Will IE 7 Perception Problems Hurt Vista?
|
Internet Explorer 7 user complaints continue to pound my inbox, with an increasing number of people expressing diminished confidence in Windows Vista. Microsoft has a perception problem. |
Product marketing often is much more about perception than reality. Negative perceptions, once they set in, are tough to shake. For companies with multiple, closely associated brands, negative perception of one product can affect another. Based on dissatisfied reader feedback about Internet Explorer 7, negative perceptions about the browser reflect poorly on Windows Vista.
Another kind of perception is use of a product and what the end user believes about it. Some companies don't rightly understand that experience is an emotional quality, where facts often are meaningless.
Bad for Vista
Based on a surprising spike in Microsoft Watch reader feedback about Internet Explorer, these negative perceptions are growing. Increased IE 7 distribution is a likely cause. While Microsoft made Internet Explorer 7 available through Windows Automatic Update in early November, distribution has been a gradual process.
"We're still not even through distribution in North America," said Gary Schare, Microsoft's director of Windows product management. Given increasing progress and the impact of the holidays--new PCs or people returning from being away from the old ones--"Early January being a spike period isn't surprising," he said.
As distribution widens and negative perceptions with it, so is the increasing negative association with other products.
Following bad experiences with Internet Explorer 7, Mark Brugler, technical Director at a theatre in Tucson, Arizona, said he could "see no reason to move to Vista anytime soon."
"The future of Vista around this house is looking mighty dim," said Steve Miller, a senior software architect based in Fort Payne, Ala.
Tom Philo, a business analyst and photographer based in Beaverton, Ore., grumbled more about general browser usability, "on XP, likely just as bad on Vista. Microsoft is starting to regress." The IE problems on Windows XP bode poorly for Philo's perception of Windows Vista.
However, for Microsoft, the situation is much worse than Windows Vista perceptions. Miller uninstalled the browser and then, "turned off automatic updates so IE 7 could not sneak back onto the computers."
Similarly, after removing Internet Explorer 7 from his Windows XP PC, Brugler turned off "the annoying automatic Windows update crap."
Miller, who has been a software developer for 25 years, is experienced enough to know about the potential risks associated with turning of Windows Automatic Update. His reaction is telling and begs to question how less-experienced end users might respond.
See eWEEK Labs' slide show on Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Vista.
Update Crisis
Last year, I had several long discussions with Internet Explorer product managers about Automatic Update. The question: Should the browser be distributed through the update mechanism? The concern: People might turn off Automatic Update, as these two men have done.
"That obviously was something we thought about going in," people turning off Automatic Update, Schare said. If people are turning off auto-updating, Microsoft hasn't seen any noticeable drop-off in auto updating. "The system for updating works really, really well," Schare emphasized.
Considering the number of security enhancements, the IE 7 delivery method seemed consistent with Automatic Update's role for dispatching critical updates. However, such an approach predicates that the updated browser wouldn't break existing applications or cause other problems.
Schare acknowledged there were risks, but the company chose to take them. "We erred on the side of security," he said. "We were thoughtful about what we were willing to break."
Still, if enough consumers are having troubles, there is a lesson for IT organizations: Waiting on Internet Explorer 7 is sound practice.
Lesson for Microsoft: Automatic Update is too important a mechanism to jeopardize with questionable software. For Windows Vista, this is a crucial concern, because Microsoft has chosen to auto-deliver software drivers and other software.
Weekend before last, my Vista notebook stopped playing audio through external speakers. The problem: The auto-update feature had fetched and installed a new audio driver. Vista comes with a driver rollback option that wasn't available, so I was forced to manually install a new driver. One week later, Vista once again knocked out the audio by installing a new one. After fixing the problem, again, I partially disabled the auto-updating features.
Microsoft shouldn't want other end users to have a similar experience, which can generate bad perceptions. Microsoft Vista marketing asserts, the "Wow is Now," not the now is pow, right in the kisser.
See eWEEK Talk Back on Tricky IE 7.
Pavlovian Impulse
The final perception problem is nasty, because perception--the emotional response--is not always quantifiable.
Yesterday, colleague John Pallatto, eWEEK.com Enterprise Applications Center editor, joined the chorus of folks crying high-pitched frustration about IE 7. Like many other IE 7 users, John was forced to uninstall and revert back to Internet Explorer 6.
John wrote that "clicking on the familiar gold shield icon was not much different from "getting suckered into opening an e-mail message infected with a virus or a worm Trojan." Like other IE 7 upgraders frustrated with the browser, John complained that he received no real notice about the upgrade.
Earlier today, I flipped on the Automatic Update switch to a Windows XP notebook, for which the feature had been intentionally disabled. About a half hour later, the gold shield beckoned, and I responded by clicking through the updates by "Express" installation. Sometime later, an Internet Explorer 7 installation box appear, offering options "Ask Me Later," "Don't Install" and "Install." I chose not to install (Hey, I listen to Microsoft Watch readers).
Several Microsoft Watch readers also said that IE 7 installed without notification.
"We're not aware of any scenarios where that occurred," Schare said.
Whether or not there is an installation notification is irrelevant, I think. The perception that there is no notification--that the end user had no choice--is what matters more.
When I worked an analyst, I observed the importance of perception to companies like Microsoft. A few years ago, a JupiterResearch survey revealed that about one-third of Windows XP users had no firewall protection. Technically, this is false, because Windows XP has a built-in firewall. I didn't discount the finding simply because the people were wrong. The data revealed a larger problem: That these users didn't know that Windows XP had no installed firewall.
Likewise, end users' responses about Microsoft forcing IE 7 on them are significant, because of what they believe to be true. This belief is more significant if false, because it suggests a larger problem--for Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Vista: End-user numbness to prompts.
Microsoft has greatly increased the number of prompts and popups that assault users. Increased prompt numbness could defeat the purpose of some notices, particularly related to Windows Vista security.
Yankee Group analyst Andrew Jaquith says that because of all the prompts and opt-in features, "everyone will develop a Pavlovian impulse," where they "click OK without thinking."
Comments (65)
My perception is that IE7 is an excellent product. So much so, that I dumped Firefox. I look forward to Vista, when it comes preinstalled on my next computer.
My perception is that Joe Wilcox has discovered that brainless Microsoft bashing makes him more popular.
Posted by JohnJ | January 23, 2007 7:48 PM
Joe, when are you going to give us the people and administrators who haven't had the problems that you give exposure to in your columns? Your friend Mark Brulger and his whining is just one of the administrators that shouldn't be administrators. It's not perception of the product, it's the perception that these administrators have of themselves being better than they are.
Automatic updates have been around for a long time. They are able to be customized and if you are running a network server, you can change group policies for all your users in less than 5 minutes. You can also use you own Windows Update Server to push what updates you want.
Microsoft hasn't hidden the IE 7 update, and it's not even a Critical update. It's an optional software update, that has as I've said in another comment 4 dialogs that before it actually installs. That is the same with the Automatic, Express and Custom updates settings.
Even before that if you've changed your updates to just inform you of updates, then do a custom update you have the option to uncheck the download and read even read the information about IE 7 and check not to show the update again. This choice actually hides it and never downloads it unless you change the settings and show the update again. Furthermore, Microsoft even has an IE blocker script you can download and use to change your registry to block the IE download completely.
Their is no perception that you have to download it, none whatsoever. The only reason to feel like you should download it is that you don't read or aren't completely informed on the download. Nowhere in update documentation does it say that if you don't download IE 7 your computer will explode or never run again.
Please, there are many more people who administer windows networks that actually understand the process and know how to manage a rollout or just the simple task of setting group policies for automatic updates. There are also many average users that know how to read the installation prompts without being a zombie. You can't blame the messenger if the recipient can't take the time to read or say no before kicking the tires by getting more information.
Give everyone a fair voice, it's a proven fact that people with a problem are more likely to speak out than someone that doesn't have a problem with the same issue.
As a final disclaimer, I've downloaded IE 7 on my home systems without a problem. It works on an XP system & my Vista laptop. At work we have tested it and have come to the conclusion that it does not work a few of our other pieces of software that use IE, so we have blocked it's download until the other programs update themselves to run with IE 7.
Posted by k12IT | January 23, 2007 7:53 PM
I can't believe the people here defending MS. I'm no MS-basher, but I must say I find pretty much all the points here valid. I personally prefer IE7 to IE6, but FF more than either. I accept Automatic Updates as a necessary but without doubt a helpful evil. I accept it on the basis that they'll only send security related software. IE7 might be more secure than IE6, but that's like saying a seive is leakier than a bucket with a hole in it. Anyone seriously concerned about security went to firefox a long time ago.
Furthermore, the maniacal assault of user prompts is definitely a sign of things to come. If people perceive that IE7 is a reflection of Vista in the regard, they are right to.
Things like the audio driver story (above) are a brilliant example of MS getting 'too smart' with Automatic Updates.
If Vista is perceived as being just a pretty interface with a barrage of user prompts, Microsoft has a perception problem.
Posted by Ben Gray | January 23, 2007 8:24 PM
k12IT wrote: "Joe, when are you going to give us the people and administrators who haven't had the problems that you give exposure to in your columns?"
When those people express their views is the answer. The people I've been hearing from are more than two-to-one against Internet Explorer 7 than for it. Personally, I would much rather write an IE 7 success story, because if the software truly delivers on security promises, it's better for enterprises to switch sooner rather than later.
My blog posts, like news, follow where the reporting leads. The opportunity for reader impact is much greater with the blog, though. Reader participation is fundamental to the blogging here. You'll see more reader comments in posts going forward.
If you've got a different viewpoint, please, let's have it. Additionally, the blog should offer solutions to real problems, which input from readers can facilitate.
Thanks,
Joe
Posted by Joe | January 23, 2007 9:03 PM
We track the user-agent of all new subscribers to our site. Right now about 50% of XP users, excluding the small fraction that use FF, have IE7. These are consumers, not business customers.
It must be working for them.
Posted by Roger | January 23, 2007 9:27 PM
I've been a software developer for roughly 15 years, including three years working inside Microsoft as a contractor. I love Visual Studio .Net, and most of the applications I build (web or otherwise) are .Net based.
But - for nearly all my browsing, I use FireFox. When IE 7 came out, I installed it on one machine, and found the UI so annoying, and other features that were implemented in an inferior (to me) manner to FF 2.0, that I have yet to put IE7 on my primary laptop.
So I think Joe is probably right that a lot of people are unhappy with IE7, which is not the reaction we saw with IE6. I'm glad IE7 finally has tabs, but some things (like the fact that the keyboard short-cut Ctrl+/- "zooms" everything rather than just inceasing/decreasing the font size, which forces horizontal scrolling for many websites) are done better on FireFox.
I'm just using the browser comparison as a proxy for user's perceptions of Vista. I have yet to install it, although a couple years ago I had a longhorn beta installed - and my customers, who range in size from large publicly-listed companies to small three-person companies, have almost uniformly put Vista migrations either on-hold or planned to wait a year.
Not to say eventually Vista won't generally replace XP, but I think it's going to be a long, hard slog for MSFT to get there. My perceptions of Vista are negative, while my perceptions of Windows XP, when it first came out, were pretty "neutral".
Posted by Kirk Davis | January 23, 2007 9:43 PM
Joe
I stopped giving you a "hard time" because I thought that you were going to be more "even handed" ... but I was wrong !
You were biased against Microsoft when you were at Jupiter research and you still are now !
The whole of "Ziff Davis" is !
You only have to look at how "Microsoft Watch" has changed, and even at the "bagging" microsoft is getting constantly at your sister site "Linux Watch" to see that you are "trying" to think up things and try and make them into "News Items" !
I have constantly seen comments on this site from people saying to you "lean news this week".
Microsoft Watch "used to" just report the facts of the matter, these days the biased interprotation is included as well.
I still cannot get over "Eweek editor" (Scot Peterson) making up a headline "Vista ready ? Not for me !" where he "tested" Vista RC1 when Vista had already passed RC2 and had even gone to "RTM" !
You guys should NOT be doing what you are doing, you are completely biased, and for a journalist that is just plain wrong !
As PLENTY of people have already said on this site there is "nothing wrong with IE7" so Joe STOP bagging it please, and get on with what you SHOULD be reporting on ... NEWS !
Posted by Neil | January 23, 2007 10:01 PM
Neil: to quote you quoting: "There is nothing wrong with IE7"
Nothing? Not one thing? The less than honest way in which it's distributed? The re-arranged UI? Not one thing wrong with any of it?
Reporting that some MS products might not be the bees knees hardly makes it a biased rant. Such staunch defense of MS in the face of valid points begs the question of who you are and your separation from the issue? Did you write your post on a shiny new Vista laptop? Just asking.
Posted by Ben Gray | January 23, 2007 10:15 PM
Ben
Your last question first ... NO ! I have XP Home !
And do not have a Laptop... I wish I did, but I have no use for it thank you.
When I said there was nothing wrong with it, I meant as far as using it, sure, it is arranged differently to IE6, but for the NORMAL (everyday) person that uses a computer there is "nothing wrong with it".
In fact I really like the "Internet Search" feature on it, as for the tabs, it does not matter to me at all !
By your description, I suppose you would put yourself into the "Power user" category .. well.. good on you mate.
Me (and probably a lot of other people) just want something that they can use, and I can use IE7 quite well enough for my needs thank you !
Posted by Neil | January 23, 2007 10:33 PM
Neil wrote: "Joe STOP bagging it please, and get on with what you SHOULD be reporting on ... NEWS."
Readers drove the reporting on IE 7, Neil. Look at these recent comments--about 20 in the past week--from a nearly two-year old story on IE 7. Stricken IE 7 upgraders are using the comments as a forum of frustration and resolution.
My inbox is chock full of e-mail from other people, equally frustrated.
Content on this blog will be increasingly reader influenced. You can be a participant by identifying who in Australia that you are, either here or by e-mail. I can only quote people in posts that I can identify.
You're welcome to complain, but if you really want change, be an influencer. Be a participant.
Thanks,
Joe
Posted by Joe | January 23, 2007 10:56 PM
"Based on a surprising spike in Microsoft Watch reader feedback about Internet Explorer, these negative perceptions are growing."
Joe you are a troll, your blog encourages comments by people on the net who are even bigger trolls (hello). I have no doubt that people are crying to you with less than honest problems becuase you showed yourself willing to listen.
You could at the VERY least fact check the comments you claim are so worthwhile:
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1592
Posted by Mitchel Tyrell | January 23, 2007 11:21 PM
Joe Wrote: Readers drove the reporting on IE 7, Neil. Look at these recent comments--about 20 in the past week--from a nearly two-year old story on IE 7. Stricken IE 7 upgraders are using the comments as a forum of frustration and resolution.
My inbox is chock full of e-mail from other people, equally frustrated.
But Joe, did you miss the point from my first comment that those people are complaining?
It is a statistical fact that people with a bad experience will geometrically tell more people that they had a problem than a person that has not.
So, you are not going to get a full mail box of happy end users because they don't have something to rant about. It's human nature.
Posted by k12IT | January 23, 2007 11:27 PM
Joe
I tried to be silent regarding your views on Microsoft, but enough is enough !
There are plenty of people out there like me who quite happy with IE7, even some people commenting on this site have said so as well !
You are trying the hardest you can to "stir up" discontent over IE7 and you know it !
If you stir hard enough people will come out of the wood work and say that they don't like it either (for various reasons).
Sure "some" people evidently have had a bad experience with IE7, it's new and radically different, so some people won't like it.
The vast majority do like it !
And you never said "anything" about the Scot Peterson post did you Hey ?? Why not? I'll tell you why because ON ONE can defend it, that's why!
Fancy writing about a product (In this case Windows Vista) and saying that you tried it, but didn't like it ! And oh yes it was the first Release Candidate, not the more "up to date" RTM, and not even the RC2, but the @@@@@@ RC1, you guys expect us to play along with this BS, NOT ME !
You are constantly trying to make up stories from people who have bad experiences, what you fail to do is show that there also GOOD experiences out there as well !
Not to mention the times that you mock the names of Microsoft products, like "Expressions".
That is why I say to you that you are BIASED !
Posted by Neil | January 24, 2007 12:38 AM
To k12IT: The same could said of people, like you, who post comments complaining about a blog post. And as I respond to other Microsoft Watch readers (those other complainers), so I responded to you. As I said in my earlier response, you can contribute something positive and that will be listened to, too.
To Mitch Tyrell: Ed Bott's rebuttal was to a reader quote. He didn't take fault with the point of the blog. As I stated in a comment to that earlier Microsoft Watch post and the one above, perception is more important. The guy believed that he had no choice. The IE 7 download is listed as "High Priority," which for many people will denote urgency.
People don't always pay attention, particularly if there is trust. People that click, click, clicked through because they trusted Microsoft are all the more likely to be angry if the software update creates problems. Microsoft throws out enough dialog boxes to create a kind of numbness, where people just ignore them.
I sympathize with Microsoft. People do click through without looking. Maybe the answer should be a pause--five seconds before the user can click through the IE 7 installation box. At least the users might be more likely to know what they agreed to.
To Neil: Why do you continue to remain anonymous, when offered a chance to contribute rather than complain?
Guys, we probably will get nowhere by engaging in a lengthy debate over emotional issues. Microsoft isn't the only one with perception problems. I'll end my response here for this post. Should you want to continue the debate, don't look for another response from me.
My best to you all,
Joe
Posted by Joe | January 24, 2007 12:50 AM
It Joe Wilcox technically sound enough to evalute IE7 or he is just another blockhead. He should have joined Gartner or Forrester Research to produce crap whitepapers
On this planet , there is a kind of spesis just hate every new stuff from Microsoft .
Don't visit his news too much , all full of negative influence
Posted by kursk | January 24, 2007 1:00 AM
Dear Joe,
You said: " To Neil: Why do you continue to remain anonymous, when offered a chance to contribute rather than complain? "
Whether Neil remains anonymous or he would contribute or complain it nothing to do with the topic of the argument.
You should have the storage of a SAN system ~ 1TB to accept complain and critics, do not be personal
Posted by joey | January 24, 2007 1:09 AM
I don't get why people are fighting for or against MS.
The case is very simple: IE7 might (or not) be the best browser ever, MS should not push it on user system with automatic update. Period.
Posted by Emma | January 24, 2007 2:55 AM
Dear Joe
My full name is Neil Cocks, there are you happy, I am just a normal computer user in Australia !
Nothing special about me at all, and I do not work in the computer industry either, perhaps I should I feel that I would do a better job of it than you are doing now.
And you still have not answered my question regarding Mr. Scot Peterson and his now infamous story "Vista ready? Not for me!" , go on answer it if you can.
You have avoided it at least three times, you wanted a contribution, this is mine ! Answer the question !
You guys are not watching microsoft you are trying to make stories happen on your own. Report the news on microsoft without the added bias, just the news and nothing but the news.
Instead of sensational headings such as:
Will IE7 Perception problems hurt Vista?
Will AIM6.1 work well with Vista?
How 'fluent' are you in Office 2007?
Is Vista security too much trouble?
All of these headings are questions, there are no actual articles they are just being thought up to get people to comment on them, START REPORTING SOME MICROSOFT NEWS !
The above questions could asked on any website but they are NOT news and do not tell us anything, it is just rehashing and putting people's interprotations on things and that's all, there is NO NEW INFORMATION in them at all !
It is like chicken little saying the sky is falling, if enough people say it then it MUST be true ... BS !
Just like here enough people comment that they have had a bad experience with IE7, then (going by Chicken Little or in this case Mr. Joe Wilcox) IE7 has got lots of problems with it.
Joe tell me something... what peice of software has no problems with it and is perfect?
I'll tell you answer NONE ! There will always be something that could be done better in someone's eye's, no one will ever say something is completely perfect, so stop posing questions that invoke people to say bad things about any software, name me one program today that people all over the world would say that it does not need improvement ? You can't becasue there isn't one ! It comes down to what people are happy to use and that's it ! Full Stop !
Posted by Neil | January 24, 2007 3:22 AM
Joe
One other thing (and I will make this quick) your heading mate "Will IE7 Perception Problems hurt Vista?"
The one main thing here is "PERCEPTION", one person feels is good another person does not like or "thinks" it bad.
Your heading is just something to get "spirited" comments going and that's all it is !
Posted by Neil | January 24, 2007 3:27 AM
What Mr Joe bad experience on IE7 is his personal experience only. He just click Next button and next button without actually looking at its explanation.
His way of installation reminds me a lot of bad Windows Server engineers that i encountered who screw up critical installation because of not properly review the instruction before clicking Next button.
The worse part is that Mr Joe try to generalize his bad experince and assume we all are in the same condition as his
May be the next headline by Mr Joe should be " How not to ignore the instruction before clicking the Next Button"
What do you think , Mr Joe
Posted by Kursk | January 24, 2007 7:34 AM
To Mr Joe of Microsoft-Watch , please Watch your instruction before clicking the Next button on Microsoft product.
Microsoft software is dumb in a sense that it had a lot of Next button , but you are dumber as you just simply click
I would expect your next heading is " Why Microsoft offers a lot of Next Button ??" , another similar style of heading from you
Posted by Kursk | January 24, 2007 7:40 AM
I am using MS7 and FF2 and playing with their beta 3x ..
FF always make you happy, IE is security pain!
IE7 has nice interface and FF is very good and is improving faster than we expect as a free software!
Wish both good luck and hope we see more competition!!
Sincerely
Anthony
Free CRM - MINI KiBS
Posted by Anthony K. N. | January 24, 2007 8:02 AM
Currently our 100+ PC office has rolled out IE 7 to only our highly technical users. There have been minimal complaints so far but it's still early. We probably won't have a lot of issues because of the limited apps that we use. As for Vista, we won't be installing it ever.
MS has gone too far, again, and needs to be cut down a few notches. If anyone remembers the predictions when Netscape was hit hard because IE was integrated into the OS you know what I mean. MS has gone too far with integrating its security software into Vista and history will repeat itself.
Like the other MS, Bill Gates' company has become a disease and it "must be stopped in our lifetime". I'm going Linux or Mac when my Windows 2000 computer is no longer useful. The office migrating to something else is not so easy but we'll hang onto XP and see what's coming out after (the viewless) Vista.
Posted by EMD | January 24, 2007 8:17 AM
I am the CTO of a benefits management company in the western US. When we began deployment tests of IE7, we found that 90% of our users could not upgrade. IE7 broke our claims processing applications and that impacts our whole business. Upgrade to Vista? MSFT must be joking...
Posted by Skeptical | January 24, 2007 9:05 AM
I don't have any issues with IE7 new security features and overall I relay like the tab browsing and tab preview.
The new more compliant rendering caused a few issues, but this is a good thing as it makes the web site more cross browser compatible.
What I don't like is the interface for accessing your bookmarks, the tabs are too tall (no more screen space than fire fox which still has the menus along the top)
And with regards to 2 people turning off automatic updates because they don't like IE7, I think you have a much bigger issue with people turning off updates due to WGA as I know of many people that turned it off due to WGA but none who turned it off because of IE7.
Posted by Buzz | January 24, 2007 9:52 AM
Neil.
Judging by the tone and the confrontational nature of your posts it seems you are taking Joe's comments about Microsoft rather too personally. I am genuinely concerned about your health and your loss of perspective.
This is not the only site on the Internet that gives opinions and/or news on Microsoft's products and corporate direction.
If you cannot control your emotions and keep to the topic when replying to Joe then I suggest you visit a different website that does not upset you so much. If you are unable to do this then I imagine you need to give the Internet a break for a short while.
I do not watch CNN because I find it politically biased. If I found myself deliberately watching CNN whilst trying to spot where the bias occurs (real or perceived) and ranting at the screen about it then I would probably take a vacation.
Posted by William | January 24, 2007 10:38 AM
Joe Wrote: As I said in my earlier response, you can contribute something positive and that will be listened to, too.
Joe,
My first reply in this thread and in the other blog were absolutely positive with facts contributing to the other side of your argument.
You on the other hand ignored all of it except the one line about adding the people who have positive experiences. You made no comments on totally good factual information I gave you and THEN you reply to my second post with a disrespectful taunt about contributing something positive.
I'm sorry but I don't trash people that have good points. I don't ignore the good points, You show no signs of being professional in your comments or your manner of replying.
Posted by k12IT | January 24, 2007 12:34 PM
I have deployeed IE7 on 5,000 desktops. Number of problems or complaints so far....zero, nothing.
how hard are you searching for these stories anyway....
Posted by Evan | January 24, 2007 3:41 PM
I have deployed IE7 on almost 1000 desktops with only two problems. One was a known incompatibility with Yahoo! Toolbar (which should't have been installed in the first place.) The other was quickly solved through the new "Reset Internet Explorer Settings" button.
About the only complaint that I have heard from users is that the new GUI "hides" the Favorites listing. Once I wexplain where to find it, they seem to be happy.
Posted by Steve L. | January 24, 2007 4:37 PM
I have had several clients complain about IE 7 on more than one machine the software would not even run. On both of those computers I have emoved IE7 and stopped Automatic updates. The users never opted to install the IE7. This article is correct from what I have experianced.
Posted by Steven | January 24, 2007 4:48 PM
Egad!! Much ado about nothing.
I am just a user, not as erudite as you all, nor possessed by any animus toward Microsoft.
I have FF2.0 as my default on my home and work WinXP machines; but I did install IE7 on both. I ran it as my default for three weeks. That is how I check out things like browsers, music players, etc. I just run them as exclusively as possible.
IE7 was fine. I did have to give it some help by adding Roboform, because in FF and SeaMonkey, I can save each and every user id and password. But, sure, I could easily live with it.
The tabbed browsing is a bit clunky if one needs to save a group of favorites to open all together. One needs to go to a side bar and look for a blue arrow. In FF, one just clicks "Open in Tabs", a part of each folder of bookmarks. But, hey, if I needed to, I could easily get used to that.
I can not think of anything that IE7 does better than FF, but it does everything I need quite well.
Posted by richard mitnick | January 24, 2007 4:58 PM
If Vista or IE7 is so wonderful, why are people moving to OS X in droves? I don't have any real sales figures, but just anecdotally, working in the software industry and suddenly see people left right and center buy MacBook Pro's on their own dime when my company supplies IBM laptops for free use. I am one of them, because I just couldn't stand the misery anymore. Now an extremely happy Mac user...
I actually did a boot-off with my MacBook Pro and a guy that used to work for the same company but is now with Microsoft. He had a laptop with the Vista RTM. He was all happy and proud, so I proposed a boot-off. Well, I was booted, logged in, showed it was fully started and shut it down before Vista even was booted enough to show a logon prompt.
Posted by Jay ThvV | January 24, 2007 5:00 PM
You are dead on. My problems with IE7 have been mainfold and unending. Is this the future of the gentle giant? Thanks for your acute honesty.
Posted by Robert Tilewick | January 24, 2007 5:11 PM
You are dead on. My problems with IE7 have been manifold and unending. Is this the future of the gentle giant? Thanks for your acute honesty.
Posted by Robert Tilewick | January 24, 2007 5:11 PM
I find your articles well written, and in most cases
agree with your views. I will make a general comment:
After working as a developer, programmer and now consultant with 20+ years on IBM midrange systems S/32/36/38/AS/400, Mainframes, Novell,Unix and MS Dos to XP,,, I can tell many "MS supporters need a reality check".
Most are getting paid big bucks to keep "toy computers" running so users can get their job done.
We spend on the average 60-70% of our resources to support Windows based systems that only provide 10-15% of the data access needs a 200 person shop requires. We don't sell on e-bay, the internet is for reference, not business flow, Email's cost to secure is to high, USPS is virus free. and cheap!
At most of my shops 90% of the actual paying workload of the company's data needs, run without any of these Windows issues for years,,,years without patches, updates and security issues.
Posted by Stan | January 24, 2007 5:36 PM
It amazes me that all of these IT professionals are expressing such dismay and dislike about automatic updates and are not practicing good security practices regarding these updates. I think that I have been using Microsoft products for as long as most. Always as a user either in my professional life, now retired, or at my home. Given Microsofts history of disception and 'unintended consequences' related to their software improvements and their seeming lack of regard for third party software compatibility, I would never allow any of their updates to occur automatically. I always select a full view of the update so that I can determine for myself whether I want to install it or not or go to the Windows Update site to review the updates. It would seem that in this regard you all would be doing the same. I understand that in a multi installation environment that this might cause some difficulties, but it can still be accomplished with planning and forethought.
Posted by mn19522 | January 24, 2007 6:04 PM
The Reality: Most of the USERS that are outside this small clique of PROFESSIONALS must trust you to do what is best for THEM, Not M$, not Apple, not Intel, not AMD. These are companies that want to make MONEY, and don't care how they do it.
M$ has really abused many that TRUSTED them to be honest and forthright about S/W upgrades. IE7 a critical upgrade? I think not. From a USER standpoint, No way.
M$ has a history of abusing trust. I saw it first when I worked on HERMES, AKA the original SMS.
The PROFESSIONALS NEGATED that feature in HERMES and AFAIK, it was never fully implemented.
M$ finally got what they wanted with WGA, though.
Yes, I was around before there was a WindBlows and watched as Billy Boy threw his PUBLIC tantrums and never forgave or forgot. The result is the BLOATWARE you have today.
I am in the process of DIVORCING myself for all association with M$ products. Oh, I still know quite a bit about everything in the NT5 ( W2000 ) and earlier products, but my next upgrade is to GNU/LINUX Distros. I will show how my clients can interoperate with the latest and greatest GNU/LINUX machines NOW and give them a solid upgrade path ( Kubuntu 6 LTS for example )
M$ has abused this person's trust for the last time.
Posted by Old Timer8080 | January 24, 2007 7:14 PM
I, too, down-loaded IE7 inadvertantly. I just followed the yellow click road while responding to an "Urgent Security Update" available alert from the Yellow Shield. Maybe I was informed it was going to happen in advance, but I can't rememeber that. At best, the notice was unclear and definitely not in bold letters.
I, for one, enjoy the new tabs set-up. In fact that's what clued me to the IE7 download- post update, of course. I had been satisfied with IE6 in any case.
I have noticed small (no need to call for help) differences in my machines behavior, but can not attribute them directly to IE7.
But, has anyone else noticed a less than smooth relationship between IE7 and any Java tools/function? Or IE7 and Aol?
I'd love to see a good and thorough listing of problems known to cause conflict with former/present IE6-IE7 users. Notice how I put the IE6 & IE7 together? Since I was present during this unwanted or at least unrequested download of IE7 I took surprise at the speed of the download/urgent update. And overtop IE6 to boot. Didn't notice any extracting of old/present files from IE6 and concluded that this IE7 "monster" must come in a very small packet.
I never would waste my time writing to "bash" someone or bring up the "real job of a journalist", so I'll end with a solid "Keep up the good work, Joe".
Posted by Benboise | January 24, 2007 7:19 PM
Lots of people really angry in one direction or another.....
IE7 is slow on my tablet. But it doesn't matter
to me, Firefox has been my default browser and I only open IE when I have to.
My opinion on Vista is much like others who hate microsoft. I don't hate Microsoft, I don't even really hate their product. But, while I use a tablet PC provided by my employer, I just installed Linux on my home PC last week. I can see why a lot of people will move to Mac OS. Linux isn't ready for today's knowledge worker but it's very very close.
I decided six months or so ago that I would never buy another version of Windows beyond XP. For most of the reasons why the MS haters say. Now, when it's time to buy a new system for home, will it be Mac or will I stay with Linux? I dunno, I don't really like the whole "point and drool" of Mac. But I can tell you one thing, my identity is worth more to me than the ease of use promised by Redmond and I am prepared to exchange some pain to protect myself online.
Posted by Greg Billings | January 24, 2007 7:34 PM
The failure that is IE7 is the single biggest reason I will not upgrade to Vista in the near to mid future. In fact, I may take more time to look at a Mac or even Linux.
The IE7 address bar simply would not work and the menu formats changed radically. I happily unloaded IE7 and did something previously unthinkable. I installed free-ware: Mozilla Firefox.
Microsoft, a warning for you. Just as the near-forced installation of IE7 turned me off from Vista, the superb installation of Mozilla Firefox has me seriously thinking about Linux. One step at a time. However, I just loaded OpenOffice and that works great as well. Meanwhile Office Vista is jipping us home users by removing Outlook and Powerpoint. Trusting a free and opensource operating system would be a huge step for me. Microsoft better be careful, though. Open Source has earned my preference for an office suite and for my web browser. Tell me again why I should try Vista?
Posted by Robert | January 24, 2007 8:00 PM
I really don't know why this happened (although I can guess). I am sure that my comments will earn some of the lovely feedback I've already read from the MS enthusiasts. But here is an observation. In recent years, Microsoft has lost respect for home users.
Look at Microsoft Office. Office 1997 was the best suite they ever made (relative to the available technology). With Access, PowerPoint, Outlook, Excel AND Word, you could design your own applications to fit your needs. Office 1998, they removed MS Access and made it a $100+ addition. Now with the Vista version they are apparently going to kludge the Home and Student editions and remove PowerPoint and Outlook! Their presented view on PowerPoint: only businesses use it. Their view on Outlook: home users only need OneNote or Outlook Express. Nevermind the multiple login accounts, PDAs, and calenders that I, my wife, and (soon) my kids handle. Microsoft has deemed that Outlook is too much for me. Also, I'm not supposed to use PowerPoint either.
What is amazing to me is the apparent reality that Microsoft doesn't see that we home users are also business users. Folks, you can blast me all you want but here is my view as a home customer.
1) I tried Internet Explorer 7. I couldn't get it to work right (address bar wouldn't work). I couldn't find help to get it to work right. ... I tried FireFox on a desperate whim...and love it. I uninstalled IE7 and exclusively use FireFox.
2) Projecting my need to use a home office suite that includes database applications, word processing, spreadsheets, and presentation software, I tried out OpenOffice. So far that works great. So much so, that I may move forward and purchase StarOffice from Sun if I need the support. Again, you may note that Microsoft won't even offer me the opportunity to get all this software in their product anymore.
3) I am really considering the advanced capabilities of running a home network server and exchange software. While that may sound crazy to some, just wait till you have kids that are getting close to computer age. Anyway, Vista would cost me a small fortune and extensive licensing/support fees to do that. Day after day, I keep looking at Novell's SUSE saying hmmmm....
The day is coming when I will try it. Sure it will be an experiment. If my system crashes. Ok. I'll rebuild it and go back to MS. But if it works...then I'll use it and keep using it.
My end point in this, is that this goes beyond just one home user and a half dozen computers. I'm a manager with over 400 folks who work for me and millions in advanced networked systems. If I start trusting open source solutions at home, I may start doing the six-sigma thing and evaluating the risks of trying it in the office. IT risk assignment: do we upgrade to Vista or do we shift to Linux? Yes, Microsoft and your fellow enthusiasts, you need to start getting worried about competition. Don't forget the lessons you taught IBM so long ago.
Removed Access following Office 97 (unless you wanted to shell out $100+ for it). Now with the Vista / 2007 version they are kludging the Home and Student editions and are removing PowerPoint and Outlook.
Posted by Rob Casper | January 24, 2007 8:33 PM
Well I for one have NO issues with either IE 7 or Vista. I even upgraded my "production" pc at the office up to Vista just to make sure that software works fine. (It also help's that it's part of my job to plan this). Our document management system works, there are no issues with our Intranet site (which is where more of are applications run through), and I have not experienced any problems with any of the sites I go to at home on Windows XP or at work. Joe User needs software that will perform his basic tasks for him, and usually doesn't know anything about windows update or even how to get there. And as much BS is slung about Vista, Linux, MacOS, the people are gonna buy whatever they want, and they will get the new versions installed. I know someone who has already received his Vista Ulitmate CD and is just waiting impatiently to install it. People who whine and bitch, LIKE to whine and bitch... that's what they do. People who work in IT deal with that and then find ways to work around it.
Posted by brogahn | January 24, 2007 8:58 PM
Do you guys have lives???
This is a news website. Read the news, keep your stuff to yourself. Only contribute with constructive writings people -- YOU'RE ABUSING THE COMMENT SYSTEM!
But I guess since people like Neil are allowed to touch a computer, let's all vent off anonymously and be proud of ourselves! Pff... freaks
Posted by Big Illa | January 24, 2007 10:15 PM
Being a computer forensics tech I have to know a lot about the different systems utilized by corporations and home users. Yes, I worked with Vista from the first Beta release up to the final. For one, anyone who justs auto downloads and installs any software, patch or what ever has to be in a galaxy somewhere beyond earth where there are no malware threats or hackers. Everyone makes mistakes and yes even Microsoft developing programs and patches, just look at all the patches made that were repatched because of flaws. The objective here is discussing problems people are having with IE7 and having a browser injected into a critical update (which it is not), not belittling others who point it out. I have to admit IE7 is not a critical update and should have never been pushed as one. What browser one uses is up to the user of the computer and no OS should dictate what to use. As far as IE7, no I do not use it mainly because I feel it is still not secured enough for me. With a add on I can do MS Window Updates with FF (by the way which was done by MS with a BHO) for FF. IE7 still has some flaws as carry overs from IE6 which have never been patched (some are minor, 1 is not) but they are still there.
Will IE7 hurt Vista, well that we will all see in the foreseeable future. I say WGA will hurt Vista more then a browser plus all the pop up warnings (cry wolf to many times and the person just will turn it off) missing maybe a critical warning. To me the costs and upgrading certain hardware to meet the Vista Ultimate is not within my current working budget for over 300 computers. Maybe as each one becomes outdated they will be replaced but I do not see that until 2010 when XP is put out to pasture. Do not forget SP3 for XP will be out 1st quarter 2008.
Posted by SpiderintheGlass | January 24, 2007 11:35 PM
Lets think about the intelligent of the people in the article. They turn of Windows update and then they use Express install when get Windows updates not coming from a WSUS. This just shows that they are not the smarts guys using computers, sound a little like a MAC user. I do not care if they guy has been writing software for 25 years, does not mean anything, there are more bad programmings and IT people working than good ones so unless there is some proof that if is any good the fact he turned off updates and used express install are signs if is not one of the good ones. Now that we now the users are not the brightest ones lets talk IE 7, it is a great browser, being a web developer I worried about IE & killing my app just like firefox did with its last upgrade but to my surprise IE7 did not cause one problem, not bad for a product that is no good. Let us also not forget the position MS is in, people like microsoft-watch complain about security and that MS should do more and fix IE6 and then when they do what everyone wanted, Tabs and better security , they are complaining that they pushed it out as a security update which it is.
A comment to Rob Casper:
You need to get you facts straight before complaining: There was never a office 98 version, there has only been 1.0.2.0,95,97,2000,XP,2003 and now the awesome new 2007. MS did change the Home and Student( for k-12 students and teachers) version of Office 2007. However , it still has powerpoint and it now has OneNote instead of Outlook which could be a bigger benefit to students than Outlook since most students use online email. You can see what is included with each version here, http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/FX101635841033.aspx . Have a tip for you, if you really do qualify for the student version you should get a educational version , the Pro version is just 199 bucks online, http://www.journeyed.com/itemDetail.asp?ItmNo=99431723 . Also, Access has only been included in Office with the Pro and higher versions, this is the way it is today with 2007 and the way it was with 2.0,95,97,2000,XP,2003.
Posted by blaine | January 25, 2007 12:03 AM
Microsoft has the power. People who use Microsoft software need to do things the way Microsoft wants and follow their rules. If Microsoft decides that IE7 must be installed on computers, people are just going to have bite their tongues and go along with that decision or accept the consequences. If you don't like it, too bad. Buy another operating system or move to open source.
Posted by Mick | January 25, 2007 1:24 AM
Not too hard to not install IE7. I haven't I let auto update go as far as download. I NEVER do express and so far have unchecked IE7. Sounds like I ought to keep doing that. Now that does mean that I always have the shield sitting there and maybe I am getting a different update a little later than I otherwise would, but so far so good. But I only have four personal machines I do this on so it's easy for me. I have thought about checking the don't notify me again.
Posted by swabbie | January 25, 2007 10:30 AM
I experienced the same automatic update issue on an audio driver on a brand new HP laptop. It disabled the audio and was difficult to resolve because it also impacted the hard wired volume and mute button operations, even after rolling back the driver. I wasn't very happy and it does make it harder to rely on auto updates.
As for IE7, the standard buttons are less logically arranged than Firefox or IE6. I've had some issues with Java operation in IE7 compared to IE6 that are still not fully resolved.
For something to go through auto updates it should work seamlessly.
Posted by Daniel P Winegarden | January 25, 2007 12:13 PM
k12IT wrote: Microsoft hasn�t hidden the IE 7 update, and it�s not even a Critical update.
Actually, it IS listed as a critical update. The site that Mitchel Tyrell provides (which I am assuming he believes contains more "facts) agrees:
Although IE7 is included as a Critical Update...
Not only is it listed as a Critical Update, it WONT GO AWAY no matter how many times you uncheck its box unless you specifically instruct Windows Update to hide it. If Microsoft had listed it as an optional update (like Media Player 11), then I could agree with you.
Critical updates should, as the name implies, be critical. As in, of essential importance; indispensable. Hence, the perception among many users that they NEED to install IE7.
Personally, I installed IE7 when it was first released back in October of last year. However, I have been less than impressed with it. It is considerably slower than IE6. I dislike the fact that the menu bar is gone by default. While it is fairly easy to turn on, it isn't at the top of the window and requires a registry hack to change its placement.
In a corporate setting, the biggest problem I have seen is that IE7 breaks a lot of custom web-based apps that were coded for IE6. Even those apps that attempted to be standards-based had to utilize IE6 hacks to get them to display correctly. Those hacks no longer work in IE7. This is why our organization (over 20,000 employees in my location) has decided to postpone its rollout.
Posted by tenest | January 25, 2007 1:17 PM
I installed IE7 a month or two ago and I regret it. It's not entirely MS's fault, but many websites are not yet compatable, especially, many of the business websites I need like my bank site.
I have 3 different browsers on my desktop and I cannot use any of them to access my corporate banking site. I have to go to someone else's computer with IE6 to do my banking.
Posted by Jerry B | January 25, 2007 5:09 PM
Personnally i am still with IE6 but my main browser is Netscape 7.1.
I am building a new PC and Will still use Windows XP Pro and will install Netscape 8.1.2.
The reason is that i will have Netscape is as follows:
Netscape Browser 8.1 gives you access to the best of Internet Explorer, traditional Netscape and the new capabilities also offered by Firefox. Go anywhere on the web and access sites with the adjustable secure system from either Internet Explorer or Firefox.
Posted by Bob Mullins | January 25, 2007 6:28 PM
Personnally i am still with IE6 but my main browser is Netscape 7.1.
I am building a new PC and will still use Windows XP Pro and will install Netscape 8.1.2.
The reason is that i will have Netscape is as follows:
Netscape Browser 8.1 gives you access to the best of Internet Explorer, traditional Netscape and the new capabilities also offered by Firefox. Go anywhere on the web and access sites with the adjustable secure system from either Internet Explorer or Firefox.
Posted by Bob Mullins | January 25, 2007 6:29 PM
Whether right or worn I did trust MS when they said the update with IE7 in it was critical. It was a bad mistake. I have a four (4) months old HP laptop running XP Pro. It has been a fine computer and stable for months. It has not had any new software placed on it since it came into service. When the IE7 update asked to restart the computer it took 13 minutes from the login to the appearance of the icons on the desktop. I tried to restore the system to a date before the update but the system will not restore. Every time I am forced to shut the system down it takes 13 minutes to boot. I now never turn the system off. I put it in hibernate to avoid the 13 minute wait on boot-up.
I have no question as to the installation of IE7 causing the problem. The computer booted two or three times a day for months and the update is the only change made. When the update is installed and it runs and it takes 13 minutes to boot back up. The delay happens every time since. I see Daniel P Winegarden says "I experienced the same automatic update issue on an audio driver on a brand new HP laptop."
My answer to "Will IE 7 Perception Problems Hurt Vista?" is "YES". I also agree that I will never trust automatic updates again either. The problem I have is I do not know what is needed or what the items in the updates mean so I have to trust them, but I will look for unwanted add-ons for now on.
Keith
Posted by Keith | January 25, 2007 7:40 PM
I've detested IE, use Opera and have never been an MS sympathizer. So I must say I was properly prompted to install IE7 only as an option, installed it without a hitch and surprised myself by assessing it as a very decent little product. I've had no problems with it so far on XP.
Posted by Mike Collinson | January 25, 2007 8:44 PM
Thanks for providing the truth. Out of 4 IE 7 installs, three worked and the other just freezes the machine at odd intervals. That kind of forced update shows a 25% error rate, too big for a smart company like MS.
I guess it's back to IE 6 or Firefox for that fourth machine.
Alan
Posted by Alan | January 25, 2007 8:46 PM
Fool me once! I always, always use the custom button when downloading MS Updates. Installed IE7 wanting to show my smart alec daughter that MS can compete with Firefox. As a long term MS bigot, I genuinely like their stuff...usually. My Tablet PC promptly ground to a halt when opening web pages. Fixes listed did not help and, hey, I am not supposed to be a beta tester. Reverted back to IE6 and will be even more circumspect about what I download. Auto updates are on but now I will always, always, always click on custom and only download security/bug fixes.
Posted by Sandy A | January 25, 2007 10:40 PM
I had been putting off "upgrading" to IE7 because most of my friends said it sucks, but I finally wanted to experience it for myself. Microsoft made a half-baked attempt to copy Mozilla's Firefox tabbed browsing and in the process changed everything. This only created confusion; not only for the non-technical users, but for everyone! (What is the reason for the full page History?) Picture buttons, hidden tools; what in the world was Microsoft thinking (or not thinking)?! And I just read that Vista, as a default, will install drivers that "Microsoft believes is the best" for each of us! Windows Update is currently trying to tell me to update my video driver to an older version that does not utilize my cards full capabilities, while IE7 was supposedly a Critical Update!?
Isn't innovation and technology supposed to make life easier? Oh wait I forgot, my MCSE professor told me to learn it the Microsoft way, pass the certification exams and then, do it the correct way. Change can be a good thing, when done properly.
Posted by Westside Dragon | January 25, 2007 11:34 PM
Joe:
Most of the complaints about this (and other articles) would best be answered by telling people to go back and actually read what you wrote. Ironically, none of the commenters about the need to actually read Microsoft's notifications seem to have actually read what you wrote.
Posted by M. Shank, M.D., Ph.D. | January 26, 2007 11:52 AM
DO give Ubuntu 6.10 a TRY. It is not perfect. There still are sometimes (few) (small) bugs. But it is much better than Windows. First thing it is free. This seems not much of a problem since with most of the new computers you do pay more than a hundred bucks for Windows without realizing it. The problem arises with application software. Nobody wants to pay twice as much for the software than for the hardware so that most people at home use illegal copies of MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, Dreamweaver and the like, from friends who copy that at the office.
With Ubuntu, after little more than half an hour easy install, you get not only an OS and a graphical environment, but a fully functional system, with application software, all legal and for free. Install and use of Linux (and certainly Ubuntu) are now reasonably user-friendly.
There could be a (quite small) problem with people too much used to Windows. To an unprejudiced neighbor I installed Ubuntu from the beginning and she never complained: she reads and writes e-mail with Thunderbird and browses the Internet with Firefox. She sometimes produces documents with Open Office.org.
(Hackers may want to give Debian a try instead.)
Posted by Dominique Meeùs | January 26, 2007 5:15 PM
As for me, I had to reverse engineer IE7 to get it to look and run the way I wanted. That being done, it works pretty darn good. The IE7 that comes out of the box is terrible.
Posted by Floyd | January 27, 2007 2:24 AM
If they allow me to customize the toolbar, icons/animation, layout, and look and feel, then I'll probably use the next version.
Posted by anonymous | January 27, 2007 3:28 PM
Just to mention, I spend a lot of time doing updates to customer machines, and I know _exactly_ how IE7 is moving into machines without notification.
If you have Automatic Updates set to download and install automatically, or even if you just have it set to Download and then ask to install, it doesn't. It waits for the next shut down, then tells you that it is going to install a potload of updates - without telling you what is going to be updated. You let it happen, then turn the machine on again. Bingo, you have IE7 installed without notifying you that it was going to. Also, if you have a old pirated install (I've only see one or two, they didn't realize it. It was a 'my relative X worked on it for a while' install' - not sure why, they had legal XP Home, didn't even need Pro for anything) then IE7 ALSO forces the 'genuine advantage' check on you, which totally disables your ability to even save your information before they cut you off.
In other words, they not only decided that IE7 was a 'critical update' (bzzt), but that they'd sneak the Genuine Advantage thing back in as a critical update as well, through the medium of IE7.
Solution? Set your updates to 'notify me but don't download'. When IE 7 shows up, delselect it, and then tell it to never show up again. Then automatic updates goes back to normal.
Troy
Posted by Troy | January 28, 2007 3:56 PM
Please, enough of the "my father can beat up your father" crap! Let's stick to the subject, and the facts. The fact is, that many of us are indeed having legitimate, and crippling problems after downloading (and I don't care how or why) IE 7.0! Some suggestions as to how we can remedy the many conflicts with other programs would be more productive, and most helpful.
Initially, I was quite pleased with IE 7.0....played with all the new stuff, found the hidden things, just about had the settings the way I liked them, and then after about 30 minutes, the "big freeze" set in. Dead in the water....links didn't work, scroll didn't work, close didn't work, alt/ctrl/del didn't work.....nada! I had to switch it off manually.
Rebooting my couple months old HP laptop opened up another can of worms. AOL 9.0 started by itself, with 100% cpu usage, and immediately froze everything, again. Turned it off. Started again, and tried to beat AOL to Task Manager, and kill it before it loads. Ah, success! Uninstalled IE 7.0. Good, IE 6 is back and in good shape, but same race with AOL at startup. Tried System Restore....it won't restore. Windows Explorer doen't work. Norton Internet Security 2006 doesn't work, etc, etc. I could go on and on.
These problems are indeed real, and I kick myself for installing the damn thing, but it has screwed up a nearly new HP XP sp2 Media Center laptop. That's a fact!
If anyone has any answers for those of us who were the unfortunate ones, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by DLW | February 4, 2007 10:18 PM
To all who bashed Joe in January,
My my , all of you are certainly eating your words now arnt you! As November approaches the complaints and flaws for IE7 and Vista just keep piling up. With problems ranging from simple uncompatibility of software issues to an array of networking feascos that Microsoft has equipped Vista with, the result of wich is end user frustration on an ample level. So Microsoft lovers what have you to say about your beloved Vista now. Theres not much ground to stand on after a mud slide is there. All i have to say is good luck, consider Linux, and stop ashing Joe for bashing Microsoft because he called this one. Plain and simple.
Posted by Mac Man | October 24, 2007 2:51 PM
Greetings, -hand recently a new browser from google.com who it bear tried, how it to you? I here over to wigwagging it or not? Whether I here mark it is fated to wigwagging it or not? If who tried this origin, define please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. acquit if to that measure out has written, the seek of administrators to cart a strut where you note more proper :).
P.P.S. On not which forums to me said, that this upshot top-hole on some, that not so, here and has unfaltering to learn from you.
Posted by metsourse | October 10, 2008 6:18 PM