Should I install IE10?

[teckneeculler]

I'm an IT guy running W7 Ultimate 64bit in a January 2016-built system.

My main browser is Firefox, but I use IE9 occasionally.

However, just lately IE9 has been a little glitchy so I wondered if I should install IE10.

I'm not sure if 10 is still downloadable, but I have an archived copy that I grabbed in October 2015 (145MB) that I assume will work.

Comments?

PS: In case anyone is wondering, I don't use Windows Updates. I set up the system in January this year with only the stuff I wanted, then turned off updating.

 

[LMiller7]

Rather than IE10 I would recommend IE11 unless you have a compelling reason to do otherwise. Older versions are no longer supported.

 

[teckneeculler]

Thanks, LMiller7. As I said, I'm currently running IE9. Is the 11 GUI similar to 9? Or radically different?

 

[LMiller7]

All recent versions of IE look much the same.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Load ie10 then 11 if you don't like either roll back one version although as stated only ie11 is supported.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2847882

 

[Eric3742]

@teckneeculler
Do as what ThrashZone recommend.
Before install ie10, do a create system restore point.
Before next install ie11, do create a system restore point.

In case somehow & unknowning, something is install along the way.

Hi,
Load ie10 then 11 if you don't like either roll back one version although as stated only ie11 is supported.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2847882

 

[MoxieMomma]

Hi:

I agree with the advice already offered, especially about setting restore points and the fact that neither IE9 nor IE10 is supported (under Win7).
You ought to be able to install IE11 directly from the offline installer or via WU, if the system requirements are met.

Personally, I would not bother installing IE10 -- you'll still need to go to the trouble to upgrade to IE11.
Since neither IE9 nor IE10 is supported under Win7, you'll have trouble with many websites and, of course, there is the underlying security vulnerability of outdated IE (whether or not you use it as primary browser).

Re: "upgrade", if you have had Windows update disabled on this box, then you may very well be missing important prerequisites. If so, neither IE10 nor IE11 will install on this system until those prerequisites are installed. See here:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2820688

Please post back and let us know how it goes.

Thanks,
MM

 

[teckneeculler]

Thanks, ThrashZone and Eric3742.

MoxieMomma, thanks for the link. The installation of 'prerequisites' is exactly the sort of thing I was expecting and trying to avoid. I don't now, and haven't for 25 years, trust Microsoft and their machinations. Which is partly why I never have Updates turned on, either on my own computers or the many I've built for others.
Anyway, I'll create a few backups and SRP's and check out every 'prerequisite' update individually.
TBH, I wouldn't bother dropping IE9, because I probably only use it around a dozen times a year, but it's been playing up recently, so I've got to do something about it.

 

[MoxieMomma]

Hi:

No love lost between Redmond and me, especially when it comes to updating.

Having said that, Windows Updates (especially the SECURITY patches) are a fact of life with Windows.

If one does not update at all, then it's like locking one's front door, but leaving all the windows and rear doors open. Performance and stability issues aside, the system is extremely vulnerable.

Of course, it's entirely up to you.
But perhaps you might want to consider moving to Linux.

Good luck,
MM

P.S. I hope that, as an "IT guy", you do not encourage your customers to configure their systems to disable Windows Update or to run insecure browsers?

 

[teckneeculler]

Linux? Um...no.

And your hopes were in vain

For the record, none of my customers has ever had a computer problem due to a lack of updates. The whole Windows Updates thing is a big con, IMHO.

It's like having a one-way window in your living room with every MS employee outside peering in. Not only that, but being able to magically reach in through the glass and break your china.

Having said that, my practice is, when building a new system, to install the core OS and then selectively install JUST the updates (from the MS Catalog site, mostly) that I consider essential, useful or innocuous.

And THEN, I disable WUPs.

Never had a problem. Except, LOL, my recent experience with my misbehaving IE9

 

[Eric3742]

Hi:

No love lost between Redmond and me, especially when it comes to updating.

Having said that, Windows Updates (especially the SECURITY patches) are a fact of life with Windows.

If one does not update at all, then it's like locking one's front door, but leaving all the windows and rear doors open. Performance and stability issues aside, the system is extremely vulnerable.

Of course, it's entirely up to you.
But perhaps you might want to consider moving to Linux.

Good luck,
MM

P.S. I hope that, as an "IT guy", you do not encourage your customers to configure their systems to disable Windows Update or to run insecure browsers?

Just ranting.
I do agree with you on this point for using the recommended option.
As in the past, i chose to use manual, but there are problems, such as to chose which update is important or not.
Finally decide for Auto Update as it update on the "SECURITY patches" and nothing else.
Since then my Windows is smooth without any issue.
The issue is that most "IT guy" and those do not have the faith, this is where the problems on manual updates come in, such as problem in updating manually, as most issues in this forum.

This is where the fun begin.
Many just like this "IT guy" (no offense, with apology) did not have trust in using Auto update option;
BUT still using IE.
I also do not like IE, hence i am using Google Chrome, without any issue and or conflict.

IE 11 is still very active, meaning more prefer IE11 and any previous all versions.
Nobody mention IE10 and i wonder why.???

 

[MoxieMomma]

Hi:

OP's original question was about updating from one outdated, insecure version of IE to another.
The consensus seems to be that -- for security, if for no other reason -- it would be better to update to IE11.
When the OP disclosed that he has disabled WU, it raised the likelihood that an IE 11 upgrade might fail, for lack of necessary prerequisites.

So, I merely provided a few suggestions to facilitate the upgrade.
IE integrates deep into the OS and 3rd-party applications use it, as well, even if the user does not use IE as a primary browser (the issues he reports with its' "acting up" probably relate to the fact that many web sites no longer support IE9 or IE10).

When the OP reiterated his discomfort with all things related to WU because of suspected MS privacy issues, I merely pointed him to an alternative, open-source OS free of any MS privacy concerns. Yes, Linux has updates, too. But the OP's concern seems center on MS privacy, not on "updates" per se.

It's entirely up to the OP, as always.

From a safety and security standpoint, upgrading to IE11 (and installing at least all the missing security patches for Windows and Office) seems like an obvious choice.
Finally, it seems unwise/unsafe for a computer professional to advise basic customers or to configure their systems to put off security patches, upgrades to supported browsers, etc.

Just my two cents and worth less.

Cheers,
MM

 

[DavidE]

Ah, I'll give that a try and see if it makes any difference.

I also periodically use Secunia PSI to check security issues.
Anyone who has doesn't have the latest IE updates installed could try it and see what it reports.
My systems are up to date, so i don't get a warning for IE or any Windows security problems.

 

[teckneeculler]

There's little point in discussing Windows Updates or No Windows Updates any further. A lot of folk are happy to allow MS to rule their computing lives, so if they're content with that, there's no argument. There's little else we can aspire to except peace of mind in our short sojourn here, and we all have different ways of achieving that.

A couple of quick points: In the 25 - 30 years I've been building systems for myself, I've never been disadvantaged in anything but the most minor way by having WUPs turned off. There's a mindset in computing, and most of our culture probably, that if it's not the 'latest', it's not worth having. It's a useful state of affairs for manufacturers, because their customers are already preconditioned to buy a new model of just about anything. Great for business.

Case in point: I do quite a bit of writing, in one way or another. I could easily use a later version of MS Word - I have a 2013 Office disc lying about somewhere that I was given. But I don't use it. Why? Because it has nothing to offer me when I write that I can't get from Word 2003. Actually, even that fairly basic word processor is over-endowed for my requirements, so I've customized the single Taskbar (right-click the Menubar -Customize) comprehensively to only offer around 20 options. It works perfectly, with no shortcomings.
More recent versions of Word not only have one Taskbar (or 'Ribbon') but around three of four. All chock-full of nice options.

What I'm saying is that computing doesn't need to be more complicated than absolutely necessary. More efficient, yes. But not cluttered. IMHO, the main reason that systems get bigger and more stuffed with rubbish (and more in need of constant updates and tweaks), is that the main feedback MS gets from their beta versions originate from geeks and supergeeks - the type of users that spend most of their lives hunched over their screens in darkened rooms, picking operating systems apart and obssessing over obscure byte-sized sections of the OS. Consequently, MS seems to assume that this small group of people represent main-stream users, when in fact, they do not.

However, MS has never made money out of fixing old systems. It either builds and promotes new OS's or heads for the wall.

Having said all that, if it wasn't for the forced updates, I might try W10. I've installed it for a few customers and it's not too bad. However, there's absolutely no way I'll give MS the opportunity to plonk any geek-inspired junk that it chooses into my system. If I can't select it myself, I don't want it.

BTW, in case anyone is curious, the incident that kicked off my quest for a better behaved Internet Explorer, was that I started getting messages suggesting that I needed 'ieframe.dll', which I patently do not. So, because there are no bugs in my system (due to comprehensive antimalware apps) I figured the simplest solution might be to update IE.

 

[Layback Bear]

Hi:

OP's original question was about updating from one outdated, insecure version of IE to another.
The consensus seems to be that -- for security, if for no other reason -- it would be better to update to IE11.
When the OP disclosed that he has disabled WU, it raised the likelihood that an IE 11 upgrade might fail, for lack of necessary prerequisites.

So, I merely provided a few suggestions to facilitate the upgrade.
IE integrates deep into the OS and 3rd-party applications use it, as well, even if the user does not use IE as a primary browser (the issues he reports with its' "acting up" probably relate to the fact that many web sites no longer support IE9 or IE10).

When the OP reiterated his discomfort with all things related to WU because of suspected MS privacy issues, I merely pointed him to an alternative, open-source OS free of any MS privacy concerns. Yes, Linux has updates, too. But the OP's concern seems center on MS privacy, not on "updates" per se.

It's entirely up to the OP, as always.

From a safety and security standpoint, upgrading to IE11 (and installing at least all the missing security patches for Windows and Office) seems like an obvious choice.
Finally, it seems unwise/unsafe for a computer professional to advise basic customers or to configure their systems to put off security patches, upgrades to supported browsers, etc.

Just my two cents and worth less.

Cheers,
MM

Of course one can choose what I.E. they desire. I would suggest choosing the I.E. with the most security, and that would be I.E. 11.

 

[teckneeculler]

A quick heads-up:

I downloaded IE11, but, not wanting to get into a possibly drawn-out install, should 'prerequisites' prove to be an issue, I took the simplest course and installed IE10.

It works fine and the GUI looks identical to IE9, so it'll do for now. If there are any more issues, I'll install IE11 then.

Cheers, all.

 

[Holmes177]

A quick heads-up:

I downloaded IE11, but, not wanting to get into a possibly drawn-out install, should 'prerequisites' prove to be an issue, I took the simplest course and installed IE10.

It works fine and the GUI looks identical to IE9, so it'll do for now. If there are any more issues, I'll install IE11 then.

Cheers, all.

I have a HP laptop, W7 HP, 64 bit, Intel I5 that didn't like IE11. Rolled back to 10 & it was fine. Then reinstalled IE11 and paid close attention to updates. Three MS updates to IE11 caused IE11 to freeze on certain sites. After uninstalling & hiding each of these updates, as they arrived & I had to deal with them, I am using Chrome for most browsing. IE10 will be fine and I certainly wouldn't be concerned with security risks. Vista users are still using IE9.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
IMHO ie10 was the best version = I miss it