Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th May 2006 22:14 UTC
Internet Explorer Microsoft has said that the version of IE7 for Vista will differ slightly from the one for XP and down. "I want to announce that we will be naming the version of IE7 in Windows Vista 'Internet Explorer 7+'. While all versions of IE7 are built from the same code base, there are some important differences in IE7+, most significantly the addition of Windows Vista-only features like Protected Mode, Parental Controls, and improved Network Diagnostics. These features take advantage of big changes in Windows Vista and weren't practical to bring downlevel."
Thread beginning with comment 128887
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hmm.
by Pseudo Cyborg on Mon 29th May 2006 22:42 UTC
Pseudo Cyborg
Member since:
2005-07-09

If these were/are Vista-specific changes, why bother listing them as IE7 features at all? If they're Vista updates then that's fine. If they're IE7 changes, then they appear to be tied to the OS--which I believe was ruled illegal in the US and other countries.

Am I missing something?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hmm.
by Yamin on Tue 30th May 2006 06:08 in reply to "Hmm."
Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

Pseudo Cyborg,

They're simply saying one version of IE is taking advantage of things available in Vista that are not available in Windows XP.

Different OS = different capabilities an application can exploit.

This is no different that if one OS supported transparency and the other didn't. An application takes advantage of transparency in one version and not in the other.

Now, I am assuming these capabilities are public capabilities/APIs, not solely for IE7+.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Hmm.
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 08:12 in reply to "RE: Hmm."
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Now, I am assuming these capabilities are public capabilities/APIs, not solely for IE7+.

Your assumption would be correct.
http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libra...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm.
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 12:48 in reply to "Hmm."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it was not ruled illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 1