Microsoft warns of IE8 lock-in with XP SP3

Microsoft yesterday warned users of Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) that they won't be able to uninstall either the service pack or Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) under some circumstances. The warning was reminiscent of one Microsoft made in May, when Windows XP SP3 had just been made available for downloading. At the time, the company told users they wouldn't be able to downgrade from IE7 to the older IE6 browser without uninstalling the service pack.

In a post to the IE blog today, Jane Maliouta, a Microsoft program manager, spelled out the newest situation, which affects users who downloaded and installed IE8 Beta 1 prior to updating Windows XP to SP3. If those users then upgrade IE8 to Beta 2 , which Microsoft unveiled today, they will be stuck with both IE8 and Windows XP SP3. A warning dialog will appear to alert users. "If you chose to continue, Windows XP SP3 and IE8 Beta2 will become permanent," Maliouta said. "You will still be able to upgrade to later IE8 builds as they become available, but you won't be able to uninstall them."

View: The full story @ InfoWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Accused British Hacker Gary McKinnon Loses Appeal

Next Story

Panasonic to Bring Blu-ray Disc Burners to Europe

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Good gravy people!

Doesn't anyone want to actually understand EXACTLY WHAT the potential problem is? I think it is clear.

"users who downloaded and installed IE8 Beta 1 prior to updating Windows XP to SP3. If those users then upgrade IE8 to Beta 2 , which Microsoft unveiled today, they will be stuck with both IE8 and Windows XP SP3. A warning dialog will appear to alert users. "If you chose to continue, Windows XP SP3 and IE8 Beta2 will become permanent."

I think it is spelled out perfectly that this is only an issue for a VERY specific group of users who have done precisely what is described. How many real people are likely to have done THOSE things in THAT order?
Not to mention the freaking warning dialog.

Somebody get a large box of clues and pass them around please!

I was in that position but decided to install it anyway

Don't think I'll remove IE8 from my computer.
As for XP SP3, unless they have SP4 later, then I'll be in trouble lol

I don't think you'll be in trouble at all. It sounds to me like it's just saying you can't uninstall SP3. You can, however, upgrade beyond it.

It already is with IE7. Just drag the installer into nlite's addon list and it will do its thing. If you mean included, then that might not be possible unless you slipstream it yourself or maybe it ships with Windows 7.

Yeah, that's why I uninstalled IE8b1, installed SP3 and then reinstalled IE8b1. Now I have no worries about that happening to me. ^_^

Because you wouldn't want to develop web pages for Firefox users, right?
How many glasses of Microsoft kool-aid have you drunk today?

(LaXu said @ #2)
Works for me. The fewer IE6/IE7 users there are, the easier it makes my job as a web developer.

Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.

Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #2.2)

Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.

Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.

guys he means that:

IE is not performing to web standards (W3.org), therefore you have to design for Firefox/opera/safari and then IE separately

at least IE8 is now using the standards, so you only have to code once!!
because IE6/7 are the most widely used (i.e. the average Joe), basically MS broke the web (not using the standards)

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #2.2)

Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.

Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.

You obviously have no sense of how the real world works.

In the real world, no one cares that you don't want to support IE due to its lack of standards support. The only thing that people care about is that their site works. If you don't support it, you will be replaced, and you will never get any work.

The reality is that the vast majority of the world uses IE.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #2.2)

Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.

Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.

Assuming you're referring to your own personal sites, yeah, that's a great thing to do! As far as making money, however, you can't afford to ignore IE and its horrible problems, unless you happen to get a client that is "in-the-know" about it. You can attempt to pitch the idea that IE alone takes up considerably more than 50% of your development time (seriously, there are humorous images on the Web that actually depict it), but it usually doesn't get far. Clients just want their sites to work. It is as simple as that. :(

Edit: And if anybody decides to make a Mac (Safari) joke about their site "just working", feel free. Safari could use a bit more exposure now that it is on Windows as well as Mac.

(rpgfan said @ #2.5)

Assuming you're referring to your own personal sites, yeah, that's a great thing to do! As far as making money, however, you can't afford to ignore IE and its horrible problems, unless you happen to get a client that is "in-the-know" about it. You can attempt to pitch the idea that IE alone takes up considerably more than 50% of your development time (seriously, there are humorous images on the Web that actually depict it), but it usually doesn't get far. Clients just want their sites to work. It is as simple as that. :(

Edit: And if anybody decides to make a Mac (Safari) joke about their site "just working", feel free. Safari could use a bit more exposure now that it is on Windows as well as Mac.


And for this reason i like firefox, if a page refuse to play in a "x"-browser then i can suggest to the client a turnaround to install Firefox, Firefox is free, nice and mostly compatible in several operating system.

(MioTheGreat said @ #2.4)

You obviously have no sense of how the real world works.

In the real world, no one cares that you don't want to support IE due to its lack of standards support. The only thing that people care about is that their site works. If you don't support it, you will be replaced, and you will never get any work.

The reality is that the vast majority of the world uses IE.


The vast majority of web users are also clueless about why and how IE SUCKS! Being complacent and going along with MSIE because you think the rest of the world is doing the same isn't helping.

(Airlink said @ #2.1)
Because you wouldn't want to develop web pages for Firefox users, right?
How many glasses of Microsoft kool-aid have you drunk today? :wacko:

Umm...73% of the browsers are internet explorer (which firefox kool Aid have *YOU* been drinking?). Who would design a web page and ignore 73% of the market? I am glad YOU are not a web designer in my company.

(Airlink said @ #2.7)
The vast majority of web users are also clueless about why and how IE SUCKS! Being complacent and going along with MSIE because you think the rest of the world is doing the same isn't helping.


It's not the goal of a business to promote one browser over another, nor is it any business's responsibility to demand users upgrade or change their webbrowsers. The days of "This site requires Netscape to view, click here to download" were a retarded, childish joke. No business's management would allow their coders to cut out more than half of their potential site traffic for the sake of something as 1990s as a browser war. In fact, if a coder made the argument that it would be too much work, management would think they're being lazy.

Businesses have made a lot of stupid decisions for their websites over the years: splash pages, flash-based UIs, pop-ups, &c. But they're not about to make a move that would completely cut off a percentage of web users that Firefox would feel sheepish to even dream about. Users wants sites to 'just work', and only a complete moron thinks a business with half a brain would put that burden on the user rather than their site coders.

(Airlink said @ #2.1)
Because you wouldn't want to develop web pages for Firefox users, right?
How many glasses of Microsoft kool-aid have you drunk today? :wacko:

How many glasses of Mozilla kool-aid have you drunk today?