Why Did Microsoft Set IE 7 Free?
|
It's dress-down Friday, again, and time to dress down Microsoft for the perplexing Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP update. |
See, Microsoft is removing validation, so that any schmo can download the Web browser. The move means that even software pirates can now get Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP. So much for the "genuine" in Windows Genuine Advantage.
I suppose that removal of validation should be cause for cheer. Some people might even see signs Microsoft is backing off piracy checks. Yeah, and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is the world's poorest man.
Word on the street is the issue is security—that Microsoft wants to make its most secure Web browser available to everybody. There is some sense to the reasoning. Internet Explorer 6 is a malware writer's dream machine—at least compared to more modern browsers like Firefox and IE 7. Considering the huge Windows XP install base of botnets and malware-infected PCs running IE 6, IE 7 for everybody is sensible.
Why not sooner?
My question: If IE 7 is so sensible a security solution today, why not a year ago? About a year has passed since Microsoft released IE 7 with the WGA tollgate. Microsoft positioned IE 7 as an important security update. The most important features are about safe browsing. OK, I buy that. But if Microsoft is so serious about security, why not make its securest browser available to everybody from Day One? Safer today should have been safer yesterday. If IE 7 is better for everybody today, surely it was better for them a year ago.
I do applaud Microsoft for finally making IE 7 available to the world, but I question whether security is the only reason. Microsoft also released an installer so that businesses could more easily deploy the browser. Why now, and not a year ago?
I see two related reasons: Microsoft rightly expected that many businesses wouldn't deploy IE 7 right away; many businesses still haven't moved to the newest Microsoft Web browser.
Last October I predicted that "Internet Explorer 7's release [would] drive up Firefox usage," reasoning that many businesses would delay deploying the operating system update. Continued, from an October 2006 blog post: "People experiencing IE 7 benefits like tabbed browsing at home may want them at work, and where can they get them? Firefox." At the time, a JupiterResearch survey showed that about half of U.S. businesses with 100 or more employees allowed Firefox on their company PCs. The number about doubled year over year.
IE 7 is a real pain-in-the-ass Web browser. Microsoft exposes way too much complexity, mainly because of all the blocked activity and security notifications. More secure is the right approach, but not if the product is more complex and arduous to use. Microsoft Watch commenters viciously complain about the browser's usability. There are Microsoft Watch posts about IE 7 going back more than two years that still collect comments from frustrated users.
So, it's no wonder that some businesses might not be rushing out to adopt IE 7. Other security tinkering, such as flipping off the switch to some ActiveX controls, is well meant and the right approach. Unfortunately for Microsoft, businesses with certain ActiveX application dependencies might not be so forgiving of good security medicine that knocks out some software.
What about Firefox?
Security is a good reason for making IE 7 available to everyone, but adoption is another—and not just among businesses. Where will all those invalidated Windows XP users get Web browsers? Unless they stick with IE 6, the choice is something else, with Firefox being the leading candidate.
There is plenty of browser market-share data available showing Firefox gains. An outfit called Janco Associates says that between September 2006 and 2007, Internet Explorer market share declined 9.57 percent to 63.86 percent. By contrast, Firefox market share rose 5.64 percent to 17.4 percent. NetApplications puts Internet Explorer third-quarter market share at 78.51 percent compared with 14.6 percent for Firefox.
Market share is a good but ineffective measure. What matters more isn't discrete marketshare but real-world usage—how many people use Internet Explorer and something else. Those numbers, if available, would likely show even greater Firefox usage than reflected in the market-share data. That's got to concern Microsoft. Perhaps more important than Firefox is people using Internet Explorer 6 and nothing else. For security and customer satisfaction reasons, Microsoft should want more people using IE 7 than IE 6.
The PR backstory
Microsoft's PR agency refused to provide Microsoft Watch with a spokesperson to discuss the IE 7 changes. I was told to submit questions and accept e-mail responses to them. The responses would be attributed to the appropriate Microsoft spokesperson.
My eWEEK colleague Peter Galli did e-mail off some questions, but not because Microsoft's PR agency told him to. He was busy yesterday afternoon, having just come from a Sun virtualization event, and had just a few questions. He didn't ask for a spokesperson and wasn't aware of my earlier exchange with two people from Microsoft's PR agency.
I was fussy about the interview, because a few times recently Microsoft's PR agency e-mailed responses to questions I asked over the phone that later appeared virtually verbatim in Microsoft press material. That raises questions about who is doing the answering for which there is attribution to someone from Microsoft.
Yesterday afternoon, the last Microsoft PR agency rep I spoke with made clear I wouldn't get answers without giving her questions. I said that I would gladly conduct an e-mail or IM interview, if necessary, as long as the communication was with the person to be attributed; I wouldn't have Waggener Edstrom as the go-between.
So, here we are on dress-down Friday. I'm not dressing down the IE 7 announcement out of anger or spite. I made absolutely clear to the last PR rep that without an interview I wouldn't be able to present Microsoft's side of the story. My side of the story, my interpretation of the why, it is.
The circumstance is hugely unfortunate. Microsoft deserved to have its side presented, and I would much rather present that side than just speculate. But the unwillingness to openly discuss the changes raises suspicions, too. What doesn't Microsoft want to say?
More broadly, this is a phenomenon I identified last month: of Microsoft PR trying to take more control over the message through blogging. There were Microsoft blogs on the changes rather than any formal release. I can understand that. But I also expect the person that I ask questions to be the same one providing answers for Microsoft Watch readers. There's no way to know if Microsoft's PR agency acts as go-between.
Maybe there is concern about fair treatment. If so, the fix is easy. I invite Microsoft to provide someone(s) to do a podcast on Internet Explorer 7. Microsoft Watch podcasts are unfiltered, with all the content presented as it was recorded. Surely, some Microsoft Watch readers would like to learn more about the new IE 7 installer and some of the changes that could affect how Web pages are rendered in the browser.
Related Posts
- Do We Really Need Another Web Browser?, Microsoft Watch, June 11, 2007
- IE 7 Gives the Green Light, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 6, 2007
- Will IE 7 Perception Problems Hurt Vista?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 23, 2007
- Is Internet Explorer 7 Too Locked Down for You?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 19, 2007
- Are IE 7 Installations Counting Up or Down?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 16, 2007
Comments (42)
I'd say they did it because of marketshare concerns esp wrt FF. BTW, your "PR Backstory" reads like one long whine. If you wanted their side, it was offered. You simply chose not to accept it on their terms. That's *your* choice, but don't blame *them*.
Posted by Bob | October 5, 2007 6:37 PM
Microsoft's "most secure Web browser available"? Very funny! Must be part of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing campaign. Find all about it at
http://www.trustworthycomputing.com/
I would not use Microsoft Internet Explorer even if Microsoft paid me for using it.
Posted by no way | October 5, 2007 6:39 PM
I wish companies would install Opera on their machines, not IE or Firefox. Opera supports more web standards than the others, and if it had more marketshare, web designers could better justify using the latest web technologies, like SVG and MathML.
I am writing this comment from Opera 9.5 alpha. It's a great browser.
Phil
Posted by Phil Deets | October 5, 2007 8:40 PM
Why would Adobe miss the biggest AJAX conferences around? I mean, MICROSOFT shows up, for crying out loud! Why doesn't Adobe find it necessary to show up?
http://java.sys-con.com/read/434379.htm
Adobe Was Missing at AJAXWorld!
Adobe goes 'missing in action' at one of the most significant rich web app shows of the year
By: James Hamilton
Sep. 26, 2007 07:45 PM
James Hamilton's Blog
...AJAXWorld conference in Santa Clara, California.
There was another interesting announcement from Microsoft yesterday about Astoria Web Services...but the buzz on the expo floor is "Whatever happened to Adobe?"
...Adobe was also missing in action last week at the Gartner show. Microsoft announces Silverlight, and Adobe goes "missing in action" at one of the most significant rich Web app shows of the year. It is interesting, very interesting indeed.
Posted by I-Man | October 5, 2007 10:11 PM
"with Firefox being the leading candidate" probably is just a false sense of security. In fact , Firefox introduce more problems then we though
When Firefox first release , it claims to be the secured browser. However , over the time , security holes keep appear and the patching is forever.
Then why blame IE ?
Posted by Eder | October 5, 2007 10:51 PM
If IE 7 is a real pain-in-the-ass Web browser, then Eweek is a real pain-in-the-ass in IT journalism .
Prior as Eweek , it was PC Week , a respectable pioneer in reporting news from PC industry.
Over the time, when PC becomes commodity, it lost its ground and less audience.
It eventually renamed to Eweek and harbor with sub-standard "journalist" who publish biased, grammar/spelling error-proned contents. Some journalists of Eweek are having "false-expert" syndrome as they though they are the authoritative in IT and start to utter some baseless comment and recommendations
The ultimate aim of Eweek is to publish "sensational" reports that attract and invite two rival camp , namely Microsoft and LInux to argue , to bash each other to sustain online visit
Posted by John | October 5, 2007 11:05 PM
Actually IE7 works very well & since it's going to be in the OS anyway & when you're looking at directories -guess what you're using. - you might as well use it at least if a vuln is found it gets patched automatically.
Posted by Jim | October 5, 2007 11:11 PM
Markman hearing for VCSY/Microsoft to begin in just days. Then i'll be gone without so much as an "I told ya so". GLTA
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_M/threadview?m=tm&bn=12004&tid=1297925&mid=1298027&tof=14&rt=1&frt=2&off=1
Hmmm. Looks like the panic has gelled. The truth is VCSY products exist and they are available to VCSY to propel their subsidiaries to front-edge positions in high technology.
The truth is, a Markman hearing in the VCSY v Microsoft case will begin in about a week that will define precisely the language in the patent, VCSY's claims and Microsoft's claims by November 2. The result of the Markman hearing will result in a finding by the court as to the likelihood VCSY will triumph or fail in the trial against Microsoft.
We have looked at a variety of scenarios that indicate VCSy may have their patented products and patent claims loaded into evaluation projects being pursued by VCSy friends in the software manufacturing and integration industry.
We have also looked at the kinds of products produced after VCSY patents were granted and found no-one who can reliably point to examples of prior art or obvious claims to invalidate the patent (either patent 744, the one being litigated, and 521, the one being held in reserve).
The likelihood Microsoft will be able to cope with a herd of competitors employing the 521/744 patent combination capabilities in their web products while Microsoft fights 744 and is thus cut off from using 521 is very low. The competitors will be able to take the virtualizing powers of 521/744 to commoditize Microsoft products within a short time... most likely before the trial actually begin.
Thus, Microsoft will be gambling its existence on the internet with a slim chance of winning the trial given the amount of information already available on the internet regarding Microsoft's defense strategy, materials, and history.
I don't know how I could be a criminal because I am an amateur stockholder attempting to defend the reputation of the company I own stock in by exercising my free speech rights on a public forum open to any challenge and any effort to provide contrary information.
I can not be held responsible for posters who hold an opposing position but are unable to express that position rationally or convincingly or unable to even present information that refutes what I've presented.
I will not dumb down just to make pro-Microsoft folks feel good. So, I hardly see why someone without a valid reason can get away with calling me a criminal.
Microsoft shareprice is falling in spite of record-making events. I don't see vcsy_stock saying the same thing about MSFT, although the current status of MSFT shareprice indicates the market doesn't believe the assertion MSFT is in good shape.
So, until someone can find some way to disprove what I am saying or can present information to at least present an opposite view, I think I'll just sit here and continue doing precisely what I've been doing. And I look forward to presenting information that may become available from the Markman hearing in Texas so the reader may stay informed.
I'm sure people like vcsy_stock_is_a_scam will continue to slander VCSY's reputation and I'm sure that person will continue to rack up posts that will come back to haunt. Message boards are an increasingly valid form of information for shareholders and the assertion an SEC validated public company can be called a "scam" is likely going to be very important to VCSY management to address legally once this infringement issue is resolved.
So, I feel quite confident pursuing my present course as it's apparent I have beaten all the challengers who've tried to knock this information down. If I were such a criminal, I'm sure somebody would have found a flaw in my reasoning or my information... but, instead, they use the current shareprice of a BB stock under market maker control as their "proof".
The reader is encouraged to do your own study and do your own thinking and take what people like vcsy_stock_is_a_scam post as self-serving FUD.
Posted by I-Man | October 5, 2007 11:32 PM
Re: There was a rumor back somewhere around May/June...
(From Portuno-Yahoo/Microsoft board)
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_M/threadview?m=tm&bn=12004&tid=1298739&mid=1298739&tof=3&frt=2
... do you know what it was? The rumor was that Microsoft had a settlement worked out with VCSY and only needed a little more time to work things out. Thus, MSFT asked for an extra 60 days to... you know... "work things out". VCSY graciously said "sure" and MSFT took the 60 days VCSY gave them in good faith.
Well, sir, the 60 days came and went and no word of Microsoft fulfilling any agreement sooooo... here we are now about a week away from the beginning of hearings in the no-foolin'-'round Texas Federal Court and we are all wondering what's going to be said... because it DOES ALL have to be said this time around, you see?
Read the post I gave from one of the VCSY board longs detailing what the hearings ahead require of both parties. You really do need to read them (and no I won't repost the URL. You're all going to have to grow up like hawcreek and learn to be responsible for your oversights) and see what is facing MSFT.
IF MSFT started an agreement with VCSY and reneged? Whooooooweeee what a scorching screwup THAT would have been. You shareholders can only hope those 60 days extended by VCSY upon MSFT's request were because one of their lawyers was lost on a mountain top or some such delaying nonsense and not an abortive settlement.
Glub Glub.
Anyway, that was the rumor and we'll be able to tell is that was a rumor or not because at some point the legal proceedings (seeing as how they're between two public companies and all) will become public and there are plenty of VCSY long Spartaci who will be more than willing to fill up the text boxes on the net with all the juicy details... come what may.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My my my - what happens if the rumor is true? What happens to Microsoft's case if they began negotiating a settlement with VCSY and backed out of it? Were they buying time? Were they going to until they saw what it would cost? Were they going to until they found out what would have to be made public?
Either way, if they bailed out of a negotiations and especially if they bailed out of a good faith attempt by VCSY to settle... what chance do you calculate they will be able to convince the court they were always going to fight on principle?
On principle of mens rea, is what. And THAT is what the good judges will presume.
Not a good position to have going into this kind of "chances".
Posted by I-Man | October 5, 2007 11:49 PM
Perhaps, because WGA didn't work anyways, when I was using my pirated windows in this computer I was totally able to download IE7, WGA considered my OS as genuine...
Posted by Vexorian | October 6, 2007 1:19 AM
"When Firefox first release , it claims to be the secured browser. However , over the time , security holes keep appear and the patching is forever."
I find these sorts of comments annoying. I hear them for Linux far too often, and hearing them about Firefox is not better.
Yes, it gets patched several times a month. So does Linux.
Yes, you generally only have to patch Windows once a month.
That doesn't mean Windows or IE are more secure than Linux or FF, especially when the flaw ratings on Windows/IE are much higher and the number of flaws actually fixed are much higher than their open source counterparts.
Microsoft patches all their stuff once a month. That means that there is a good chance that known flaws are sitting around for several weeks, openly available to exploiters, before they get patched.
Linux (and Firefox) patch as flaws are found and corrected, leaving far less time between the discovery and the fix for exploiters to make their attacks.
There is no perfectly safe system, and claiming that "patching is forever" on one system but not another is simply turning a blind eye to your system of choice. All systems have their flaws. The big question is, how bad are they, and how long before they are fixed? Firefox has fewer flaws, flaws that are not as bad and they get fixed faster than on IE. You have to "patching ... forever" because they are doing their job.
Unless you are one of those people who don't realize that IE is being patched every time Microsoft does their Patch Tuesday, in addition to the actual OS and their other products, or perhaps you are one of those people who has updates done automatically so you never actually notice? If that's the case, then never mind -- this entire response was probably over your head.
Posted by x | October 6, 2007 2:02 AM
Hey Joe, nice post.
But I would say one thing. Removing removing validation in installing IE7 is not like anything like setting MS IE7 free, which is what your post is titled about, isn't it?
I beta tested IE7, and what a POS it was. Just never care to go back to that ever again. goodbye and goodriddings M$. Firefox and Opera rule, for all those else who have not learned yet, suffer, sorry. No one wants to use krap, giet away from these sorry products. Linux is the future and its free
http://distrowatch.com/
dispite all the dos (windows bots) attack on it and othe security sites, it continues to operaate.
Set yourself free from free from the worst monpolist in history, and get a truly problem free internet OS. I recommend Mepis or PCLINUXOS.
Posted by chips | October 6, 2007 5:37 AM
you know people, all the the non knowledge people continue to post, or the MS trolls or shills, who have no honor.
but the truth is;
I have been running linux for more than 3 years while converting to linux, and running XP and 98. Linux never crashed on me on multiple computers, while windows was a total pain many times. Do yourself a favor, download linux and take the time to learn it, heck u can do like I did and dual both linux and windows.
Posted by chps | October 6, 2007 5:44 AM
Chips
"download linux and take the time to learn it"
Finally chips you have slipped up, the above statement says it all, just like any other OS you have to take the TIME TO LEARN IT, you cannot just go straight into using using it ... you have to learn it !!
Linux zealots for a long time now have said don't bother having to learn Vista, just go straight into using Linux ...now from the man himself comes the truth ... you have to learn Linux just like any other OS !
Posted by Neil | October 6, 2007 7:22 AM
The motives of the Wolf:
-Loss of browser share to Firefox
-Trying (once more)to touch the sky (read: Internet)
-Recognising WGA is rubbish
-Recognising that it's time to change (now Ms cannot give us the product of ITS will)
-Recognition WGA always was for MS' benefit, never for our benefit.
Moral: although you might love MS, use the competitors' product if you want to improve it(MS)
Warning: "Embrace, extend, extinguish"
-------
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=794
Quote: "The real reason(s) behind Microsoft’s move to exorcise WGA from IE7"
I think Microsoft’s move to decouple WGA from IE7 as aimed less at attracting the “pirated software” crowd — as large as that contingent may be. Instead, I think Microsoft realizes that it is losing browser share to Firefox (and, a lesser extent, other competitors) primarily among more technical users. These kinds of users are more likely to be among those who are anti-WGA, I’d wager, equating repeated authentication checks with DRM.
Posted by Marco | October 6, 2007 1:24 PM
Heck, that's easy -- they're just doing penance for all the misery and financial losses inflicted on the world by previous versions of IE!
If MSFT were held liable for even 1% of the pain and suffering they caused over the years with IE, they'd be bankrupt in a heartbeat.
Posted by Jeff Z | October 6, 2007 1:41 PM
Jeff Z that is so true.
now that IE is freeware, maybe my prediction that Vista becomes one is not that far.
Posted by porkyV2 | October 6, 2007 2:22 PM
Microsoft has every right to fight the VCSY charges all they like, but, discovery will determine whether that fight is based on principle (as Microsoft appears to claim since they believe the patent is already invalid because they claim it was gained on faulty process) or the fight is based on covered deception acted out over the previous years when they thought they would have free use of the technology upon VCSY's demise.
After looking at the material Microsoft offered as defense against VCSY claims, their "evidence" against McAuley looks plenty weak and I don't think professionals could delude themselves to thinking they have a significant chance of success with that.
Microsoft's past performance and past tactics does not bode well for success either. So the "hard ball" approach seems to be Microsoft's use of their time and money to wear down the opponent. The court's approach, I would say, appears to be one of "cut to the chase and get to the point" which negates Microsoft's strategy. So, given the period of technological advance appearing among MSFT competitors, the critical market adoption period beginning within a couple months for 2008, the already damaged public perception on Microsoft's ability to act and the differentiation probable between MSFT performance and competitor performance based on rapid adoption of web technology over the "Software + Services" to maintain lock-in to the MSFT desktop, I would say Microsoft is essentially screwed into a corner with only one rational direction; to settle before the discovery begins.
Once the discovery process begins, the court will be aware of the nature of Microsoft actions regarding VCSY and their technology and that nature will be available to the world at large. It would most definitely be to Microsoft's advantage to avoid a repeat of the kind of tactics revealed in the Burst and Sendo cases. It would also be to Microsoft's advantage to be able to speak freely about their developments at a time when all their competitors are going to be changing the conversation to next generation concepts rather than the tired desktop island in a sea of increasingly free users.
Posted by I-Man | October 6, 2007 8:45 PM
Some people need to do a reality check. Firefox myth of being a more secure browser is long long gone. Ever since it reached some respectable market share the vulnerabilities surfaced. Firefox market share after a surge last year has been steadily falling...
Posted by evan | October 7, 2007 3:53 AM
reality check? which alternate reality?
Posted by porkyV2 | October 7, 2007 8:46 AM
Evan
I am sure that the same thing that has happened to firefox would also happen on an OS level if Linux ever started to get more people !!
They also think that their OS is secure, let's see what would happen if their heads came into view of the virus scopes. BANG !!
Posted by Neil | October 7, 2007 9:26 AM
"Why Did Microsoft Set IE 7 Free?" .
A very stupid question to ask ? The answer, of cource, is to gain maarket share.
Why Sun offers Solaris free of charge ?
Can any one give me other answer ?
The questions posted by Joe carry NO sense
Posted by Marty | October 7, 2007 10:05 AM
Neil said: Finally chips you have slipped up, the above statement says it all, just like any other OS you have to take the TIME TO LEARN IT, you cannot just go straight into using using it ... you have to learn it !!
This is hilarious! A whole lot of people can't just go into Windows and use it either. I should know. I've had to train people to use it. And lots of people don't know how to get things to work in it too. I still get calls for help (even though I find using Windows a total [pain).
By the way, I've also seen lots of KIDS (aged between 9-12) just go up and use Linux. Zero training.
So, Neil, if you think you have just discovered some flaw in Linux, better think again. If that's not too much to ask, that is.
Posted by Maddog | October 7, 2007 1:40 PM
Maddog
Tell me who has to "learn" windows? Sure Vista is different to XP but no one has to "learn" Windows, maybe that's why your called "Maddog" because you've been out in the Midday sun too long !!
Your arguement about kids using Linux
doesn't wash either ... !!
And I quote "A whole lot of people can't just go into Windows and use it either"
In this statement you are justifying why people can't go straight into using Linux.
Maddog I didn't need to think again, but maybe you do !!
Posted by Neil | October 7, 2007 9:59 PM
Hey Maddog,
I found some linux distro's like Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Mint, Sidux, Kanotix, and Ubuntu to be easy as it gets to learn. The file system is a little different than windows, and one should now how to copy and paste as a normal user, took about 15 minutes or less to learn.
Talk about hard to learn, there was Vi$ta with its changed over GUI, with many things in Control Panel renamed (for no reason other than to convince users that something changed) and the dos command box (run) even removed from the menu. And that was just the tip of the iceberg that is Vi$ta.
But this article is about IE7, so with that in mind, let me present this link that while it is about "humor," has some relavence to the subject;
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/01/microsoft_antispyware.html
Link is titled; Microsoft's AntiSpyware Tool
Removes Internet Explorer
Two great programs by M$, that the world would be better off without.
Posted by chips | October 7, 2007 11:23 PM
Hey folks, The easy linux distro's I just mentioned are available from;
www.distrowatch.com
they are free download and come with almost all the software you would want, including a free Office Suite. They all run off a live cd, so you can check to see if your hardware will run before you install, or just run the live cd. And did I mention, its free as in beer? Not like some robber type barons that want to ripe you up to $400 for buggie software that spies on you.
Help is available for those with questions on the user forums. Links from the good folks at Distrowatch. Set yourself free.
Posted by chips | October 7, 2007 11:32 PM
Chips
Quote: "They all run off a live cd, so you can check to see if your hardware will run before you install"
We have always been told by you and others that you don't have to upgrade your hardware to run Linux !
Now all of a sudden Chips (the be and end all of Linux Zealots) says "so you can check to see if your hardware will run before you install".
What if it doesn't ? You would have to do a hardware upgrade wouldn't you ??!!
Just what he said you wouldn't by using Linux !!!
Posted by Neil | October 8, 2007 1:31 AM
When Firefox first release , we though that it would be a killer application to replace IE. The Linux camp was so cheerful and it was perceived to be the ultimate browser
However , when its adoption becomes popular and wider, a lot of security holes are surfaced and being exploited. At the end , the patching continues..
Compare to IE , Firefox share the same fate.
The reason is damned simple, once an application becomes popular , it will be the target for exploitation .
Neither Microsoft nor Linux is spared
I hereby pledge all the Linux and Microsoft fanboys stop attacking each others and just use your espective software and don't disturb other.
In addtion, I also pledge all the "false-expert" columinst like Mr Joe Wilcox and Steven-SJVN refrain themsleves from publishing stupid articles. Try to earn an honest living by publishing some positive and cheerful IT news
Give Internet bandwidth a chance , do not congest it with stupid comments .
Please pass around this message to other Weeek columnist and editors
Posted by Eder | October 8, 2007 2:36 AM
Eder
It would be nice ....but I think that it would never happen ....I also wish it could be though.
Posted by Neil | October 8, 2007 2:54 AM
Yes , it mould never happen.
But we need to address our frustration to Mr Joe Wilcox and Steven-SJVN over their stupid comments
On Oct 5 2007 entry , SJVN mentioned : New Scalix e-mail server still targets Microsoft Exchange. On the other hand , Outlook 2007 will only be connected to Scalix on the last quarter of 2007(www.scalix.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8935). The argument is that that it takes ONE whole year for Scalix to connect to Outlook 2007 !
Scalix having a lot of daily problems that you can witness in www.scalix.com/forums
Posted by Eder | October 8, 2007 5:17 AM
What are you going on about no-one has to "learn" windows. Of course people have to "learn" windows, it is not an innate ability or instinct. People are not born able to use "windows" without having to "learn" it first.
Posted by William | October 8, 2007 6:39 AM
Neil said: Tell me who has to "learn" windows? Sure Vista is different to XP but no one has to "learn" Windows
There are hundreds of people who take the most basic Windows courses just to learn the operating system that you said they don't have to learn. There are a lot of computer newbies who have to learn Windows, just as they have to learn using ANY operating system. So Windows isn't necessarily a whole lot easier.
Got it now? Or is that causing too much brain hurt for you?
And as you said, you still have to train people to use Vista, which is still Windows. So after they learn to use Windows, they have to learn (again) how to use Vista. So how then is Vista or Windows necessarily better than Linux in this department?
You have to train a total newbie how to use any OS. But as I witnessed, these newbies can learn how to use Linux just as easily (if not easier) as they can learn to use Windows.
Try thinking, Neil. It would make you look a like you had some intelligence.
Posted by Maddog | October 8, 2007 7:26 AM
John: You're totally right. eWeak is the most weak-ass excuse for journalism in the history of the universe. Honest to God guys, this site is the PC journalism equivalent of a British tabloid.
And these bulletin boards:
Chips, the jobless pimply 13-year old Linux fanboi
Neil, the guy who cares far too much about Windows (honestly, I agree with most of it, but windows doesn't need a defender)
And our newest friend I-man: As best I can tell, he's pulling some borderline boiler-room crap that might one day get him in jail.
And Joe: King of the faux-experts. I'd be very, very, VERY surprised if the guy had a degree in journalism.
The only compelling thing about this site is that the idiocy continues, day after day, week after week.
I'm going to do my best to look away from this car-crash-in-slow-motion of a site, I think I get dumber every time I read something here.
Posted by Ben | October 8, 2007 10:54 PM
Ben
On this site Windows does need more than just one defender I tell you Ben !
Overall I agree with you though !
Posted by Neil | October 9, 2007 1:34 AM
Windows needs every defender Micro$oft can get its grubby hands on. Considering the company's sloppily-executed but no less dastardly business tactics, its buggy products, and brain-dead PR, Micro$oft needs lots of help. But if the "defender" types we see here are any indication of quality, Micro$oft had better look elsewhere.
Posted by Maddog | October 9, 2007 4:05 AM
Maddog
I do not always defend microsoft, and I do not get any payment of any sort for it either, and do not ask for any either.
Have you ever heard of this one "only mad dogs and englishman go out in the midday sun".
Which means your not that smart are you, probably why you are a Linux zealot.
With Linux you always have to look around for a "suitable" program with microsoft it is on the shelf reading and waiting for you, no need to this or try that .... intuit, Photoshop, Norton, etc. etc.
Have you ever heard these two sayings "you get what you pay for" and "you buy cheap...you get cheap". This is so true of Linux.
Posted by Neil | October 10, 2007 12:34 AM
We all know WGA doesn't work, doesn't prevent piracy requires patches and unnecessary code to be added to the OS. With that said, it makes me wonder if Windows XP SP3 will have a new validation scheme so that apps like IE7 WMP and MS Defender will no longer need to be validated independently. Perhaps MS is reverse engineering to add these "features" from Vista into XP since anyone that is even somewhat tech savvy is running away from Vista as fast as they can.
Posted by Scott Freeman | October 10, 2007 9:45 AM
@Neil
Suitable programs like Norton, McAfee, CA Anti Virus, Webroot etc etc are programs you need only because the OS you paid for is security swiss cheese. This product provide no benefit only ongoing cost, slow your system down hampering productivity when you could be using the several hundred dollar copy of Photoshop to remove red eye from the kids picnic trip to the aquarium. But your absolutely correct you get what you pay for.
Posted by Scott Freeman | October 10, 2007 12:53 PM
Scott
Name ONE operating system that doesn't need an antivirus program ??
You say Linux and your an idiot !
Even Apple gets viruses and needs security updates, so ...go on name one.
Firefox was going to be the greatest thing to happen to web browsers as soon as people went over what did they find security holes galore !
Posted by Neil | October 10, 2007 8:53 PM
Neil
Lets see we have Solaris, FreeBSD, OS/2, Netware, BEOS, Amiga. Of coarse I guess you could argue that that even those could use a AV if they need to serve up files to a Windows boxes. I have never needed a AV for Linux but hey I am an idiot. Personally, I don't much worry much about viruses as I do spyware which in most cases is harder to remove than a virus. Name me an OS other than Windows that needs a spyware client unless of coarse you need to protect a Windows box connecting to it.
Then we could also go into how many viruses actually exist in other OS's.
As for Firefox as I am sure you know is not an OS. But then again its not a baked in program either(unlike IE) for any OS that I know of. But we can certainly thank Firefox for many of the features that improved and secured IE 7. I guess it is a good thing IE 7 only runs on Windows can you imagine the patches MS would need to kick out if it was on any other OS?
Posted by Scott Freeman | October 11, 2007 4:42 AM
Scott
I knew it ! I just you were a linux zealot !
Have you ever heard of "interoperability" ?
The reason for it, windows programs running on other OS's, and vice versa.
Then of course you need antivirus, and don't kid yourself there are viruses for Linux too !
Haven't you heard of the viruses for iPods ? No one is immune to them, it is like getting pulled over for drunk driving sooner or later you will get caught, it's just a matter of when !!!
And just because Firefox is a browser doesn't mean to say that it can't have security problems just like any other browser, read more about this and you will see that I am right, don't bury your head in the sand and think that you are safe, it's just that your number hasn't come up yet, but following on from what you have said I am sure that it will happen sooner than later.
Posted by Neil | October 11, 2007 6:08 AM
Good info and well presented, for more quality free info on pc security related issues have a look here.
Posted by free antivirus software | June 19, 2008 6:23 PM