Pack 1 that lacks some of IE 6 SP2's capabilities.

Since fewer than half of the Windows PCs in the world run Windows XP SP2, that means a majority of Windows PCs run a subpar version of Microsoft's browser, including many PCs running in business environments. If Microsoft were to tune IE 7 to run on Windows 2000, it would let those users enjoy improved browser security without having to upgrade the operating system."

http://www.informationwe...html?articleID=60402209

Really? I thought its support lifecycle states that full support ends sometime in June this year (that is if it has SP4 installed, the other service packs and win2k "gold" are EOL.)

since ms is making clear that they no longer will support certain older versions of windows they should release those versions into ther open market, giving them away. hey, if you arent going to support something then you shouldnt be making money off the sales thereof. just my thougfhts heheh I know it will never happen but nice to dream of free downloadable older versions of windows that ypou can legally leech without having to pay ms for the right to use something they no longer want to support

cheers

go you

Yeah lets give out our old junk that isn't supported any more so no one buys our new stuff and all we will get is a bunch of b****ing cry babies about how we give them something and then won't suppor it. Thats a great idea. NOT! LMAO

Can't release old versions--they will have to support them, whether they wish to or not. Imagine a network of thousands of systems, yet has three Windows 95 Workstations. May sound insignificant, but if you have Windows 9x workstations on a Windows Server 2003 network, you must change a few registry settings ON THE FULLY SUPPORTED SERVER just to allow the older clients to log on the domain. This is only one example off the top of my head.

The customer (even some IT guys are idiots these days) calls in for the server, so what happens? A wasted phone call on a non-MS supported product that they give away for free. Just imagine how much money MS will have to waste on issues like this--it costs money to give things away, even software. If it were my company, however, I might consider releasing a free unsupported version of Microsoft MS-DOS 6.22 or maybe even Windows 3.0, simply because it has been over 5 years since these were widely used, no one would be dumb enough to call MS (or very few) to try to have support for windows 3.0 clients on a Server 2003 network...but I know of networks that still have Windows 95 clients! Add to all this the point that gawd21 makes below, no wonder MS doesn't release outdated OSes.

MS simply can't deal with the inconveniences and costs of deploying outdated Windows versions anyway, especially as:

1. Did you know Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 6.22 will only support 64 MB of RAM? Or that even if partitioned correctly, it can only recognize hard drives 8GB or smaller in size?

2. Windows 95, 98 and even ME have stability issues when using over 511MB of RAM, due to the way they utilize "virtual cache"? (there is a workaround, but remember support costs money)

3. Windows 98 (and presumedly 95) has no support for intel 900 series chipsets, from Intel or Microsoft, making it virtually impossible to install Windows 98 on a new PC, and

4. Win9X OS has stability problems with any processors over 2.2GHz in speed due to the time/delay algorithms used in Windows processing tasks.

Just naming a few unwanted surprises. As far as Windows 2000, it IS still supported by Microsoft fully until June this year, so I agree that MS is wrong for not supporting IE 7 (or IE6 with SP2 for that matter) on Windows 2000. If they want to end support prematurely for 2000, then do so and cut your losses, but Windows 2000 is STILL IN THEIR FULL SUPPORT PHASE, it is simply wrong not to FULLY support it! But enough rambling here...

Guess what, win2k's support ends june of 2k5, guess when the first BETA of IE7 is due out? June of 2k5. Perhaps this is why they are thinking about NOT supporting win2k with IE7?

i agree its like this longhorn crap thats coming out bill gates should fix his products before he release something else and as for IE 7 its sounds just as crappy as 6 why not try Maxthon vastly superior than IE

Talk about uneducated, maxthon is BASED ON IE. Please get your facts straight before you post :)

afaik, ms doesnt have a huge support base for remote or onbsite services. thats where all the services shops come in and ms doesnt pay them a penny to constantly support ms's older crappy os's that ms itself has said it wont support. making them open source now is the smart thing toi do, it releases ms froim any liabilities from these obsoleted oses and allows those who must fix them more flexibility in that a whole new market will open up employiong people to do the fixes to the core os ms should have done loong ago. Good for ms, good for the economy, good for the consumer, everyone wins :) *continues dreaming on*

people arent gonna buy new stuff from a company that abandons customers :) ask IBM :)

This is good for Microsoft, releasing it independently from Longhorn, becuase not everyone will be able to (or want to) upgrade to the next Operating System. A lot of the new features (some being extremely overdue) will be added, increasing it's power.

However, I say that it's too little too late. I see no reason why I should abandon Mozilla FireFox now that I've tailored it to my needs and wants, and not have it fail me yet. I'm not saying that IE 7 is a bad browser. I'm just saying that I see no reason to switch back to it when I already have a perfectly-functioning browser.

although it is a step in the right direction, there not asking you to drop what you have when it comes out, its only saying that when its available you have that choice to use it just like you do with your current browser

you all are missing a very important point made....Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 and Windows XP Professional x64. are all comming out to beta testers first, thats why they said it the way they did, eventually it will be for all XP, WS2003 alone, and more than likely Win 2000. just wait and see, only time will tell. and for those who say to little to late, not true at all, and if it were true, ms would not have such a high market share

I believe that IE7 will surprise most users. It certainly is doing that now with its Anti-Spyware software and IE7 will do the same after a few months of beta testing.
----
Tabbed browsing is most certainly necessary for MS to implement into IE7. It's more efficient and without it, MS can't keep up with Maxthon, FF, etc...
----
PNG & CSS - way passed due!!
----
The whole debate about which system will be necessary and supported is nonsense. MS is doing it correctly. Those who still use those old models need to realize time has come to update their possessions. Basically, PC owners shouldn't have to purchase a new PC every year but they shouldn't believe that if they bought one in the 90's that it'll last forever. PC's are like cars, TV's, etc.. Eventually time will come for some hardware updating or a complete replacement. You can purchase pretty good desktops now-a-days for $700 & some for under $500

ya, i've seen some desktops for about $500, though i wouldn't necessarily call them "good"

When are people going to realize that MS Didnt do ANYTHING to create thier AntiSpyware program. It's good only because they BOUGHT Giant Company! They literraly slapped thier logo on it, changed a few lines of code to put the Micrsoft name everywhere, and called it done. That's it. IE7 is an internal project and wont be anything great, because they can't just buy it from someone else.

I always believed something simular.. pc's are like tv's - use them until it costs more to fix them than to buy a new model. not everyone who has need to use a computer has need to have a system that can move a mountain it is so powerful. there are plenty of people out there who use the computer for what the computer was originally designed to do.. make one's life a little easier by simplifying tasks, keeping track of records etc. The PC was not designed originally to be just another high priced console gaming platform.
With this in mind, the elderly couple who use their win98 computer to connect to the net, look for local events to go to, keep in contact with a lifetime's worth of family and friends, as well as to use word (or a simular program) to compose letters, quicken (or a simular program) to keep track of their finances, etc. These type of people, whether young or old, should not have to be forced to spend money they dont have to get faster hardware just to fix problems in the buggy os they are running.
I have always said, you want to game, get a ps2 or xbox. leave the computer alone. it was never intended to be a damn gaming console.

Again, users are not forced to upgrade to anything, believe me, exploiters arent really trying to hit win98 anymore, why? because winxp gives them more power with the functionality they can use if they successfully exploit it. By all means, if win98 or win98se work for you, stick with it. Microsoft has squashed most of the bugs for now. And now, the part about your whole post that bothers me the most. Yes, your correct, ORIGINALLY pc's werent meant to be a gaming console, but guess what, times have changed. Thats why we see new graphics card models out every 2-3 months and new games out every day. If you honestly believe that the pc isnt meant for gaming TODAY, then I have to call you a fool.

Microsoft is behind the curve again. How many other browsers (firefox, opera, etc..) already have these features...
And the most obsurd thing is when they do catch up, (somewhat) they say it won't work if you don't have a certain SP's or OS's...

Gotta love Microsoft. What a joke! I'm sticking with Firefox...

Added Standards Support is looong overdue, but Tabbed Browsing? According to Gary Schare, (Director of Windows Product Management at Microsoft), he claimed this was not possible. What the hell is going on?

And as for making it available _ONLY_ for Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1 and Windows XP Pro x64 - but _NOT_ Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows XP SP1 - how ridiculous?!

Its not rediculous, its clear you are neither technical or are you keeping up with the times. Everyone thinks Microsoft is "forcing" people to update by making people move the newest version of Windows. You don't think car manufacturers do the same thing? How about Clothes? Its called "maintenance". How do you plan to support everyone, if you have people using stuff from 10 years ago? You can't, at some point you need to discontinue support for "older" models, so you can better support current stuff.

Windows and software its more critical for EVERYONE to be on the same page. If you don't, its increasingly difficult to support. Think about supporting Win 98, Me, 2000, and even SP1. First of all, SP2 is the "official" release of XP. You should be keeping up with current service packs, and what is "rediculous" is that you are NOT. How do you suppose they should put security patches, updates, and fixes, when you are running previous versions of software that dont' support the new features? hmmmm? You people don't think when you post these things. Its not that MS doesn't WANT to support their current customers on previous versions, but this is a NEW IE 7 software, with new features, that was NEVER intended to work with previous versions. windows media player 10 can only be installed on XP. Mp3 files weren't even that popular when windows 2000 came out, what do you expect programmers to do, rewrite the code all over again just to support new technology. That's not only "rediculous", but its not even worth the time. If you want the new technology, upgrade and quit whining.. You can't retrofit a 92 car with ABS.. because it wasn't in the original design specs. And even if you could put ABS in an older car that was not designed for it..how expensive would that be? if you want ABS buy a NEW or current car equiped with it.

Software is no differnt, you want the new features, upgrade! Quit being cheap, and dont' complain because the new version is optimized for new features. Thats by DESIGN, its called Staying current with technolgy. They aren't going to patch your older model to support stuff that was designed AFTER it came, now THAT's rediculous.

Microsoft is not "forcing" _people_ to update that's true, but it IS "forcing" companies to update.

My version of Windows XP is always bang up to date with all security hotfixes (you'll have to trust me on that) and I shouldn't be "forced" to install XP SP2 just to install IE7.

You don't know as much as you think you do.

It's clear you are not aware than Windows XP SP2 is much more than a bunch of patches. There are big changes in the OS to make it more secure (something people is asking). Why require SP2, because IE needs some of the new features in SP2 (like the windows firewall functionality) and others to be able to work in a safe way.

Yes well I don't want to make a change to XP thank you. And I shouldn't be "forced" to. And what's more I'll just use Firefox, as will many others. So there. [shrugs]

Your not forced to do anything. If you dont want to upgrade to xp sp2, then dont, but dont sit here and whine about it when you cant use software that will only work on that os.

Firefox System Requirements
Windows
Operating Systems

* Windows 98
* Windows 98SE
* Windows ME
* Windows NT 4.0
* Windows 2000
* Windows XP (Recommended)
* Windows Server 2003

...nuff said

I think the point is here that people are still using the older versions of windows and since those people will not be able to get the new IE they will find alternatives. This means bad move for Microsoft if they want to keep the market share they have right now. While if IE7 uses the features in SP2 then they should find a way to some how make a version of the new IE work with their older OSs.

I just upgraded to XP a few months ago cause most of my programs would not work on it. So you can't blame people that want a good browser but are forced to upgrade something else on their system.

Many of you fail to recognize the fact that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE if they haven't bothered to update that either:

A) They like what they have an won't bother with updates OR alternatives.

B) They are uneducated and don't know that such updates and alternatives exist.

C) They are using pirated versions of Windows and CANT get the updates.

D) They are still on dial-up and too lazy/impatient to wait for the updates to download.

Go out and look at what Apple has been doing with Mac OS X... check in which versions of Mac OS X Safari runs and you'll see a company pushing people to upgrade to their latest OS... BTW, Apple charges $100+ each time they added 1 to their .x version... SP1, SP2 are free to legal Windows owners.

You don't want to upgrade, cool... but then don't complain.

I ain't really complaining for me as such. I'm making a point for other people in my situation (and there will be). As far as I'm concerned I'll just use Firefox and MS will lose me as a user of IE. So what do I care? Nothing. But if there are enough people like me then maybe MS will start to care. Let's not forget there wasn't going to be an IE7 only just 6mnths ago. (I could make a good analogy to emphasise my point, but quite frankly I can't be bothered).

But you are complaining for yourself. You are doing so by whining about "Being forced to upgrade" when microsoft is doing no such thing and saying "So there" to ms because they dont want to release a product for THEIR OS that is becoming outdated. Microsoft wont make IE7 support their older OS's, especially ones that are beginning to reach their end of life cycle. The average life cycle for an os by MS is 7 years, Win2k was released back in 98/99, so it is coming up on its end of support cycle (mainstream support) which means that you will have to have an extended support contract in order for MS to support you.

Plus, why do the whole immature "So there" thing? You think your being some sort of rebel? As I pointed out below, firefox takes months to patch a security hole unless the hole becomes widely publicized. Most of the holes fixed in 1.01 were known since the inception of firefox 1.0, and get this. You cant just patch firefox, you are FORCED (Yes, this is a situation where the word forced is legitly used, unlike in the IE7 situation) to re-download the entire browser, reinstall it, and pray that your extensions still work with it, and if they dont, you have to wait even longer for those extensions to be upgraded to support FF. Of course, you could argue this is entirely voluntary because you could say "Hey, only upgrade if you dont want to be hacked or exploited", but come on, what user that knows a security fix exists wouldnt upgrade to it (with the exception of some people and their fears of SP2 for winxp)? With microsoft's IE, I have yet to see an extension made for a version of IE later than 4.0 that didnt work with a future version of IE. Lets talk about reality here, I would much rather download and install a 3MB patch, then have to download a 5MB browser, and wait for all of the plugins I use to be updated to work with it. So go ahead and think your being some sort of rebel by saying "So there" to ms and sticking to using firefox because you dont wish to upgrade, but dont complain when your still using an outdated os and they do end total support for it and your left to the mercy of the hackers

In short, the pc world is a fast paced world. If you dont want to upgrade to an os, fine, but dont complain when your left in the dust wondering "What the hell happened"

Jeez chillout. [laughs]

I never mentioned the word "forced" first if you read back. And the "so there" comment was meant to be light-heated. Obviously you're passionate about what you say yet you've still missed my point. MS should be making me _want_ to use IE. But really, what do I care. I'll just use Firefox as will others is all I'm saying. [shrugs]

And you're point about Firefox, while well made about "forcing" people to upgrade their browser version, is also blinkered. Mozilla have been developing and inovating so it's to be expected. MS haven't which is why you only get patches.

Tell me, what innovations were made in 1.01 of firefox? I dont see any. I use firefox now, so dont say Im biased. I just dont see how they couldnt have simply made a patching system to patch the browser instead of forcing an upgrade and redownload of the entire browser. All the 1.01 release included were security fixes. To quote mozilla.org

* Improved stability
* International Domain Names are now displayed as punycode. (To show International Domain Names in Unicode, set the "network.IDN_show_punycode" preference to false.)
* Several security fixes.

Jeez picky or what? I didn't write Firefox y'know.

I didn't say specifically 1.01 _itself_ was innovative (okay so let's focus on the word developing instead), I was just trying to make a point that Firefox as a whole 'as an idea over time' has been innovative. IE was innovative in it's day too but is no longer. Splitting hairs I say.

I understand I am being nit picky, I just think that mozilla would make firefox alot better if they finally stabilized compatibility with extensions and made a DECENT patching system :) IE7 I am sure will have some new innovative features or an innovative new way of handling tabs or options that other browsers havent implimented yet in regards to the way tabs are handled. Microsoft has the resources to do this, and I am almost sure they will. But like you, I still like firefox and IE7 will take a lot to impress me :)

Yes I'd imagine Firefox will be able to be patched eventually (I'd imagine). It seems ludicrous they aren't developing that side of it, or at least have ideas for it. I can well imagine IE7 being similair to Maxathon or some such. But I can't see where MS are going to innovate tabbed browsing further than has already done so (particularly when you think of the browsers that have tabbed browsing now).

You never know, they always seem to come up with something that surprises me with every os release, so I dont see why they wouldnt do the same for the IE side of the house :)

Some interesting news today.

http://www.informationwe...html?articleID=60402209

you cant compare new software features to car hardware. ALL oses were designed with flexibility in mind. making new software to do something revolutionary is a heck of a lot easier than redesigning a car that doesnt have abs to have abs. why is this? simple, you code your app to do what it does (for example lets say a new sound codec, called xyz. you first design the codec for xyz and tell it how to act and what to do, what to compress the file to and how to interpret the compressed finished file. you then use the rathere flexible windows api and say... vb6 to create a front end that makes a pretty bells and whistles gui so that the user who clicks on the 1 meg (as opposed to say a 3 meg mp3) xyz file, it starts up the xyz app and plays the file through your existing hardware.
to add abs to a non abs car you have to totally remove the steering, suspension, brakes wiring harness, computer etc. then cut body parts to allow extra room for clearances for the aded abs parts (providing you already used your COMPUTER to simulate the abs system and get the system desighned on it forst, have the new parts manufactured and shipped, quality control tested etc), then install the new parts design a new computer to replace the old computer because the new computer will have to be able to monitor the input from the new abs sensors you installed, and send out info to all 4 wheels so that newly installed actuators etc can vary tghe pressure to each of the 4 tires independantly, as well as to monitor user input (pedal pressure), and many other factors. you must be able to tie in the new computers functions to the old computer which controlled other aspects of vehicle operation etc.

I could go on but you get the point. the two examples you gave are nowhere even close to comparible.

I had other points to make here as to why your whole post is all but useless and senseless drivel but having gone on about the idiocy of the comarison you made I lost track of my other points. *grrness*

exactly.. win9x, me, 2k users who want all the latest features available to "windows users" will be happy to support the companies that offer them these features. more money out of ms's pockets just makes me squeal with glee hehe

froim what I understand, mictrosoft isnt giving you that option but is requiring all xp users to be forced into sp2 upgrade whether they want to or not

and the increased "security features" everyone boasts on and on about are not all that much to begin with and still easily circumvented. XP sp2 is no more secure than XP or XP sp1

"XP sp2 is no more secure than XP or XP sp1".

Thank you - I so agree. Everyone who thinks you need to install SP2 instead of hotfixes to ensure security, is so ill informed and obviously don't understand what can be done with hotfixes.

WRONG! oh so wrong. SP2 includes features like "NX" support which cant be given to winxp via a simple hotfix. If your processor supports the NX instruction, then the processor can allow or disallow specified commands to run depending on if the os feels it might be a possible attempt at a buffer overflow/underrun. It enables, by default, the firewall and auto update feature (auto-update is a feature 90% of users dont use, but should since they dont check windowsupdate as they should). The fact of the matter is, that with XP SP2, I have yet to get a single piece of spyware on my pc using IE due to the new activex and popup warnings (info bar) because it now prompts you "Hey, this site is attempting to install such and such on your pc, do you want to continue?". SP2 Does include features for security you cant get via hotfixes, case and point. Plus, if you feel that MS is forcing you, your wrong. If you want the additional features that IE7 will bring, then yes, you are forced, but thats a decision YOU HAVE TO MAKE. Microsoft isnt forcing IE7 down your throats. Either use it, or dont. Never been an easier choice.

"Microsoft isnt forcing IE7 down your throats. Either use it, or dont. Never been an easier choice."

Aye that's what I said. lol

I didn't mean SP2 is the equivalent of being just one big security patch. I know it's more than that, and that's why I don't want it altering XP as it is at the moment. Those people that do, like you (as it benefits you), will obviously install it. Naive or ill informed people will install SP2 because they think it makes XP more secure. Hotfixes do the same job and I have a nice tool to do it thank you. :)

Well why didnt you just say that :) I agree, misinformed users will think "Oh, its new, lets upgrade, it should help me fix the spyware problem". Anyways man, glad to finally agree with ya althou it was getting fun debating :)

lol ;)

Its clear that Windows "moves" only when it absolutely has to. IE has been pretty much in a complete standstill for few years, with the exception of security fixes of course, but i guess thats what happens when you are "leading the business" (monopoly)... Its sad.

* png support, long overdue by at least 5 years
* tabbed interface, long overdue by about 2 years or so
* inclusion possibly of ms anti-spyware, unwanted. let the end user pick which they like best and install it, dont shove extra sheot down our throats

suggestion: remove activex entirely
suggestion: dont load the IE engine on startup. older systems dont need the extra memory leech
suggestion: instead of looking to add bloat, fix ther problems already in existance and look for ways to make it smaller and faster before doing anything else

Windows does not load mshtml.dll (IE rendering engine) at startup anymore (at least on Windows XP SP2). What makes you think Windows that? Explorer.exe certainly doesn't do that. Name me a Windows executable that loads mshtml.dll at startup.

IE is just as fast than Firefox when rendering, and takes less RAM too.

seems like too little too late... again...
MS should just start from scratch and make a good web-browser as opposed to patching up holes in their current crap offering, like they've been doing for years with all their software. or if they can't be bothered then do what they did with antispyware and buy Opera or something and call it IE8...lol im serious tho IE is a piece of crap and these 'new features' being added to IE7 have existed in many other browsers for years.

http://labnol.blogspot.c...soft-so-complacent.html

Microsoft executives have confirmed that aren't planning to ship any new or intermediate version of IE before Longhorn(2006) though they are busy building and testing a faster, more secure version internally. Though they will continue to release patches and service packs that would "extend" the functionality of IE.

Microsoft has definitely stopped being complacent anymore.

AMit
http://labnol.blogspot.com

Notice the date of the article you posted, DEC 04. This is march and obviously microsoft has decided to do something about IE.

ok, so yes png support would be great but i want ie's box model fixed more than anything.

I think make it so that it only runs on xpsp2 is bull man. What about those people out there like don't have the hardrive space for it or just don't want to upgrade like me. I tried sp1 when it came out on a different computer and found it changed lots of different things that I didn't like so I just get certian hotfixs that I need. I think microsoft it just get to controlling and forceing people to upgrade just so they can be safe. They can find third party programs to be safe.

Anyone using a versiono of XP prior to SP2, is risking lots, these pre SP2 versions no longer cut it, you are not getting critical security upates, and very soon Microsoft are due to switch of all support for them.

I don't understand what you mean about additional HDD space, SP2 does not use very much at all compared to SP1 (50Mb at most).

Are you saying you cannot spare 50Mb? (although more is required during install)

Dude get over it. There will come a time, when you will HAVE to upgrade. Its not any bigger than the previous version. If you want security, stability, and new features, you will NEEd to upgrade anyway, quit whining and just do it. If you don't understand the technology, don't use it.. or hey, use Linux.. its free!

And how much do hard drives cost these days? You can either replace the one you have, or add an additional one for very little money.

Wow, spare 20-30MB of hd space, or risk getting exploited by a vulnerability. If half of the users here actually paid for the software, THEN they have a right to complain, but I can almost guarantee that half the users of xp on this forum didnt pay for it or stole a copy from work. I honestly dont see that HD space is a big issue when you can get 300GB for about 250$ (less than 1$ per GB). Quit being cheap and coming up with lameo excuses to not upgrade.

Oh, and what settings did it change that you didnt like? SP2 only makes it so the firewall is on by default as well as automatic updates. BOTH OF WHICH YOU CAN DISABLE.

What did it change?

For everyone else that's not running SP2 I'd ask you to try it again. I've been running it since the public betas and my company started using it a couple months after release. We even turned on the firewall although we had to reconfigure the ports but that's something a quick netsh script can handle. But most importantly, if you're on this site I assume that you've got somewhat of a technical background and as such probably influence other people (friend, family, etc.). For their sake, please learn and get used to SP2 so that you can recommend it to them and help them with the changes. SP2 is the future whether you like it or not, and its more secure than past versions.

Most people aren't using SP2, because they aren't running a legit version of Windows XP in the first place. Why would anyone in the right mind want to have a computer that is just asking for a miscreant to come in a trash their computer?

Doesn't service pack one add windows movie maker 2 to the system. Thats one thing I found that I don't like. It doesn't have the same settings in it as the older version does.

Looks like IE 7 will support them http://labnol.blogspot.c...tabs-like-opera-or.html

Amit
http://labnol.blogspot.com/

Amit: Stop being such a wh***, trying to sell your blog like that.

LOL, they keep "scoring" his post as -1, yet you call him a whor* and your post is displayed! Way to go BetaNews!

cant wait to test it out, its gone be big

Espically the 1px s***ing but and the randomly doubling margins problem. Adding support for the :hover pseudo-class in divs would be nice as well.

The best thing they could do to there browser to make it secure is to remove the ActiveX control system. There is no reason for it, and it just makes life easy for spyware and adware. Removeing the .net framework support would be a good idea as well, as I am sure that is just going to be full of holes.

Microsoft wont care, however, because they are the same ones who said "our users dont want tabbed browsing" sometime when Firefox was gaining market share.

I remember days gone by... famous quotes from Billy Goatcheese that he later came to regret:

[1] - "we believe OS/2 is the platform for the 90's" http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/p...ia/video/avi/bgates.zip

[2] - I lost the link but somewhere out there is a wav file of bill gates saying that the home user will never need more that 640k ram...

:) just a bit-o-history

PNG with alpha transparency. That's all I want. Is that so much to ask?

I don't care about IE7.

So why make a post then ?????

" So why make a post then ????? "

Really, that's what I'm saying.

AnyHOO, I know that I will be testing IE7. It's about time they decided to upgrade.

Let's just pray it will be for the good. :)

...which in reality have an o-so-phantom presence will now instantly have an orgasm. :) :) :)

Mind you, Microsoft is in the very least 2 years late.

Hopefully they actually improve the rendering engine a bit, as well as adding "new" features that are in reality only "new" to MS...

If it's a worthwhile upgrade, I'll be impressed - MS is certainly capable of getting it right... they just need to be pushed into a degree of insecurity to motivate them.

Don't suppose this means we'll get a Microsoft e-mail client with decent IMAP support? Outlook in all flavours really drops the ball with IMAP.

IE7 could be quite good. Be interesting to see - if it's quicker and safer than my current Firefox config, I'll be switching back.

IE6 is currently quicker than Firefox, anyone that says otherwise is a fool. Firefox 1.1 is supposed to be quicker, but as it stands Firefox 1.0 (and 1.01) are somewhat slower than IE6 in both startup time and rendering.

Opera, although slower in startup time, is faster than IE6. I would use it if it werent for the fact that they dont allow ANY 3rd party software to be put into it and instead bloat it up with stuff most will not use. I love opera, but firefox does everything opera can do, and it supports what I want it to support. Being closed might be good for people who want an all in one, but imho, opera will never make it big due to the simple fact they dont allow anyone else to incorporate toolbars and plugins into it.

IE7 is welcome by me, I cant wait to see what microsoft does with it. I have faith that microsoft will do tabbed browsing in a very good way simply because they have the money and resources to make it work the way most every user could get the hang of it. Hopefully they also plug most of the security holes that exist (and make it so activex isnt as vulnerable).

It seems Microsoft's message is clear: "Screw you...All non XP users." This is what I call muscle power marketing. This totally sucks dude..

Yep, go microsoft. Screwing over users of windows 2000 by not back porting the code from winxp sp2 to win2k so that they can use IE7 instead of upgrading to a more up to date OS. Quit yer whining, quite frankly its the smart thing of MS to do. Your lucky they are even releasing a new version of IE, they could have waited until longhorn. Then what would you have said? "Backport it to win2k or I will whine and complain". Get over it and upgrade!

MS mainstream support for Windows 2000 ends June of 2005, which means by the time IE7 comes out it will be passed support time. If you want to think in terms of MS screwing over 2000, I'm not going to stop you. But you also have to consider that they're screwing over 98, 95, DOS 5.0, etc. There comes a point when you have to say "I'm going to support product X, but I'm not going to release new things for it anymore" and that's what MS did.

Firefox is only secure because it's still new, If you keep blabbing about how secure it is, people will try to prove you are wrong They will start developing hacks, and searching for security holes in Firfox and start exploiting them, and if you are so worried about getting hacked you shouldn’t be thinking about what browser you use... you should just get a better firewall, antivirus, and ad aware software... I have been using Avant Browser witch is based of IE for awhile and haven't got hacked once.

I have always used internet explore and with zonealarm and avast anti-virus I have never caught anything.

Precisely, the only reason there are so many exploits found in IE is that its what 90% of the internet users browse with. Hackers arent going to waste their time finding an exploit for a browser that 1% of the net (opera) or 10% of the net (ff) use. What would be the point? Let firefox gain its market share, then we will see how really insecure it can be. Plus the fact that it took mozilla 3 months to release 1.01 which had some security fixes, is just sad. Microsoft releases patches each month. PATCHES, not a full install of the browser, just a patch. Mozilla needs to do this as well and FOR GOD SAKE, STOP BREAKING THE EXTENSIONS EVERYTIME YOU MAKE A NEW RELEASE

I'd disagree saying that IE6 renders quicker. SSE2 custom build I have of Firefox seems to be quicker in general than IE. It *may* have something to do with the fact that my Firefox does not load any ads into the pages, however.

IE does startup quicker tho, I'll give it that. But it would want to, given it's basically already running when you start Windows XP.

" Precisely, the only reason there are so many exploits found in IE is that its what 90% of the internet users browse with."

what a**hole told you this?

http://www.w3schools.com...sers/browsers_stats.asp

the most IE of any version has held has been 72.6%

Funny, unless I suddenly forgot how to add overnight, it seems to me I can find a couple of instances where IE was damn near 90%.

Look at 03, 55.3 + 29.3, what does that come out to you? 84.6%, 66.9 + 20.3, 87.2, so yes, you are correct ANY ONE VERSION of ie has never held a 90% market share, but if you add up the different versions of ie (which is where my claim came into play) you will see that IE was damn near 90% It wasnt until about 2k4 where mozilla's suite became a huge hit. And if you judge your stats off that page alone, I feel the stats there are biased because the majority of course, your going to have more people visit a w3c site with an alternate browser for compliance checks (especially in 2k4/2k5 when the w3c began to get alot of publicity from firefox's claims to be more w3c compliant), try getting stats from an average run of the mill site. I would love to see somethingawful.com's stats page :)

listenb to yourself spout bs.. biased? compliance checks? why not include that the only ones who go there hate IE? all three are not viable arguements. and saying you want to see somethingawful's stats? well all I have to say is anyone who regularly visits a website with that type of url isnt right in the head to begin with, so that would be a selected few, so naturally the stats THERE would be biased. all pervs use IE or something like that LOL

an interesting note:
http://validator.w3.org/...%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com

This page is not Valid HTML 4.0 Transitional!

http://validator.w3.org/...=www.somethingawful.com

This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
theres a total of 140 html errors on this page!