Linked by vodoomoth on Mon 27th Sep 2010 13:10 UTC
Internet Explorer Microsoft has "set up and removed" having Windows 7 Service Pack 1 as a prerequisite to running (or, more correctly, "installing") IE9, in the space of just 2 days.
Thread beginning with comment 442793
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This wasn't about Vista
by chandler on Mon 27th Sep 2010 13:54 UTC
chandler
Member since:
2006-08-29

The requirement originally was that users of Windows 7 would have to install SP1 to get IE9, but it didn't exclude Vista users. Now the SP1 requirement is dropped because many corporate IT departments lag far behind in installing SP's. (My understanding is that 7 SP1 is going to just be a big roll-up release anyway, so there's little risk to it.)

XP still won't be getting IE9. It's Vista or 7 only.

Reply Score: 5

RE: This wasn't about Vista
by Fettarme H-Milch on Mon 27th Sep 2010 20:53 in reply to "This wasn't about Vista"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

I don't get corporate mind sets. Why on earth would anyone want to refuse to install bug fixes?
It's not like an OS is more secure without Service Packs...

Reply Parent Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I don't get corporate mind sets. Why on earth would anyone want to refuse to install bug fixes?
It's not like an OS is more secure without Service Packs...


With good security practices (least privileged access), good firewall, and "security" software such as antivirus, why shouldn't it be at least as secure? As long as the security hole being patched is already protected by another system or practice in place, the potential for more harm than good becomes the issue.

Corporations delay SP upgrades because they tend to have side-effects which may impact enterprise solutions already in place. In some cases, they'll do a phased rollout of the SP/Updates to make sure there are no negative effects before upgrading the entire company. Even then, I've heard IT "horror stories" about unexpected changes that upset internal software before they realized it.

Like it or not - Microsoft can't predict every side-effect of every software update... and corporate IT knows this. Worse, any system that "breaks" as a result of a security update may require scheduled/contracted development time to fix it - which could take months.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: This wasn't about Vista
by Delgarde on Mon 27th Sep 2010 21:15 in reply to "RE: This wasn't about Vista"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I don't get corporate mind sets. Why on earth would anyone want to refuse to install bug fixes?
It's not like an OS is more secure without Service Packs...


It's not a matter of refusing to install bug fixes - it's delaying installing those fixes until it can be confirmed that those fixes don't interfere with any critical applications.

For example, if SP1 breaks the software that runs a bank's call center, that's a business-breaker... bad publicity, and hundreds of people unable to work for as long as it takes to roll back the upgrade or fix the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 3