I think that the 0.5% number of "alternative" browsers on the MSDN site is misleading, and if they were basing their decision that, they were being incredibly stupid.

Why?

Anyone who knows enough to be navigating MSDN, ALSO knew that you MSDN only worked well in IE.

I'm a 99% FireFox user, but if I have to go to any page on Microsoft, I automatically fire up IE because I know that most MS sites don't support non-IE browsers.

Therefore, by their stats, I'm not an alternative browser user.

That's like if the automakers said they weren't going to ever produce any hydrogen-fueled vehicles, because 0% of auto sales currently are hydrogen-fueled, therefore there is no demand.

There are only .5% alternative because 99.5% of MSDN users know not to use an alternative browser on MSDN.

Given that many *Microsoft* web pages (especially KBs) don't *print* correctly (even the special "print versions") I have switched to Opera as my main browser.

This FTM/MSDN change will lower by one the number of exceptions where I have to hit the "open same page in IE" button ;-)

I'll greet and congratulate, if it's true! It would be useful and greetful for everybody irrespectively of using IE or alternatives.

Well I think it's a good start.

The only times I use IE is for microsoft.com etc. Even though I use IE 7, Opera still blows it away. And this is just one more place I don't need to use IE. I'd call it a welcome improvement.

Let's see....
All that was required is to CODE TO STANDARDS instead of MICROSOFT EXCLUSIONARY EXTENSIONS.

That would allow Safari, Dillo, Konqueror, or other browser users as well as Firefox or Opera users. Fix it once. I guess that is too tough to accomplish.

Wow. Bout time. Good work Microsoft.

Now, If I could use Windows update in Firefox, I would be happy ^_^

That's a limitation/feature of Firefox; it doesn't allow ActiveX controls (such as the Windows Update control) to be run.

Because of the high risk action that Windows Update is doing -- downloading and installing software & operating system components -- even if Windows Update switched to say, a Java applet, it wouldn't be able to run. In other words, Microsoft has literally zero choice: it's either ActiveX or nothing.

What the really should do, IMO, is just build a client that runs on Windows that will do the update. Then there's no reliance on a web browser to get your updates (which makes little sense anyway).

Not true.... Go to the Tools>Options>Web Features page (in Firefox 1.0.6, at least) and see the switches for turning software installs and Java on/off.

Or the could make a update program that doesn't require the use of a web browser.

You did read the last two sentances of the post you replied to, right?

Heh... no?

You skimmed.. Shame, shame....*slap on the wrist*

Next time I get out the taser.

That switch has nothing to do with Windows Update. Its regular software installs from webpages. However even those won't work if they involve ActiveX. No matter how you look at it, FF can't do WinUpdate.
I agree it should be a separate program.

As for opening up MSDN, its a good move, but overall doesn't matter much since as mentioned nearly all who go there use IE anyway. Although it is true they should be setup using Web Standards, but we are talking about MS here.

They may want to sell some advertising (need subscribers for that). Also, I'd like to get some value out the 'included' service I'm paying for from Comcast broadband.

Yar, third party apps can already do that.

Oops

The whole Firefox can't do ActiveX thing is more to do with it's cross platform then anything else. I think there are some mozilla plugins that can run AX...

Anyway. Why can't Microsoft use Java for WU?

WindizUpdate is an alternative. It works via a plugin in Opera and Firefox. The updates are always delayed to it though. It is an unauthorised third party service not related to Microsoft. http://windowsupdate.62nds.com/