SillyDog701

[DJGM]

No, it's not a rumour . . . it's official!

According to Rob Franco, a member of the IE for Windows team at Microsoft there will be no more standalone
installations of IE beyond IE6.0 SP1. The following is a quote taken from a transcript of a recent MS TechNet
chat session between Rob Franco, and Program Manager for Internet Explorer, Brian Countryman . . .

Host: Brian (Microsoft)
Q: when / will there be the next version of IE?

A: As part of the OS, IE will continue to evolve, but there will be no future
standalone installations. IE6 SP1 is the final standalone installation.

So, judging by this, development of Internet Explorer for Windows will continue, but only
as an operating system component, rather than a standalone web browser application.
Essentially, the only way to get IE upgrades in future, will be to upgrade the entire OS!

IMO, this is perhaps the biggest reason for AOL Time Warner not to discontinue Netscape.

The rest of the transcript of the Microsoft Technet chat from 07/05/2003 is here . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (DJGM-i.net)

[Edward]

C|net article on this subject

UserAgent: Opera/7.11 (Windows 98; U) [en]

[Mandrake]

Does this mean we need to upgrade our OS just to get security fixes for IE?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030530

[Edward]

It would seem so, which is why I've decided to go with Linux. I've looked at SuSE, and that supports everything I have.

I have a spare Pentium motherboard here, and a new case, just need to get a few small things along with a hard drive, and I should be all set.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98) Opera 7.11 [en]

[DJGM]

Does this mean we need to upgrade
our OS just to get security fixes for IE?

I think the usual minor updates and inadequate cumulative patches will still be available
to download in order to inadequately fix IE security vulnerabilities as per usual. If users
of IE want to upgrade to whatever the next major version of IE will be, they'll have a
somewhat rather long wait, as it looks as though it'll only be an integral part of the
next major revision of the Windows operating system, which won't be available
until what is currently codenamed "Longhorn", goes gold in 2005!

I think Microsoft have shot themselves in the foot with this one. Who on earth is
going to want to buy a new version of Windows, just to upgrade their browser?!?

Here's what I think the UA of the next version of IE might look like . . .

Code: Select all

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0)



UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (DJGM-i.net)

[Mandrake]

No, Microsoft cares about there browser that much that it would probarbly look like: Mozilla/4.0 "(compatible; MSIE 6.0.1; Windows NT 6.0) "

Did you read the piece of crap on that interview that said "Our older Operating Systems couldn't be upgraded with new versions of IE without having the underlying operating system source code enchanced"? That is a load of rubbish, if that was true - then how could Mozilla update itself without needing a new version of the OS?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030601

[Shark Daddy]

Did you read the piece of crap on that interview that said "Our older Operating Systems couldn't be upgraded with new versions of IE without having the underlying operating system source code enchanced"? That is a load of rubbish, if that was true - then how could Mozilla update itself without needing a new version of the OS?

This is actually true for the most part. IE is going to undergo a fairly large overhaul. Included in this is more ActiveX integration, and a new ActiveX'd up UI. Standards-support is going to improve by leaps and bounds most likely, but that's unrelated. In a nutshell, the reason Mozilla doesn't need new OSes to the same degree as IE as it advances (although there is no longer Win95 and MacOS support) is because of its architecture. IE doesn't have an XPCOM or XPFE, nor does it need one. It is also fairly integrated into the OS (although not inextricably), and thus to make improvements on a behemoth like IE, such measures may need to be taken.

I doubt they'll make the mistake of calling it a version 4 browser. And this wasn't an official statement, but really, it can be taken as such (I have however heard of an SP2 Alpha, but this is either something else, a mistake, or cancelled). This was actually from semi-official Miscrosoft interview. There are tonnes of rumours going aruond about this. I've heard different release dates for Longhorn and different stories about the next IE (for example some say it will be 6.5). Trust no one.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030531

[Mandrake]

Sharkdaddy: Yeah, they probabrly will do up IE a bit, but of course they won't re-write the browser, standards support will probabrly suck just as bad as they do now.

You said stuff won't work on Mac OS and Win95, are you referring to Mozilla or IE?

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[DJGM]

According to Thor Larholm of PivX Solutions, the vuln count in IE now stands at 20 unpatched vulns!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (DJGM-i.net)

[Mandrake]

Well, my computer will be free of these vunerabilites - as soon as 2k/XP Lite is released . . . !

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

[Edward]

Well, my computer will be free of these vunerabilites - as soon as 2k/XP Lite is released . . . !

This system is free NOW of those vulnerabilities, because I use Linux (and Opera).

UserAgent: Opera/7.11 (Linux 2.4.20-4GB i586; U) [en]

[Mandrake]

So is THIS computer . . . ! No IE vunerabilites here . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030601

[DJGM]

The vuln count has gone up by the power of one. There are now 21 unpatched IE vulns!
I would've said it's gotten ridiculous, but it went way beyond ridiculous a long time ago!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (DJGM-i.net)

[DJGM]

Right, seven days ago, the latest cumulative patch for IE was released, while
a total of 21 vulns remained unpatched. As of yesterday (26/08) there are
now a total of, wait for it . . . 22 unpatched security vulnerabilities in IE!

WHY do people still use this dangerously pathetic excuse for a browser?

WHY are so many web users too damn stupid and lazy not to upgrade?

Answers on a postcard please, to the usual address . . . !

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (DJGM-i.net)

[Lorraine]

My main browser is still Netscape 7.02 with mail also.
However, I use IE as I am sure many others do for
The Gaming Zone. I can use Zone Alarm in The Zone when
I play bridge. I can in Yahoo also, but I can't in POGO.
Sometimes I browse with it, but haven't for several weeks.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02