isn't Microsoft required by law to uphold there support agreement, just because the public demands something, doesn't mean a company can always do whet they demand.

don't Microsoft have to stick to there own support policy or risk being sued?
if they terminate there own policy, isn't that liable?

1. Mozilla Firefox
2. Forced Internet Explorer 8 auto-update
3. Forced Internet Explorer 8 auto-update
4. Forced Internet Explorer 8 auto-update
5. Forced Internet Explorer 8 auto-update

very funny

That's the trouble with IE users who don't upgrade. They are really missing what we now have. IE8, you see have newer features. And when IE9 comes around, it may start supporting HTML5 and the H.264 codec, I hope. Mozilla, doesn't even want to support the H.264 codec, so if Microsoft lauches IE9 with the support of the H.264 codec, I will generally switch back.

I agree Hilbert, that MS produces the worst OS in history, I can not count how many hundreds of hours figuring how to fix my own and others computers.

I type this on firefox 3.5.7 on my vista box (I have over 60 tabs open, try that on internet explorer)...did I mention that my IE that came on this acer box blew up its email client (windows mail, not outlook) and there is no way to fix it unless I reinstall vista from scratch).

I should also mention that this vista box did not come with any vista re-install vista disks that I had to buy seperately from acer...not to mention that the dvd\rw\lightscribe drive just now died after reading like, 15 dvd's.....oh, and its just out of warrenty...so just send acer $70 US and we will now talk to you??? (any given cheaper no-name drive would last 4 years, are you listening acer?))

Back to microsoft, my XP box I built started to fail the hard drive about 2 years ago (retail disk install) and I had to grovel to MS over the phone when I upgraded to a newer hd (thank you microsoft genuine inferior OS verifier, you simply could not figure out that I just replaced a bad hd!!

Most people out there get a tech or IP support to do this mess, if every joe had to fix their own ms box, we would all be running macs by now (I should really get some linux and mac boxes going)).

People should really have to start supporting open source, but, there again the universe will get you, you trade ms universality for the billion tons of geek-speak-nightmare that linux can be.

Now, future historians will be find it hard to believe that a single company like ms could hold back all of civilization's computing progress for years on end, over what must be evident to a retarded monkey is shoddy software (who were the idiots that invented the registry and could we introduce them to some friendly aliens that specialize in probe work).

Right, most would agree with what you say. The issue is that we've let this IE/Windows shambles/security mess drag on for far too long and that those who report on technology issues have let us down by kowtowing to Microsoft for year after year, effectively they've not given us the true facts. There's always been some excuse such as this or that patch will fix it or the next version of IE will do so. However, that's never eventuated and the we've seen the same old security issues just keep marching on and on.

Fact is, even if there was an excuse 15 years ago for bad code (but it's not a view I subscribe to), then it ought to have been fixed back then. Microsoft has always gotten away with as little as it possibly could and the fact that it was let off the hook so regularly and so often that has cost us users very dearly both in security and financial terms.

Shame we can't all collectively sue Microsoft and get it to pay for the collective damages (as is the case with products in other industries).

Microsoft dislikes standards.

Throughout Microsoft's browser history, it has given standards the one-finger salute. It continues to do so. This will come back to haunt it.

Microsoft is now a minor player in the mobile scene. Windows Mobile only gets 7.9% of new mobile sales. Out of this number, very few Windows Mobile owners actually use the included Internet Explorer browser. Most use something else.

Even on mobile, where Microsoft is a minority, it still refuses to support web standards, and will not implement any HTML 5 features, or join the working group. Instead, it is pushing its proprietary Silverlight into mobile.

You'd think that Microsoft would have learned its lesson, and become a good internet citizen. Instead, it still tries to own the net for itself.

i guess they like to "create" standard.

It's not difficult to install IE 8 on a non-genuine copy of Windows.

I've reread this article again and perhaps I was half asleep the first time, but I can't believe my eyes, but I think I read this.

"I contend that Microsoft should disable non-genuine Windows copies without warning."

Are you wearing brown or black jackboots? The damn hide of you. Clearly, you don't work with half-broken legit copies of Windows where crashes have screwed certificates etc. etc. It happens all the time with legit copies of Windows. When stuffed, they can look like an illegal copy. I've seen automatic updates/MGA say legit software was illegal many times. Right, actually on legit software. Got it?? (Clearly you're only an operator, not a techie or you'd know this can be a common problem.)

If Microsoft started that tactic, it'd be inviting law suits by the dozen. And deservedly so.

If IE6/Windows was Rolls Royce software with no security faults, then this Gestapo-type tactic would still be unacceptable enough, but when we're really talking about third-rate junk software that has hundreds and hundreds--if not many thousands of security patches--then its unforgivable.

Do you realize what this slovenly-manufactured junk has cost the world over the last 15 or so years--because it was build so badly that it can NEVER be made secure? So bad in fact that governments are now calling for it not to be used, soon the call is likely to be an outright ban. Well, it's billions upon billions of dollars outlaid by users across the world in maintaining this junk, and all you worry about is whether the software is pirated or not.

Well, sell your M$ shares so you can be more objective.

Why the hell are you such an apologist for Microsoft? After all, it's their insecure, broken, crappy software which is at fault and the cause of all this trouble--NOT THE USER! Moreover, Microsoft has had a decade and a half to fix Internet Explorer and Windows and they're still fooling around the edges of the problem with little hope of it being ever resolved.

Patches are piecemeal and never-ending, the security patching never stops. Shame we don't have the source code for IE6, as you'd find it was an unholy unsystematic mess. In any other profession, manufacturing etc. this product would have been withdrawn long ago or been the subject of widespread damages under lemon laws.

However, because it's software, and its writers have convinced the gullible that the merchantability of software is 'somehow' different to everything else on the planet--and because its faults are hidden and locked up by compiled code--somehow this crap escapes the scrutiny of the regulators.

Yet, year in and year out, your editorial staff find some way of blaming the poor user instead of the source of the problem. It really is unbelievable. Moreover, its not only BetaNews, rather much of the popular tech press is guilty of it. Somehow, you've got it into your head that selling faulty goods is actually acceptable--talk about the laws of business being reversed.

With the apologist, woe-with-Microsoft attitude in editorials in recent times being so prevalent, all I can say is that the number of free complimentary copies of Windows etc. out in publication-land must be enormous.

It simply is beggars belief that you can write an article like that and not call for the company to undergo capital punishment.

Clearly, you have a very different value system to most of your readers.

I think you must indeed have been half asleep when you read (and re-read) it. I've re-read it, and still can't see anywhere he proposes disabling non-genuine windows. Every time I read it, he appears to be saying the exact opposite of that. He does say that part of the problem is MS do block updates for non-genuine windows, including updates to IE7 or 8. For suggestion 4 he even says MS should force non-genuine windows to IE7 or 8.

Hilber, so what is the "Rolls-Royce of software"?

@mfarmilo

Most posts are written in a hurry--certainly mine are, and on occasions it would be nice to go back and make what's written more cogent, perhaps so here. However, I stand by the thrust of what I've written.

You make reference to point 4, which is that 'MS should force non-genuine Windows to IE7 or 8', this adds to rather than detracts from my point. Initially, I'd included two quotes from the article but I deleted the second along with other comments because the post was too long. That second quote was from point 4.

The fundamental point at issue in point 4 is essentially the same, which is that the article implies or suggest an ongoing authoritarian control by a manufacturer over a product already released to the marketplace.

Any such action would raise serious issues:

1. In Western liberal democracies, when a purchaser buys a product--except where its use is controlled and monitored according to law as with weapons, munitions, nuclear materials etc.--the purchaser has control over that product [by the very virtue of the sale], he is free to do with the product whatever he wants (so long as it's legal). If he wants to put the Windows disks into a shredder (and I've done that before today), or whether he wants to install it on a computer is NO concern of the seller--here Microsoft. In law, it's none of Microsoft's business, nor should it be.

2. That Microsoft has an ongoing interest in a product once it is sold is just that--an ongoing interest--no more no less. Microsoft has no rights to tell the user what he can or can't do with the product, nor can Microsoft exercise any other rights of control over it, for example it cannot force changes to the product such as altering or patching the code etc. That commentators, as here, are suggesting that Microsoft be endowed with such powers smacks of totalitarianism and such notions should not be considered in a democracy for one second.

3. That somehow Microsoft still exercises control over the product's use after its sold because of its copyright is nonsense. Copyright only confers on Microsoft a right to have its work protected against unauthorized reproduction. This is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the use of the product per se.

4. If Joe Wilcox is suggesting that the law be changed to make an exception for software then this too would be unacceptable. Not only would it fundamentally undermine the free enterprise system so axiomatic to the American way of life, but also it would mean that software deployment and use would have to be tracked by the manufacturer. No only would the logistics be monumental but the privacy and security implications would be both horrendous and unacceptable.

5. 'Automatic Updates' is only acceptable because the user agrees to them. Forcing them on the user as a condition of sale would also be unacceptable for (a) it presupposes every user has access to the Internet which is not the case, and (b) if at anytime things were to go wrong then Microsoft could easily be sued under common law and thus would not want to expose itself in this way.

6. Moreover, privacy issues would raise themselves here too, thus exactly what 'Automatic Updates' did would have to be in the public domain (its source code published) and there'd have to be other changes too or governments and those sensitive to security issues etc. simply wouldn't use the product.

7. Theoretically, if Microsoft could enforce an alteration to Windows after its sale then complex issues arise about the exact nature of the product beforehand and afterward. After patching, its modus operandi will have changed and some users will perceive the product as no longer doing what it did when they purchased it. Moreover, any such scheme would also have to include legit users who are not using 'Automatic' Updates' and I can assure you there are many of these, me included. There's little doubt the lawsuits would come thick and fast.

Press Commentators and Microsoft
-------------------------------------------------

This present Internet Explorer 6 crisis exemplifies a longstanding problem for the long-suffering software user. For years, commentators have been in awe of Microsoft. They remind be of cult worshipers kowtowing to some almighty deity. Irrespective of any criticism they make about Microsoft, ultimately, over many years they have skirted around or ignored the key issues which are that Microsoft was negligent in security matters, and that Windows and IE6 had manufacturing faults and security issues which raise fundamental questions about 'fitness for purpose' of these products. Faults of this magnitude in products within any other product class other than software would have had them withdrawn from the market just on marketability issues alone let alone the lack of 'safety factor'.

Software reviewers in their reviews continually omit the aspect of merchantability. So bad and irresponsible has this reporting about Microsoft been over the years, that both governments and their agencies are now belatedly and loudly saying what the technical press should have said a decade or more ago.

Clearly, this longstanding love affair the press has had with Microsoft has cost us users many billions of dollars. By their underreporting of the problem not only has our security been compromised but a complete security industry has been built up around Windows and Internet Explorer which we users have had to pay for not to mention the millions of hours of user's time that have also gone into combating the problem.

For example, both Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer are built into Windows and CANNOT BE REMOVED without crippling it. Microsoft blatantly and deliberately did this to avoid competition and gain market share for IE. That an 'Operating System', which in those days meant a 'Disk Operating System', was extended to an Internet Operating System and that it wasn't optional for users to fully decouple the Internet function was hardly criticized by the press at all, any criticism was just a by-line. In fact, at the time many of the press warmly welcomed the integration of IE into the O/S even though it was obvious to Blind Freddy that there were all sorts of difficulties and ramifications with this approach. And that Microsoft had an almost total monopoly further highlighted the press's unprofessional reporting of the problem.

That there was no vehement or relentless outcry from the press and that it was not vociferous enough in pursuing something that was obviously wrong with Windows is the reason we are in horrible predicament now. Reason went out the window as cult Microsoft had unusual influence over otherwise rational individuals. That the press--who ought to have known better--did not go for Microsoft's jugular also meant that neither did the public. Thus, there were few critics left to show up the problem, and ultimately, as the pressure from citizens was at best moderate; governments vacillated and effectively did nothing to protect the consumer.

Today, in this present crisis, we are still left with an Internet Explorer 6 that cannot be uninstalled or fully decoupled from Windows. Had the press exercised responsibility early on, campaigned for a better deal for users, and Microsoft forced to properly decouple Internet Explorer from Windows, then now it would be a simple matter of just uninstalling IE6 (and installing something more secure if you want Internet access).

Right! STILL THERE'S NO CALL from the press for Microsoft to bring out a patch that would allow users to completely uninstall IE6. Instead, we're told a lot of mealy-mouthed words that cloud the main issue. Responses such as the enforced patching of pirated copies of Windows are just woolly thinking. For starters:

(a) It presupposes those who are using pirated copies of Windows would use 'Automatic Updates' when up until now they've been banned from doing so. For example, if the policy were changed, how would they be contacted if 'Automatic Updates' remains turned off?

(b) Even if 'Automatic Updates' were available, many users would not avail themselves of it for fear of being exposed as possessing a pirated copy of Windows.

(c) Hypothetically, even if there were to be a forced upgrade of IE6 then how would it be accomplished? For example, would the forced upgrade allow users to use say Firefox or would it be IE7 or IE8 only? What happens if later security breaches were to be found in both these products too?

Finally, may I suggest this problem is not going away anytime soon, as XP will be supported until 2014 and the product will still be around for quite some years after that. I can assure you of this as I've customers who are already asking about how long they can use XP after this deadline and they will do so. I know this well, as I've now customers who continue to use Windows 98 and nothing seems capable of budging them, even the threat of viruses only invokes responses such as 'we'll get an improved anti-virus product'.

Once, technical reporting was an objective and trusted profession whereby reporters--who were usually technically qualified engineers--would actually do detailed testing of a product then publish and defend the results without fear or favor. Today, most reporting on technology products such as Window, Internet Explorer etc. has reached rock bottom. Reviews are rarely little more than the reporter's subjective view, they can't even kerb their delight with the product let alone describe its technical aspects accurately and with objectivity. Moreover, as for objective testing--well that's a thing of the past, except where the feature holds interest for the reporter, the speed comparisons between say an old and new version of Windows is but a good example but there'll be no extensive vulnerability testing as that is just a yawn.

Why the press has been so negligent for so long on the issue of Windows and Internet Explorer security remains a mystery to many of us. Clearly, it has to do with those issues that I've already identified but is also about the 'sacred cow' nature of these products in that people's love of them makes them blind to the issues. Over the years, the press's irrational infatuation with Windows and Internet Explorer technology has continually thwarted attempts to cut to the core of the problem, expose it and have the very real dangers posed by Microsoft's shoddy workmanship and manufacture fixed once and for all.

How we get back rigorous and honest reporting of technology products remains a problem without an obvious immediate solution. It is clear though that overcoming the very real problem of technology addiction and the 'wow' factor in those who report on technology and the fact that it colors their reports is now a serious issue for all of us. (Moreover, it's interesting that recently sociologists have started to investigate the matter of technology addiction--although in a more general sense and not specifically targeted at technology reporters--although one can see that soon looming on the horizon).

This is a now serious issue for us users as our lives have come to depend more and more on this technology and we are simply not getting the real warts-and-all facts about much of the junk that's being peddled out there in the name of software or the latest hi-tech gadget.

Defined as the best of class. Check the Wiki definition, second item, 'noun':

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce

Apologies for the slang.

See my explanation in the general post list, it was supposed to be a reply to you (sorry).

So you're suggesting Windows 2000 support should be ended now too then? Seeing as nothing past 6 will run on it.

It's ending in June/July anyway, but you seem to have forgotten about it.

@Paul Skinner Firefox 3.6 supports Windows 2000.

At this point I don't think Windows 2000 is much of a factor in the popularity of IE6. Despite the inexact science of web usage statistics I think we can agree that less than 1% of users are still using Windows 2000. Whether Microsoft supports Windows 2000 or not isn't really going to make a difference in the slow death of IE6.

Most of the people I seen recently that are still using Windows 2000 because they don't want to buy a newer license of Windows Server. Since users rarely run a web browser on a server(at least I hope not) I don't think that would be much of an issue.

People who use IE 6 deserve to have their data ruined by viruses and malware. Nobody needs IE 6 in this day and age. Microsoft needs to immediately stop issuing security updates for IE 6 so businesses will be more inclined to stop being lazy and remove IE 6.

Sadly I think a lot of people using IE6 probably wouldn't notice that they are no longer being supported let alone understand why this would be a problem.

1 - IE 8
2 - Firefox
3 - Chrome
4 - Opera
5 - Safari

(laughed at)

IE6 was installed on 4 computers of mine for years, just because until Dec 2008 McAfee (ugh...) AV wouldn't work right with 7 or 8 installed due to the new version of MSHTML that came in IE7/8.

As for finally killing IE6, it's time. Making websites completely block IE6 seems a bit drastic though. Maybe just have them nag the crap out of you with things like extra ads and reduced function until you update it.

Finally, you can install IE7 & IE8 on pirated XP & Vista if you know what you're doing.

"2. Use a bot to identify all Websites supporting IE6, then request that site operators simply stop support."

LoL! Can you please explain us how to identify websites that support IE6 (unless they use your above mentioned, rarely used, proprietary special tags): putting aside special cases (which are rather web applications than websites) every correctly developed website supports IE6 (most of the web developers troubles with IE6 being related to CSS half-assed implementation/bugs, lack of png 24-bit support, etc), yeah just contact all the web devs over the world and tell them to undo what they have passed hours to fix... They will love you even more than IE6! ;)

I suspect doing any of these would open MS up to huge class action law suites in the USA. This would be admitting guilt and then damaging peoples computers (supposedly for their own good). I think judges could be persuaded pretty easily to awards huge judgments if this happened.

I think the only real solution is number 1. Even if Microsoft does not block them from their site, lots of sites will start to offer downgraded experiences to IE6 and that will hopefully rid it from the public internet.

Businesses can use IE6 internally as long as they like but they will have to install another browser.

Even IE7 and IE8 are not really very standards compliant and lack a lot of features which can be used to make rich web applications. For those browsers there is always Chrome Frame to make development easier.

None of your other suggestions are feasible, either because they are not technically possible or they have logistical problems. Virtualization is not a magic bullet that solves all incompatibilities.

I bet most of IE6 usage is from big corporations who would crush Microsoft if they did this.

First, Security fixes are given even to pirated copies of windows.Secondly, IE6 security risks are overstated. A patched IE6 is almost (excluding protected mode in Vista and Win7) as good as any IE. Standards support of course is another issue.

does Firefox 1-2 support current 'standards'? i honestly don't see why 'standards' keep coming up in this ongoing conversation on an xx number of year old product.

You are exactly right. IE6 is an old browser.Other browser's support for standards was limited as well at the time, however, support for standards could have been much better..

If you can't be bothered to update your machine on a timely basis - even just by using Automatic Updates - then I will most certainly blame you if your machine hosts nasties. Laziness is not a valid excuse.

Agreed with RCS. You are basically saying that you refuse to patch because something else on your machine is causing issues with the patching process. I have rarely encountered a machine in my 20 years in the business that has been affected by a patch run through automatic updates. Yes, there have been a handful, I can count them on one hand, where this has happened but for most, patching is painless and transparent.

By the way, what is your IP address? I would like to....test...it to see what kind of nasties you are hosting :)