Skip to main content

A quarter of chaos for IE7

It seems that IE7’s rollout will be gradual & random, to give time “to set companywide policies for browser deployment and possibly recode any intranet sites that are not compatible with the new version of the browser”.

Well, so much for “support” of Internet standards, if IE can’t even be compatible with IE, let alone everything else.

Also, the rollout will take 3 months, “automatic” updates will prompt users before following through, and the recipients will be chosen randomly; “it will be a phased rollout” and the speed will be determined by the number of support calls seen...

So... we have an update that breaks existing policies & sites, happening at random & in ways which are inconsistent with expected behaviour — and this is supposed to help smooth things out?

And... “even those who have configured Automatic Updates to install software automatically will be asked after the download is complete whether to install the new browser” so be expecting random support calls from confused users & expect several from each user.

Why?

Because MS unilaterally decided to break update policies across the world.

Why?

So their support centres are appropriately staffed at the time.

However, their overt justification is that it’s for the customers’ own good.

Updates arriving at random times of three months, plus or minus. Reliable? Sound familiar?

I can see a strengthening case for Firefox here, along with a deliberate update policy erasing MSIE from the target systems.

This won’t stop public websites from being broken for IE7, but it will cut down on those first-thing-in-the-morning panic-stricken support calls.

...oh, the next time someone rants on at me about Open Source & consistency, they’re going to find themselves laughed at,

Comments

Leon RJ Brooks said…
Here's a portentious quote from another article touching MSIE7 & Firefox:

But few businesses are expected to deploy the browser upgrade until they install Vista, Microsoft’s major Windows upgrade that’s set for release to businesses in November.

The reason for the delay is IE’s tight integration with the operating system. Installing IE 7 on a Windows XP machine in an office would require a lot of testing first to determine the impact on business applications. Rather than test twice, companies are more likely to stick with IE6 until Vista

This is also pointing toward months of anarchy as the releases trickle out.
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Re-quoting the above, no italics:

But few businesses are expected to deploy the browser upgrade until they install Vista, Microsoft’s major Windows upgrade that’s set for release to businesses in November.

The reason for the delay is IE’s tight integration with the operating system. Installing IE 7 on a Windows XP machine in an office would require a lot of testing first to determine the impact on business applications. Rather than test twice, companies are more likely to stick with IE6 until Vista.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...