Internet Explorer 9 Will Have Windows 7 SP1 Bits

ZZZzzz

why would you not update to sp1....

Possibly because you've already installed all the updates that it contains.

Seconded. Who gives a crap, ah? Pfft. Boring. Get a real browser. Get a real OS for that matter.

Who cares if it needs a reboot? It just means that when you really download SP1 the entire pack would be a little smaller.

Which OS would that be?

(I'm sitting in a company with over 190 windows pcs and servers and I've got zero problems)

Comments like yours makes me wonder for the future

In this day and age a reboot should not be required for the majority of updates. It certainly shouldn't be forced on you at any rate, which Windows does (less so than it did in XP, but it still does).

If the Win7 service packs follow the XP pattern, the one to download would be the equivalent of the "IT" version - the one that updates everything. That would be the one size (big) fits all.

Why would you not buy it for me....

Looking forward to seeing what IE9 can do.
Microsoft has been doing a lot of good things lately: Windows 7 is great, Office 2009 was a big step forward, and Visual Studio has really always been the defacto standard.
I just haven't seen the love yet on IE. Maybe this is the year!

Errr... Lolz?
The "system elements" that IE 9 requires (and that need a reboot) are patches to Direct2D: the version shipped with Win7 RTM is incomplete and buggy - and Direct2D being a basis for many Win7 integrated apps, it needs a reboot.

Except if you already installed a Platform Preview or a Beta, in which case you should be good to go - even without SP1.

Or not: if it does like with some Platform Previews, Mozilla will find more bugs in the patches and ask Microsoft to correct those - again (Firefox 4 also uses Direct2D if available).

Nice and quiet when they're all switched off, isn't it?

Another anti trust lawsuit in the making...

Pirated version is why you wouldn't update.

hopefully it will make Vista run a little better too or everyone just let this black sheep go to rest in peace.

It is when I'm in the server room but then again, Hyper-v will resolve that.

Why? Are they MAKING you update?

Oh wait, hold on.... I GOT THIS ONE!
I'm gonna say the answer is: No
I win $100? Or at least brownies?

I too am sitting at a company (well, technically a university) that is running 80.5% Windows, 19% Mac, and 0.5% Linux/Unix. The server room has only three Unix/Linux servers in it; the rest (50+ servers) are Windows along with the 7 or so Mac servers. And I'm counting virtual installs too, not just the physical blades.
So I too fail to see how Windows isn't a "real" operating system.

Just downloaded the beta and spent some time exploring its new features. While I'll need to spend more time on it before I can give an honest evaluation, my out-the-gate impression is rather ho-hum. I find the minimalist UI design, while clean, not very appealing.

This is a pretty common misconception. A service pack is not the sum of updates prior to it. Updates are developed individually with no cross-update regression testing possible. They belong in a different code tree from the one that follows the RTM->sp1->sp2... path. The equivalent fix for an issue in the service pack may or may not use the code from the update. Service packs get full regression testing (why would you have an sp beta if the equivalent fixes are already in the wild) and often include fixes that are not available through any update.

Just FYI

The full version should only interest someone that works at it or someone that's installing windows 7 from scratch. For the rest is easier to just use windows update, this way the file will be way smaller.

Other browser makers are still on a level playing field. The SP is already available to the public and if last minute changes are made to it then it will affect the IE team just the same as the Firefox guys.

But yes, you're probably right. Some retard will sue MSFT. Because, you know, it's Tuesday and that's suin' day.

How do you know that it's Direct2D that will be updates when IE9 is installed. Also updating direct2d does not require a reboot. Since Windows XP that you don't need to reboot when you update directx.

Why I won't get IE9? Because it will load malware 100 times faster.

@Vladislaus: because that's what the patches previous IE9 releases (platform previews) installed along with itself did.

Yes, I do read hotfix descriptions.

Also, DirectX in XP required an update until SP2, in which DirectX 9.0c was embedded: so, in XP ever since 2004, updating DirectX meant adding a few libraries with precompiled shaders.

Here, we're talking about changing a part of Windows 7's video and GUI system, as Direct2D is a primary component of these: changing it requires a reboot.

It is called bundling, a characteristic of monopolistic practice.

Anything done to system files, will require a reboot because you can't alter files while they're in use. Same with kernel updates.

When is Windows 7 SP1 coming out? I think i've missed something here..

This might be touching on a good point. I wonder if SP1 will include the little phone home service that was released as KB971033. I certainly wouldn't that even on a legit copy. I can't see any reason not to include it in the SP.




Righto, thanks for the clarification.




Amazing that only Windows seems to have this problem (and maybe OSX, I don't use it to know). Perhaps it should remove its lock on system files once they're in memory. I've never had to reboot to install an update on Linux, even a kernel update. In the case of the kernel updates I only need to reboot if I want to use the new kernel. I can even delete the running kernel from the disk if I so choose. I've certainly never been bugged over and over that I need to reboot. Maybe Windows has a short memory span and that's why it only lets you postpone a reboot for 4 hours at a time. That's a step up from XP which gave you 30 seconds to save your work before it killed your session.

Yawn
Just another stupid booring WinBloat product that will never be used.

Nothing to see here move along.

microsoft should look for ways to run IE9 on acceptable level not on looks.