would a silent update of windows users from IE 7/8 to 9 be the best thing to do?

[Dustin2128]

I personally think that it would be the best thing to do, we them to move to some sort of modern, html5 and other standards compliant browser. On the flip side, I personally wouldn't like my OS to do that without asking me (irrelevant since I haven't really ever used IE). What do you think?

[3rdalbum]

I personally think that it would be the best thing to do, we them to move to some sort of modern, html5 and other standards compliant browser. On the flip side, I personally wouldn't like my OS to do that without asking me (irrelevant since I haven't really ever used IE). What do you think?

Only if it also migrated them to Windows 7 automatically. XP is the computer security equivalent of a deathtrap.

[Dustin2128]

Only if it also migrated them to Windows 7 automatically. XP is the computer security equivalent of a deathtrap.
7's more stable now, but give it a few months to fall behind in drivers and for malware writers to really start cranking it out and it'll be xp all over again. I describe XP as 'a submarine with screen doors' with the addition of: 'Guess who gets paid for scooping out the water?'.

[CharlesA]

7's more stable now, but give it a few months to fall behind in drivers and for malware writers to really start cranking it out and it'll be xp all over again. I describe XP as 'a submarine with screen doors' with the addition of: 'Guess who gets paid for scooping out the water?'.

Really? In my experience we haven't run into the "vista fiasco" driver-wise with 7. Most of the hardware on the market today is compatible with 7. Software is another story tho. Old apps that were designed for 2000 or XP don't like running on Vista or 7, obviously.

The only problem I've had as of yet was running Win7 on older hardware, but most of the installs I've done, 90% of the crap will work out of the box, with the exception of maybe video or network, but that's due to running a new OS on an old machine.

Win 7 has been out for almost a year now. Released as an RC and a Beta before that. I don't recall if they did the same thing for testing XP or Vista, but apparently it's helped hardware manufactures get their **** together and actually write decent drivers for 7.

To stay on topic: It would be nice to get everything up to IE9, especually since there are still people running IE6. *shake head*

I just wish banks, government offices, etc would stop supporting IE6, but they won't do that since they need to make their sites compatible with all browsers that people might use, and rewriting a site to standards that might not work in IE is just asking for trouble.

[Dustin2128]

To stay on topic: It would be nice to get everything up to IE9, especually since there are still people running IE6. *shake head*

I just wish banks, government offices, etc would stop supporting IE6, but they won't do that since they need to make their sites compatible with all browsers that people might use, and rewriting a site to standards that might not work in IE is just asking for trouble.
As a web developer, I'm considering charging a small IE6 fee. Nothing huge, maybe... 10$ or so, but it'll help people get the idea. You just have to love it when a bank recommends internet explorer though, that always makes me laugh.

[Frogs Hair]

I have Windows update set to check for updates and I choose what want to install , I guess it depends on your update settings as to weather it is silent or not . Since I can't remove IE8 I will select the update for IE9 when it comes . I currently use Firefox as my default browser on Windows and I would not consider using IE 6 or 7 if I had another option.

[kamaboko]

7's more stable now, but give it a few months to fall behind in drivers and for malware writers to really start cranking it out and it'll be xp all over again. I describe XP as 'a submarine with screen doors' with the addition of: 'Guess who gets paid for scooping out the water?'.

Funny, my mom uses an XP loaded computer. I've got her logging on as a limited user. Zero problems. I stop by once a month or so to run a virus, malware, etc., search, and it comes up empty every time. XP is only a disaster to those that don't know how to set it up, period. With Win7, one would have to be entirely brain fricken dead to screw that one up as far as security goes.

[Dustin2128]

With Win7, one would have to be entirely brain fricken dead to screw that one up as far as security goes.
you'd be surprised. I've used windows 7 on public computers, and I personally like the fact that you have a dialogue box that comes up whenever code tries to execute its self. Others do not and disable the feature ASAP. You still cannot install any type of software without root password. But this is a topic for another thread.

[Old Marcus]

Bear in mind that the majority of the active population of this forum are security conscious people who like to have control over their systems and don't like things happening on them without their say so.

The majority of Windows users care as much about computer security as a gnat cares about the global economy. They are unlikely to make the step themselves, so doing it for them would be a good idea. The only problem with this will be the inevitable calls to tech support screaming that 'my internet doesn't work like it used to!!!! I want my £$%^ing money back!!!!'

Unfortunately, I see this as the lesser of two evils, as a lot of those people will not listen to advice to upgrade, no matter how sensible and plainly explained the advice is.

[julio_cortez]

I don't think it's a good idea. Maybe someone just needs an older version of IE to run something.
I'm happy with the way IE is delivered now: a Windows update, which the user can decide whether to install or not.


You just have to love it when a bank recommends internet explorer though, that always makes me laugh.The guy that worked with me a couple of years ago did it. He recommended to use the Microsoft Java VM (which didn't run in Firefox) because it rendered the Internet Banking site "simplier to use" (which, to some extent, was true), so had to recommend the usage of IE because "this version of Java that is easier only runs under IE".
On the other hand, I always recommended to use Sun's VM that, though really making the GUI "a little more difficult" allowed people to be more free browser-wise.
And, to be honest, because I liked more the "complex" GUI with more options to set the path of the token, to see the expiration date of the certificate and so on, all things that the Microsoft VM didn't allow the end-user to do :)

[Bachstelze]

Other: I don't care.

[t0p]

I voted no. I know some of you will tell me it's "in the best interest" of non-tech savvy users and will be worthwhile "in the long run". But "silent" (aka secret) uploads and downloads are evil unless the user has given informed consent. I am opposed to evil in all its forms.

[julio_cortez]

I know some of you will tell me it's "in the best interest" of non-tech savvy users and will be worthwhile "in the long run".
Sure. But I also have to agree that no software should be installed on a user's computer without the user's consent.
Then, if the user sets Windows Update to automatically download and install updates, it's his/her choice. But no software should be forced upon the user without consent.

Maybe there should be a "upgrade reminder" (like the one used in Java) that tells the user "You are running an old version of IE, you are suggested to upgrade to IE 9 for better security yadda yadda bla bla".
Then the user could choose between:

"Upgrade" (which obviously will trigger the update)
"Why should I?" (which will provide more information about new features and fixes)
"Notify me later" (which will remove the reminder and show it again the day after)
"Don't notify me again" (which will remove the reminder and leave the user alone).

That'd be the best thing to me. Being able to choose.

[V for Vincent]

I voted grey area, but that really means no. While it's true that it would be very good news if everyone switched to a more standards compliant browser, as I'm led to believe IE9 is, things would break. Lots of web apps only support one or two versions of IE and nothing more. While that is in itself regrettable, that's just how it is. Plus, silent updates should generally be avoided. I'm not sure what exactly is in the windows EULA, but my system is my system, dang it.

[ST3ALTHPSYCH0]

Then there are some of us, who understand the security implications, but manage networks that run software that REQUIRES IE7 (will NOT run in IE8).
Believe me, most people who use Windows just click "the blue E" for internet, and I wish that we could move the whole network to IE8, but we can't.

[julio_cortez]

most people who use Windows just click "the blue E" for internet
+1.
As soon as IE7 got released some things didn't work yet..
I remember, when customers called, how many of them I had to ask to "Does the blue E icon have a sort of yellow flash around it?" to find out if they were using IE6 or IE7 because they weren't able to tell me otherwise..

Good old times :p

[Old Marcus]

I am aware that silent updates are nasty, regardless of how thick the user of the computer is. However, most users have their systems set to auto update by default, so it would be a silent update anyway.

I do agree that giving them a notification and offering a choice would be the best thing to do though.

Also bear in mind that XP still has over 50% of the desktop market, and since IE9 will not work on XP, all this is redundant for the majority of desktop users.

[beetleman64]

I think that they should put it in MS Update and then allow users to upgrade should they wish (like the present system for IE8. Or they could do the sensible thing and just direct everyone to Firefox.

[Strategist01]

No - I'll tel you why.

Some applications require that they be run in IE7 - MAX. They can't go higher, as settings for them will not work properly in IE8 or 9.

Example - Amadeus Vista is used widely in the travel booking industry. It needs to be run from an IE5,6,7 browser (don't ask why - I don't know). It has very sensitive settings, so an upgrade would cause disruption, and they might not be able to downgrade again.

So, unsolicited updates are not very welcome for some people, just saying.

[Merk42]

IE updates to a major version by default.
It requires more work to NOT update, so the silent updates wouldn't matter. The people probably still have IE6/7 for a reason.

Possible reasons include:
IE6: Company's intranet application was written during the .com bubble and won't work in any other browser. Company is too cheap to get it rewritten.
IE7: IE8 requires WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage), an anti-piracy measure, so it's possible that many people who pirate Windows wouldn't upgrade.

[murderslastcrow]

I think that it should be based on their personal settings. If they've set Windows to update automatically, for instance, they could assume those users wouldn't mind getting this update done for them. Of course, this would mean the survey before the installation would have to be disregarded entirely to do it automatically.

Since very many people do wish to just have the newest stuff and mark that option, I think it's safe in these cases.

In cases where it's a business who has plugins they need from IE6, I suggest they port them or find alternative means for their business, but I assume they wouldn't have the automatic updates marked and they'd still have the options they'd like.

And, well, they should keep up to date on the news surrounding it, since they rely on it and need ways to keep it.

[Dustin2128]

hmmm. how about have a compatibility mode for certain networks that can only run with IE6 7 or 8? Not like it would be that difficult... And I really wish those PHBs mandating IE6 would realize its just because their tech department doesn't feel like exerting its self by migrating :D

[LepeKaname]

They should silently replace any IE* with Firefox or Chrome (or Safari or Opera).

;)

[Dustin2128]

They should silently replace any IE* with Firefox or Chrome (or Safari or Opera).

;)
it annoys me to no end that microsoft is only doing the browser ballot thing in Europe.

[MasterNetra]

IE updates to a major version by default.
It requires more work to NOT update, so the silent updates wouldn't matter. The people probably still have IE6/7 for a reason.

Possible reasons include:
IE6: Company's intranet application was written during the .com bubble and won't work in any other browser. Company is too cheap to get it rewritten.
IE7: IE8 requires WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage), an anti-piracy measure, so it's possible that many people who pirate Windows wouldn't upgrade.

Not necessarily there are cracks and occasionally a modded image that self registers the OS without talking to MS. There is at least one Win7 image I've seen that doesn't use a crack and self-registers. However, while I forget what the name was, there is a important update that isn't auto checked that kills it I heard though. Also WGA is often the least of their concerns. A joke really. Its them Ninja Anti-Piracy Updates that can get a person using a Pirated version.

[Merk42]

Not necessarily there are cracks and occasionally a modded image that self registers the OS without talking to MS. There is at least one Win7 image I've seen that doesn't use a crack and self-registers. However, while I forget what the name was, there is a important update that isn't auto checked that kills it I heard though. Also WGA is often the least of their concerns. A joke really. Its them Ninja Anti-Piracy Updates that can get a person using a Pirated version.Maybe so, I haven't kept up on pirated windows since my copy is legal.

My point was since it upgrades by default, those that still use 6 or 7 must have a reason since they're going out of their way to do so.

[MasterNetra]

Maybe so, I haven't kept up on pirated windows since my copy is legal.

My point was since it upgrades by default, those that still use 6 or 7 must have a reason since they're going out of their way to do so.

True.

[julio_cortez]

However, most users have their systems set to auto update by default, so it would be a silent update anyway.
But with the user's agreement.
If I told you "do whatever you want with my system, you have my permission" I wouldn't blame you for performing a sudo rm -rf / of course.
If users allowed Microsoft to install everything, then the shouldn't blame Microsoft if their apps don't work anymore after one of the upgrades.


IE6: Company's intranet application was written during the .com bubble and won't work in any other browser. Company is too cheap to get it rewritten.
Sad but true.


IE7: IE8 requires WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage), an anti-piracy measure, so it's possible that many people who pirate Windows wouldn't upgrade.People who pirate Windows should not be entitled to upgrade anyway so I don't really see how could this be a problem.
In the end, for security reasons, I think that also IE8 will be downloadable without WGA once IE9 gets released.