Microsoft Forcing use of IE

[Guest zacharygriggs]

seriously i just went to the downgrade.microdick.comunist website to update windows on my new machine and it forced me to use IE instead of firefox wich was on my thumbdrive. This is bull shit.

OK this is in everything else because it is not really news just my venting and frustration

[rFayjW98ciLoNQLDZmFRKD]

The problom with FireFOx, witch is one of it's features, it that it doesn't support activeX (Correct me if I am wrong), witch Win ubdate uses. What is more anoing is when you try to watch a video on MSNBC.com, it want you to use IE.

[omega_ion]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, so that might why they want you to use IE.

[stingwray]

Yeah, to do windows updates you need ActiveX control, which no other browser than IE supports.

Plus the update method is intergrated to the IE program.

But why do you need to use windowsupdate through the browser. Just set your computer to automatically download them and then ask to install them with Automatic Update.

I just wish Microsoft would make their WSUS server software free for XP uses with multiple machines.

[VaKo]

TBH Its microsofts website for updating microsofts OS, if you won't use IE *ever* then you shouldn't be using a MS OS. The main reason I use it for updates is because the automatic download doesn't install things like .NET 2 by default.

[Emilml]

I think that it shuld work for all Browsers not just IE

[VaKo]

But technically it can't without added the one feature most people switched browsers to get away from.

[stingwray]

I don't want ActiveX in firefox, all that ActiveX is used for is windows updates and infecting you with spyware. I haven't seen another website that uses it for what it was designed to do.

[VaKo]

Its good on intranet stuff, when I was at BT we used a load of activex stuff to access various databases, book appointments and the like. It worked there because everything was pretty much locked down, filtered and heaverly controlled. To such an extent that Firefox wouldn't even work on those systems.

[Emilml]

I just mean they culd make Windows update so it dident have to use ActiveX and use something else instead, dno what :p

[Sparda]

I just mean they culd make Windows update so it dident have to use ActiveX and use something else instead, dno what :p

Like a seperate application... they would never do that, that would make it far too much like Linux :P, SuSE has YaST to do that, Ubuntu has Synaptice Pakage manager for that. It's just too much like Linux :P

[VaKo]

Thats the thing, for system updates its quite good because it can talk to the system directly, but thats also a bad thing because it can talk to the system directly. There is there auto-update widget that turns up in the system tray, but as i said, if you go the the actual website it tells you what the update is for, and if there are any additional optional updates. The only reasons i see not to use MS update is if your windows is pirated, or your a company that likes to manage your own update (the WSUS server route).

[JD]

try this: http://windizupdate.62nds.com

[VaKo]

I just mean they culd make Windows update so it dident have to use ActiveX and use something else instead, dno what :p

Like a seperate application... they would never do that, that would make it far too much like Linux :P, SuSE has YaST to do that, Ubuntu has Synaptice Pakage manager for that. It's just too much like Linux :P

And windows has the Automatic Updates, which work in a very simlar way to Suse or Ubuntu, by going to a server and downloaded your updates for you either automatically, or with levels of user control. If you don't like that you can also go the MS Download center and get the redists manulally. I really don't see your point as suse, ubuntu and windows all seem to handle updates in a pretty similar fashion from the end users point of view.

try this: http://windizupdate.62nds.com

Hmmm... call me odd but i don't like updates from a unknown third party, got any more info on this?

[Sparda]

Tell me VaKo, is Synaptic package manager (ubuntu) or YaST (SuSE) built in to any web browser? The answer is obviusly no, and thats how windows updates should be. You shouldn't have to use a web browser to get updates for your operating system. It should be an application you have to run (not a web browser) and that looks for updates, this would avoid any of the "if you want to use windows updates..." crap.

[stingwray]

You could always use that site that produces auto-patchers for windows, can't remember the URL.

Really though this is not really that important. I use IE sometimes anyway, as Firefox has problems with some flash at the moment and IE isn't all bad.

People should get off their high horse.

[VaKo]

Is Automatic Updates dependant on IE6 or is it dependant on activeX? You can get updates for windows and you only need visit MS update once, to install the update manager. The automatic updates util built into XP doesn't use IE6 to get the updates. As with suse and ubuntu i see an icon on a taskbar saying "you need to install these updates", I click on it and it goes away and gets them, then installs them and tells me if i need to reboot or not. The underlaying technology behind it varys yes, but what are your choices if your Anti-YaST?

Again the only time MS updates is going to be a problem for you is if you have pirated windows.

[Sparda]

Again the only time MS updates is going to be a problem for you is if you have pirated windows.

It's actualy more of a pain for people who have paid for windows. Poeple who have pireted it know not to install WGA, but people who have paid for it and want updates have to install it, but the result is the some ligitimate copies of windows are been marked as not ligitimate. Not only that, after all this happened it turn out that the WGA software was calling home every day. WGA is more the exact oposite of what it says on the tin. </semirant>

[VaKo]

Only problems I have ever had with windows update are the pirated versions I have used. The legal copies have gone on fine, updated fine and never been a problem. The illegal versions need ever more invasive patches to counter the pirated keys MS detect and lock out. People always say "it keeps marking it as illigetimate", but how often does MS refuse to reactivate your copy of windows if you call them and say its borked. Don't like it? Don't use it.

[JD]

try this: http://windizupdate.62nds.com

Hmmm... call me odd but i don't like updates from a unknown third party, got any more info on this?

I read into this a while (about 2-3 months) ago, the updates themselves are not from a 3rd party, they're directly from Microsoft, they're just use a slightly different distribution method that removes the need for IE/ActiveX and removes the WGA crap.

[moonlit]

Windows is by MS.

Internet Explorer is by MS and is part of Windows itself.

It makes little difference to most users *how* it updates, just as long as it does. MS should not have to support updating their products via someone elses because it's MS property and they deal almost exclusively with it.

[stingwray]

Well think of the problems of intergrating it into other systems like firefox, theres enough problems with simple html interpretation.

Also the update system is likely to be closed source and if it was to work in firefox in a similar manner to how it does at the moment then parts of firefox would have to become closed (as in not over hauling the whole update system).

[rFayjW98ciLoNQLDZmFRKD]

Why does M$ have to have win update be part of IE, why cant it just be a stand alone app?

[darthbob]

If you are wanting to get MSFT updates via FireFox I use

http://ietab.mozdev.org/ it is an IE tab extension

Works all good for me

Cheers

Darthbob

[rFayjW98ciLoNQLDZmFRKD]

If you are wanting to get MSFT updates via FireFox I use

http://ietab.mozdev.org/ it is an IE tab extension

Works all good for me

Cheers

Darthbob

Welcome to the forums!