Jump to content

Microsoft Forcing use of IE


Guest zacharygriggs
 Share

Should Microsoft Allow For Firefox for Update.microsoft.com  

44 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • +
      20
    • - which means i'm being paid my microsoft to vote this way
      3


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...