Why there aren't people complain MICROSOFT failed to provide W2K user using IE7?

[keen2know]

It a sin selling people the junk with security hole and worst the IE7
is not for W2K user.

Why I haven't hear anyone complain or govt interfere with such
unethical practice?

 

[Leythos]

It a sin selling people the junk with security hole and worst the IE7
is not for W2K user.

Why I haven't hear anyone complain or govt interfere with such
unethical practice?

There isn't an OS on the market that doesn't have holes and exploits and
needs patches monthly.

Windows 2000 users don't need IE7, IE6 works just fine as does FireFox.

Windows 2000 had many holes too and many problems besides holes, XP is
leaps and bounds ahead of 2000 for users, hardware ease of management
and use.

 

[ANONYMOUS]

Becase it is time to move on. This has nothing to do with "govt" as we
have what is called democracy. In communist China and perhaps in
Russia, people are controlled by their own "govt" but thank god we don't
have such evil regimes.

Are you still at W2k? When are you moving to XP then?

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Windows 2000 is nearing the end of it supported lifecycle
and thus it does not make any sense to design a special version
of IE7 for Windows 2000. IE7 will only install on a system
running Windows XP with Service Pack 2.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

:

| It a sin selling people the junk with security hole and worst the IE7
| is not for W2K user.
|
| Why I haven't hear anyone complain or govt interfere with such
| unethical practice?

 

[Bob I]

It a sin selling people the junk with security hole and worst the IE7
is not for W2K user.

Check with the Pope, that would be the authority on sin. ;-)

Why I haven't hear anyone complain or govt interfere with such
unethical practice?

Ethics? That's something politicians haven't got a clue about.

 

[Gaoler]

Because it is time to move on. This has nothing to do with "govt" as we
have what is called democracy. In communist China and perhaps in
Russia, people are controlled by their own "govt" but thank god we don't
have such evil regimes.

Bush is not far off!

 

[Guest]

8:46 PM 6/8/2006

I am in love with Win XP!! I have been computing since DOS 3.1 (granted I
am still not very good at it). I test drove 4.1, '95, '98, '98SE (the first
Win to have ANY attraction at all), ME and the first NT. Win XP is the first
Win to pull me away from DOS. During the last Pres. election I voted for XP
as a write-in candidate. LOL

I know now the reason that DOS worked so well for me is that it was:

*Stable because I didn't ask it to do something it was not designed for;
*Fast because I knew how to keep it clean and "slippery" with custom
shortcuts, etc.;
*Reliable because I performed regular maintenance;
*Very enjoyable because of the three things above.

when I hear people talk of XP as if it were crap, I wonder how much they
really know about how it works and why it does the things it does. If it
balks or crashes because of something innapropriate it was asked to do or
because it is not kept clean or maintainance items ignored, who should we
really blame?

"Why did stupid Windows XP crash when I re-formatted my super skizzie,
striped RAID 800GB 3rd hdd with 14 meaningless partitions and 2 gigs of free
scumware?"

"did you backup?" "got AV?" "Stupid Windows?"

I for one am looking forward to Vista ... and Vista SP1 and Vista SP2 etc.

Bring it on.

 

[Guest]

Hear, hear. Most BDEUs that complain about "Windoze" tend to be of the
school you described so nicely. Windows instability is 100% self-induced!

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when the thread originator begged for
the goverment to interfere. The operative being interference. Governments
are best which govern least.

 

[Howard Purcel]

8:46 PM 6/8/2006

I am in love with Win XP!! I have been computing since DOS 3.1 (granted I
am still not very good at it). I test drove 4.1, '95, '98, '98SE (the
first
Win to have ANY attraction at all), ME and the first NT. Win XP is the
first
Win to pull me away from DOS. During the last Pres. election I voted for
XP
as a write-in candidate. LOL

I know now the reason that DOS worked so well for me is that it was:

*Stable because I didn't ask it to do something it was not designed for;
*Fast because I knew how to keep it clean and "slippery" with custom
shortcuts, etc.;
*Reliable because I performed regular maintenance;
*Very enjoyable because of the three things above.

when I hear people talk of XP as if it were crap, I wonder how much they
really know about how it works and why it does the things it does. If it
balks or crashes because of something innapropriate it was asked to do or
because it is not kept clean or maintainance items ignored, who should we
really blame?

"Why did stupid Windows XP crash when I re-formatted my super skizzie,
striped RAID 800GB 3rd hdd with 14 meaningless partitions and 2 gigs of
free
scumware?"

"did you backup?" "got AV?" "Stupid Windows?"

I for one am looking forward to Vista ... and Vista SP1 and Vista SP2 etc.

Bring it on.

I too have been computing for awhile, have loved the Dosfish since it was
2.11... have seen WinXP crash on its own several times after a fresh load
and perfect hardware. I literally fell on my butt laughing when I got a
letter sent in with a computer from some dope that says he worked for IBM
for 20 years and WinXP is the most stable and secure OS he has ever seen,
this is pre SP2. Had no clue what he did for 20 years, but it wasn't dealing
with multiple operating systems.

Dealing with the original poster's question. I have no clue why, but from
time to time, MS will make some excuse that it wont work, requires too many
changes, and the truth is, they don't want it to work.

Case in point. DirectX 5 requires too many changes to kernel to work with
NT4 according to microsoft. Replacing the files manually seems to work just
fine.

I remember being told by another Microsoft representative that a piece of
beta software I was having to support had something like 4 lines of code to
make sure it didnt work with NT4, not cause it wont work, but because MS
didn't want it to work. BTW, screw the MS NDA with clauses that I dont share
or use info from your company to build, transport, etc biological, chemical,
or nuclear warfare equipment. If MS has that info, then someone needs to
figure out why they have that. I'm sure its cause MS has govt contracts, but
who would trust MS with such powerful info.

I dont fear MS's monopoly, its publicly known and partially kept in check. I
fear the unchecked monopolies, like Sony.

 

[GHalleck]

It a sin selling people the junk with security hole and worst the IE7
is not for W2K user.

Why I haven't hear anyone complain or govt interfere with such
unethical practice?

Why should I care about IE7? I don't even use IE6 and I love my
Windows 2000 Pro. Moreover, satisfied people don't complain. And
what unethical practice is there when people have a choice in what
they want in what they do. This includes being happy with a fully
working Windows 2000 instead of a WGA-validated, Windows XP Pro-SP2
spyware/trojan.