No software developer could reasonably be expected to hold back it's software just for a handfull of people who are stuck with IE6. IE6 is seriously flawed. If you were to give a reason other than the front-end experience for updating to IE7, or IE8, then closing the security loopholes created by IE6 would be it. Software development must move forwards.
And I agree with that. I'm not a Windows developer so I don't know exactly what's underneath IE7+ that Impulse really needs, but I still feel that it's the wrong set of tools to be needed. Especially since many other software do not need them either, I don't expect IE7 to be a necessity. If Impulse is a program that's compatible with Windows XP, and IE6 is default on Windows XP, Impulse should be installable on it. The argument here for me is that Impulse should not need IE, at all. I don't disagree that people should upgrade IE6. I'm a web developer, and want web development to move forward, and IE6 causes loads of pain. I want people to upgrade IE6 if possible.
As for requiring Impulse to install Fences, it is Stardock's chosen method of distribution. That will not change. So the user either has to follow the chosen path for installing Fences, or choose an alternate product from another vendor.
Personally, I don't hate the Impulse requirement and do understand why Stardock want to use it. I've mentioned before that many companies uses something similar. Apple, Google, Adobe all have something similar. I don't complain about that. It's only the Impluse and IE7 requirement I don't like. None of the mentioned companies require IE7 to do their distribution/update functionality. I don't expect Impule to either.
Of course, I, and many, would be happier if Fences didn't need Impulse at all.
Well, I've said all I've said already at this forum and any more will be a waste of others and my time. I bid fairwell and will be checking in for updated Fences and hopefully things get changed.