In message <2f********************@telcove.net>, Tue, 7 Nov 2006
01:50:01, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.comwrites
>RobG said the following on 11/6/2006 11:43 PM:
>Randy Webb wrote:
>>Maybe with IE7
going live more people will be getting away from IE6 and start using IE7
in the future.
Anyone running Windows XP or later and using Windows Update will
essentially be forced to upgrade to IE 7.
And being forced to upgrade from IE6 to IE7 is a bad thing?
With any forced change, there is a risk of breaking something on which
users are, rightly or wrongly, depending. For example, in Win98 I made
extensive use of an imported 32-bit utility which appears not to be
usable in WinXP (though the 16-bit version still works, many other
improvements and changes were made in the 32-bit one).
The intelligent plan would be for the upgrade to retain IE6 completely
unaltered but to install IE7 beside it (and likewise for all other
upgrades (apart from bug[*]/security fixes?)). The icons and menu
entries could call a small handler program which would enable either or
both versions to be started. OS changes might be needed to permit that.
[*] An unexpected bug fix might be worse in effect than the bug, while
in principle being correct. Consider a continuing set of disc data
"indexed" by week number from VBS DatePart("ww", <DATE>, vbMonday,
vbFirstFourDays) which seems wrong for 3 days per 28 years. Fixing
the bug would change the relationship between Gregorian Date and Week
Number in existing data sets.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Plaintext, quoting : see <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SoRFC1036)