Forgot your password?
Internet Explorer The Internet

New IE7 Information Announced 620

Posted by Zonk
from the the-web-has-standards? dept.
Brandon writes "Looks like the IE team is trying to catch up to some of the major OS browsers. They have finally added proper PNG support and have fixed numerous CSS bugs. The full post is on The Official IEBlog." From the post: "We're doing a lot more than this in IE7, of course, and we're really excited that the beta release is almost here - we're looking forward to the feedback when we release the first beta of IE7 this summer. Stay tuned for more details as we get closer to beta."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New IE7 Information Announced

Comments Filter:
  • Good. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Maskirovka (255712) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:24PM (#12325512)
    Real competition. Good.
  • Mmmm! Competition! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker (243350) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:26PM (#12325527)
    This is why MS's brand of 'innovation' is bad and real competition is good. Remember when they halted development on IE6 because all the other browsers were 'finally dead'? Now that Firefox is pissing in their hard-won territory, they're actively hunting again. This isn't just good for Microsoft, but it's good for Firefox and good for us too.
  • by cloudkj (685320) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:28PM (#12325548)
    Now that IE7 seems to be (hopefully) on track to abiding by the CSS standards, will it mean less work for web developers in trying to optimize their sites for different browsers? Atleast for me, it's always been annoying checking how a site is rendered in multiple browsers, and trying to ensure compatibility. Hopefully this will ease some of the pain.
  • by havaloc (50551) * on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:29PM (#12325550) Homepage
    The biggest problem with IE in my eyes, if that your install of IE goes bad, you have to reinstall the whole operating system, as opposed to Firefox, where you can uninstall, remove the Firefox directory and start over.
  • by CyberZCat (821635) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:29PM (#12325552)
    Without software like Firefox, their would be no reason for Microsoft to ever make a better product, just look at how long IE's been in version 6! Now that Microsoft's starting to feel their browser dominance threatened they're playing for attention to their own product. Clearly competition benefits the end-user.
  • by rebug (520669) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:30PM (#12325562)
    I guess it's kind of a niche product, eh?
  • competition? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by boring, tired (865401) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:31PM (#12325565) Homepage
    I find it hard to believe that many people will switch back to IE from FireFox (or others) after IE7 comes out. It'll probably get picked up by current IE6 users or corporate IT depts. But it would take some pretty spectacular changes to get me to switch.
  • by NetNifty (796376) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:32PM (#12325575) Homepage
    It wasn't the tabbed browsing, or extensions like adblock, or better standards compliance that I switched to Firefox. It was getting infected by a piece of spyware that used the same security hole I was pissing about with THREE MONTHS BEFOREHAND that I saw it on a security bullitin, and despite being fully up to date on my patches it still infected me.
  • by DeadSea (69598) * on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:33PM (#12325577) Homepage Journal

    I believe that mozilla did implement the proposed standard but put it in their own namespace for now because it isn't a standard yet and they didn't want to be accused of "embrace and extend" the way that Microsoft does.
  • video plugins (Score:5, Insightful)

    by green pizza (159161) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:33PM (#12325578) Homepage
    All of my mozilla plugins required some fiddling to get them working. But you know what? I did the tweaking once, about 10 months ago, and it's still working fine.
  • by Max_Abernethy (750192) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:34PM (#12325585) Homepage
    Even if IE implements everything that the basic Firefox installation has and then some, they still won't have the strong community of extension developers that Mozilla does. Will the next IE have anything like AdBlock [], the web developer toolbar [], or any of the countless little tweak extensions I like? Will I be able to easily change detailed settings like I can with about:config? I doubt it.
  • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CSMastermind (847625) <> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:34PM (#12325586)
    The concept of real competition entering the market is really an illusion. It's not a competition when 89% of the world uses your browser. What microsoft is doing right now is taking steps to make sure it doesn't become a competition. For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. Right now there isn't one. There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about. I applaud them for taking a step in the right direction, but lets not forget that they're still the big dog in the software market. They won the first browser war and they're ready for another.
  • by Nogami_Saeko (466595) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:35PM (#12325590)
    Nothing MS can do to IE will make me change from Firefox at this point.

    Firefox development would have to completely cease before I'd consider switching, and even then I'd investigate alternatives before going back to IE.

    MS messed up, and they're gonna burn for it.

  • by rewinn (647614) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:37PM (#12325608) Homepage

    Not trying to flame M$ but ... most of the reason I junked IE was security issues. Once I made the jump, the other improvements like graphics-handling were nice, but not critical.

    Would putting better graphics on the Titanic's deckchairs have kept anyone on board?

  • by Husgaard (858362) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:40PM (#12325620)
    Microsoft burned quite a few bridges with alot of people and unless they can turn that PR machine around 180 degrees, people will continue to see them as bullies who are looking out for nobody but themselves.
    I think you overestimate the general population of browser users. Most of those who have not switched have nothing else to compare MSIE with, and thus think that MSIE is the best browser that ever existed. And even among those who got burned there is the general problem of short memory (ie. most will forget if they see something acceptable from MS).

    And Microsofts PR machine has a history of successfully turning around 180 degress. Just thinks of the events that lead to the first browser war.

  • by thanasakis (225405) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:44PM (#12325642)
    Well, since almost 90% is still using IE, it is logical to assume that most of the exploits, etc etc are targeted towards it. I personally know of many people that use alternative browsers just because of that. Being part of the minority in that case makes you a somewhat more difficult target (not invincible though). So even if IE7 becomes better than firefox or opera, it won't matter. If it is going to be used be the average user, many people will avoid it because of that .
  • by xRelisH (647464) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:44PM (#12325643)
    I believe this might greatly slow down or even reverse the switching of browsers for a lot of people.

    IE7 might just be "good enough" for people to warrant not switching to Firefox. For people who are new, and perhaps not computer savvy, getting plugins to work with Firefox on Windows is non trivial. This isn't Firefox's fault because development focus for most plugins is still on IE.

    But then again, it might be good news for us. Competition is good, this might ramp up Firefox development and bring more innovations for the rest of us.
  • by drooling-dog (189103) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:51PM (#12325686)
    This isn't just good for Microsoft, but it's good for Firefox and good for us too.

    It doesn't really address the trust issue, however, even though some of the more abusive "features" of IE may be toned down due to competition and heightened user awareness. Microsoft still largely sees its end-user base as property that it owns, and to which it can sell access for commercial or marketing purposes. Firefox, on the other hand, being FOSS, is naturally more user-centric. IE users can thank Firefox for making the Beast a little kinder and gentler, at least for the time being...

  • by symbolic (11752) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:54PM (#12325700)
    You're talking about enlightened consumers. I'm sorry to say that bsed on my own observations, it seems they're a small minority.
  • by Tyrdium (670229) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:56PM (#12325710) Homepage
    Will the average user care about those features, though? I doubt it. As long as MSIE is "good enough"...
  • by falconwolf (725481) <> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:02PM (#12325744)

    If IE7 fixes the rendering bugs but keeps the parsing bugs, we'll have to figure out new bugs to update the IE6-only hacks with.

    That's why web standards should be followed, so you don't end up with spagetti code trying to support different browser versions. Admittedly I don't know everything that goes into creating a standards compliant website. Nor do I work on them other than my own, which I haven't worked in way too long.

    Along the lines of web standards, I liked Jeffery Zeldman's "designing with web standards". I would of liked it if there had been projects to work on in it though. I only learn and retain by doing, if I don't do it I don't retain what I read. At least he includes references to other books some of which have exercises or projects.

  • by rpozz (249652) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:04PM (#12325750)
    Third, could you actually put something in there to block ads and popups, and any other crap that I don't want on my screen. Al least temporairly. Eg NO AD.DOUBBLECLICK.NET !!!!!

    Putting an ad-blocker (pop-ups are fair game) on something as popular as IE would cause very serious disruptions to many, many websites (ie their revenue stream gets completely cut). Not to mention the inevitable lawsuit if was in by default.

    I think the request for it being GPL'd is wishful thinking too. Maybe you need to calm down?
  • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hunterx11 (778171) <hunterx11&gmail,com> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:10PM (#12325781) Homepage Journal
    What microsoft is doing right now is taking steps to make sure it doesn't become a competition.

    I'm pretty sure that improving a product to maintain one's marketshare, even if it is the vast majority, is in fact competition already. There's no reason that Microsoft can't make IE7 good. During the browser wars I used Explorer instead of Netscape because I really did like it better. Certainly they have the hackers and the resources to make the best browser if they want to. If Microsoft really does release a product better than Firefox, it will be sad to see the underdog lose, but really the consumers will win.

  • by NanoGator (522640) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:23PM (#12325845) Homepage Journal
    "In this case, I take it "Anonymous Coward" is a corollary to "Microsoft PR Rep"?"

    There should be an ammendment to Godwin's Law for people who resort to accusing others of working for the bad guy.

    Though I don't believe it's "Goodbye FireFox", you cannot honestly say to me that IE7 doesn't have the potential to disrupt FF's market share.
  • What a company! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:25PM (#12325858)
    IE lay dead for several years before they decided to do anything with it. Competition is the order of the day. Firefox starts taking marketshare and now they add tabs and popup blocking. I believe it was only late last Fall they said their customers weren't asking for those things. I guess a lot has changed since last Fall. Anyway, I hope Firefox keeps stealing 'share.
  • Re: CSS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Malfourmed (633699) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:26PM (#12325860) Homepage
    <tinfoil hat> Notice that they talk about making CSS "more consistent"... but don't mention making IE "standards compliant". </tinfoil hat>


  • by handslikesnakes (659012) <> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:28PM (#12325871)
    The problem is that if the standard changes before it's released then you've got a lot of nonstandard implementations out there with no easy way to distinguish between them. (incidentally, AFAIK -moz-border-radius isn't entirely in line with the proposed recommendation. i still use it, because it's nice)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:37PM (#12325926)
    I would like for it to be possible to tag any file downloaded from IE. The filesystem supports it. Essentially any file downloaded from the net via IE or Email gets the evil bit (remember that RFC? LOL) Anyway .. basically .. if it';s downloaded from IE .. I never want it being able to log keystrokes, auto start, become a service, or mess with internal settings. At least this will give time for the AV's to get updated and kill it off.
  • by Zancarius (414244) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:45PM (#12325968) Homepage Journal
    I am so happy to hear this.

    Let's not jump the gun here. There's been no beta released yet and honestly how long is it going to take for everyone who is using IE6 to adopt IE7? To illustrate my point, let us step back a few years...

    Do you remember the rendering bugs in IE4? What about IE5? Then came IE5.1, 5.5, and 6. The only reason IE6 is now a majority market share browser is because most average computer users are using Windows XP. I dare say, but it really wouldn't surprise me if there are still a number of 5.x installs in use by those who are using Windows 2000. IE7 adoption won't hit a majority of the market until Longhorn is released and even then, how many people are going to be purchasing new computers right away? I remember when XP came out--the number of people still using IE5 two years after the fact was pretty incredible.

    So before anyone gets incredible excited over this, take a moment to realize that the adoption of IE7 (assuming it actually does fix the bugs that have plagued IE before) is at least a year or two away. This isn't going to be an overnight thing--people have to buy new computers if they're not technically inclined and even then a very small minority of the almost-but-not-quite technically inclined will bother to upgrade. So, unless the upgrades are enforced by ISPs (through hand out discs, pre-configured packages, etc.), I encourage web developers to sit this one out.

    The upshot? Don't plan on using PNGs with an alpha channel until 2007 or later. (Unless Longhorn is pushed back again, which means we could be waiting another FIVE years. Ah, and if you didn't detect it, yes that was mild sarcasm.) Remember, even CMSs like Plone still have CSS work arounds for Netscape 4.x--and how old is that?

    Keep the stone tablets, my friends, this new "paper" thing is still buggy.
  • by NanoGator (522640) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:49PM (#12325981) Homepage Journal
    "The only reason I use Firefox and not IE is due to middle-clicking for tabbed browsing. Once MS adds that into IE, I'm going back. All of my video plug-ins work instantly with IE, but not without some tweaking for Firefox. I already switched from Thunderbird to Outlook 2003, so I'm excited to see what bells & whistles MS can put in IE7."

    I'm a little irritated at the overrated mods slapped onto this post. (if you think he's misguided, hit the reply button instead, folks!)

    He has a point. Though FireFox is getting better and better, IE still is still the best supported out there. Sometimes I have to use IE from time to time due to lack of support for the browser I'm using. Admittedly, MS would have to do a hell of a lot of work for me to use IE7 exlusively, but I can certainly understand this guy's point of view.
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:01PM (#12326051) Homepage Journal
    For example text areas on my contact form that have a max-width of six inches stretch the entire way across the page in Internet Explorer

    I'm glad to see Internet Explorer doing something right, even if inadvertently. See, I have this nice 19" monitor, and people who insist on making tiny little pages that fill the top-left corner of my screen make me leave their site as quickly as possible. I spent good money to have a lot of screen real estate - please don't try to take it away from me.

  • by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:10PM (#12326100)
    "FF will have advanced way beyond what IE can hope to achieve from typical corporate development."

    Are you an idiot?

    It took the Mozilla project nearly five years to build what Firefox is today. Hell, Mozilla didn't even surpass IE4 until 2002, five years after IE4's release.

    Microsoft went from not having a browser to having the *best* browser in two years.

    If they have to, they will build a standards-compliant, fast, extensible browser.

    The only question now is whether they will have to. But it already looks like the popularity of Firefox has answered that question.

    The Mozilla Foundation has a lot of great talent. But they don't have 300 full-time developers. Microsoft has plenty of bright people - and plenty of money. Don't sell them short.

    They are complacent, not stupid.
  • by Feztaa (633745) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:10PM (#12326102) Homepage
    This is exactly why I never use those stupid parsing bugs to "trick" IE into rendering the right thing... I'm scared to death that the resulting non-standard "tag soup" will break some obscure browser somewhere -- like IE7.

    What I do is, I design a very simple design in Firefox, then I check it against IE that it renders "nicely" (nicely meaning, if IE renders it wrong, the mistake doesn't affect readability or anything). The idea is, my website designs are "so simple, not even IE could screw them up".

    It really limits the possibilities, but at least the resulting pages are simple & elegant.
  • Re:Acid2 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:15PM (#12326128) Homepage Journal
    The newest IE for Mac doesn't even try to render it. Safari for OS X 10.3.9 does worst than Firefox. Camino and Firefox both yield the exact same results for me.

    I'm curious how they know for sure it looks that way if no browser does it right? I mean, it's possible that they made a mistake in designing the character?
  • by Loonacy (459630) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:34PM (#12326221)
    They're not saying IE won't work without Windows, they're saying Windows won't work without IE.
  • by richard.york (829554) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:40PM (#12326248) Homepage
    IE will (mysteriously) ignore the underscore prefix and parse the second style, while compliant browsers only recognize the min-height style.

    If designers didn't rely on obscure parsing bugs like the one in your post, that wouldn't be a problem. There's nothing elegant or clever about exploiting parsing bugs [] to fix another bug. In an ideal world the browser developers would fix both the parsing bug and whatever other bug the parsing bug is designed to work around. Since we're never gauranteed of this, why take the risk? If you're a professional developer with past projects in the hundreds when IE7 hits the streets, can you then afford to turn back the clock and revisit most of them because you relied on parsing bugs, rather than more concrete methods. (Ahem, conditional comment style sheets []) You'd be completely screwed. If you don't fix your client websites, your reputation will go the way of the dodo. If you do you'll have weeks upon weeks of unpaid work.

    IE may have miserable CSS support, but at least it provides some very clear, built-in work-arounds for its problems. (JScript, behaviors, conditional comments, all that propreitary garbage that we can use to fabricate something resembling standards support []).

  • Re: CSS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Feztaa (633745) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:40PM (#12326249) Homepage
    "more consistent", well, it depends on what they're trying to be consistent with. Consistent with other browsers, that means they're working towards standards compliance. Consisten with past versions of IE, well, that's not so good...
  • Weird. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OwP_Fabricated (717195) <fabricated&gmail,com> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:49PM (#12326285) Homepage
    I'm about as disaster prone as anyone when it comes to X thing not working, but I've never had to mess with any of my browser plugins in Firefox.

    Quicktime, Real (well, Real Alternative), and amazingly, even WMP work perfectly with Firefox for me.

    My pet peeves with Firefox have to do with its memory footprint and how it doesn't render some IE-designed websites correctly. The latter isn't even Firefox's fault really, since it's more standards compliant than IE.

    I only touch IE when I use Windows Update.
  • Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CSMastermind (847625) <> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:53PM (#12326304)
    I must admit, you are spot on. I agree with almost everything you've said, perhaphs I should clarify my poition on the issue.

    There are a few factors that drive people to coutinue using IE. They way I see them they are:

    Fear of change
    I've found that people don't like to mess with something that works even if something else might work better. I've fixed alot of freinds, teachers, and neighbors computers. Sometimes, with good reason, I've installed firefox. Some of the things I've heard a lot: "Here's how I used to get online.....will that still work?". "Can you make Internet Explorer work?"

    Igorance of other choices
    This is what you were touching on I'm sure. The problem I have with your senario is the fact that you assume (like many people do) that spyware and popups are a good reason to switch to another browser. What we as a community have to understand is that changing browsers is really just running from the problem. The reason IE is open to attacks by spyware is because the people who make spyware know that that's what most people use. As soon as people move to another selection, they'll simply target the new browser.

    Lack of need
    I'll hold firm, that as long as people can do what they need to do online they're happy and don't care to mess with what "works". In fact, they're proablly happy that their SP2/google bar now blocks popups.

    Heh, I wouldn't have put this in but belive it or not I know windows fanboys. I also know linux posers (they slap stickers of tux everywhere and talk about how evil redmond is but only use microsoft products and can't name a single linux distro). Some people like windows, and they only use offical windows products.

    What I'm basically trying to say is that for another browser to gain a large market share in the long run, they'll have to offer the users something big. It will have to be usefull to the common user and more than just, "security" and "safty from spyware" because those things will go away once the browser becomes more popular.
  • by Phroggy (441) * <> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:11PM (#12326369) Homepage
    Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!

    Hold the Control key while clicking Refresh. Clicking Refresh without the Control key does reload the data "from the URL", but all the other URLs referenced by the page you're reloading (images, stylesheets, external JavaScript, etc.) may not be (especially if you're behind a caching proxy server). The reason for this is, if you don't need to reload all the bazillion other files and only need to reload the main content of the page you're looking at, clicking Refresh is MUCH faster than it would be if you reloaded everything.

    The equivalent in Netscape/Mozilla-based browsers is Shift-Reload. In IE for Mac, Option-Refresh.

    In Safari for Mac OS X, clicking the Reload button twice in a row does it (the first time reloads the page only; the second time reloads everything). I'm not sure if this sends the same headers Mozilla does with Shift-Reload though, so it may not work perfectly behind a proxy; I know it didn't, and Dave Hyatt told me he'd have somebody look at that, but I'm not sure if it actually works now or not.
  • by insert_username_here (844281) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:16PM (#12326385)

    MS is working under the pretense of being a service to their customers, not a service to industry honchos.

    Funny, that. I always thought they were being a service to their shareholders, and them alone.

    Since Microsoft doesn't actually make any money from IE users, you can't expect them to follow a user-centric point of view. The only way they can make any money from their users (apart from Windows licenses, which they will get regardless of whether or not they use IE or another browser, or even switch to Linux after buying a new PC with Windows pre-installed) is from advertising revenue on sites like MSN.

    Hence, allowing ads is the only way they can perform a service for the shareholders. Oh well, that's why I use Firefox instead.

  • by Max_Abernethy (750192) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:16PM (#12326386) Homepage
    I won't deny that they have the capability to add those kinds of features, but I do think that there isn't any way to get the same potential feature set Firefox has without bloat/constant updates specific to what a given user wants without an extension system. I don't think MS will add one, and if they do it won't get the support that Firefox's has, for the same reason there isn't the abundance of skins for WMP that exists for Winamp.

    In any case, there's a lot of features that I think Microsoft won't implement rather than can't. I'd be surprised to see them add anything like AdBlocker, since they run websites like hotmail that make their money from ads. And can you really see them integrating BugMeNot [] into their browser? Seems pretty unlikely to me.
  • Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeadScreenSky (666442) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:18PM (#12326394)
    If Microsoft really does release a product better than Firefox, it will be sad to see the underdog lose, but really the consumers will win.

    How will consumers win when MS promptly stops all development of IE once they have won the 'second browser war'?

    A win for consumers is if multiple browsers prosper. The market is actually pretty close to this point right now - let's hope it stays that way!
  • Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:21PM (#12326405)
    The "first browser war" ended because Netscape went under. Firefox is, for the purpose of this argument, public domain. They will have to fight this browser war until IE greatly exceeds Firefox in quality, they find a lock-in strategy, or the world moves on from the web.
  • by Trepalium (109107) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:42PM (#12326528)
    No, IE isn't integrated into the kernel, but it IS deeply integrated into the shell. IE problems can prevent you from using the start menu, folder windows, control panel, or anything else that depends on MSHTML.DLL, SHDOCVW.DLL, or SHELL32.DLL. I have seen very many machines so infested with spyware that simply displaying the desktop is enough to bring the machine to it's knees.
  • Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fwonkas (11539) <joe@flapp[ ] ['ing' in gap]> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:54PM (#12326591) Homepage
    Listen, I'm a *nix and OS X geek all the way, but I think you're going about this backwards. As far as I'm concerned, what we need are browsers that consistently and accurately render XHTML, CSS, etc. While I'm all gung-ho about Firefox, Mozilla and Safari, all I really care about is whether I can write pages and style-sheets that validate and look relatively correct. As far as I can tell, Firefox (in particular) is responsible for IE's developers getting off their asses. If or when IE starts rendering valid pages correctly, I know I'll stop bitching. Or at least bitch less. At least this browser war seems to be revolving around the support of standards.
  • by Phroggy (441) * <> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @11:01PM (#12326626) Homepage
    That's why web standards should be followed, so you don't end up with spagetti code trying to support different browser versions.

    Most of the time, when I hack my way around browser bugs, I do it by taking standards-compliant HTML that validates at but looks wrong in a particular browser, and changing it into different standards-compliant HTML that still validates but looks the way I want.

    Please don't tell web designers to "just follow the standards". It's REALLY not that simple.
  • There is only one update they need to do to IE, and they will never do it.

    They need to abandon zones, put the application in charge of the security of a window, and NEVER let a window open, launch, link to, or reference a "more trusted" object than the one the link, embedded object, what have you is referenced from.

    That means IE would be a hard sandbox. If you want to use ActiveX components that aren't sandboxed, you need to run a separate program.

    Yes, that means that Windows Update would need to be a separate application shell around the HTML control. That's a teeny tiny problem compared to these sneaky damn zones.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23, 2005 @11:27PM (#12326728)
    Sorry, MS. You've had YEARS to address these issues. I've switched, and won't be coming back. You should have listened to your users before now. And no, I don't really care about your newest "beta".
  • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shaitand (626655) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @11:38PM (#12326756) Journal
    "The reason IE is open to attacks by spyware is because the people who make spyware know that that's what most people use. As soon as people move to another selection, they'll simply target the new browser."

    I would disagree with this. There are problems to be found in Firefox and other new browsers to be sure. The way things look it will be Firefox if anything that ends up with significant market share. To date, almost every Firefox vulnerability has still been related to the broken windows zone-based security model (read IE security model). The two big issues are ActiveX and that model. I believe that without ActiveX and that security model to ride on, NO BROWSER would ever carry the sort of spyware overhead we see today again. That includes IE, but I do not see Microsoft dropping their biggest market lockin 'features'.

    I think Firefox will always be safe from spyware when compared to any browser with ActiveX. However, spyware was only one thing I mentioned. Everything else mentioned was a feature.

    Big features from a user perspective.

    -Spyware free weather status(any idea how many weatherbuggers there are?)

    -Popup blocking that works (IE popup blocking does not 'work', largely thanks to popups launched by spyware.)

    -Flashblocking (flash ads are notoriously annoying)

    -Tabbed browsing. After browsing a link heavy site for two days with tabbed browsing, nobody will ever use a browser without this again.

    Honestly I believe Favortism is the next biggest problem. The truth is that end users do NOT install functional software on their computers (although they will install cute little holiday related crap that breaks functional setups). Techs install software on their computers. If the local tech shop is still using IE, all of their customers will be using IE.

    I once worked for a shop with a Microsoft bias. We were slammed with spyware problems and when doing a spyware cleanup I would routinely install firefox with a standard set of extensions. I showed people how to "open this page in IE" if they needed to and off they went.

    If someone else did work for the user after that point I would get a call everytime regardless of the problem. The good ol' boy Microsoft techs would claim they couldn't work on these funky 'firething' setups. This included the boss. Finally I just gave up.
  • by Bulk Tape Eraser (868397) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @11:43PM (#12326766)
    Hell, IE7 isn't even supported on Windows 2000.
  • by DavidD_CA (750156) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @12:11AM (#12326866) Homepage
    First quit stuffing this proprietary crap down my throat, at least have the decency to put it under the GPL.

    Yeah, like that will happen. Might as well ask for the Windows source code while you're at it.

    Second, please don't default load to the msn page, WTF.

    You do realize that Microsoft gets revenue from MSN Search, don't you? And is it really that hard to change your default?

    Third, could you actually put something in there to block ads and popups.

    Have you not heard of this new SP2 thing? Try it out. Blocks popups. As for ads, if they did that they'd piss off every web advertiser in existance and probably get class-action sued.

    Fourth, last time I looked default IE has over ONE GIG of cache in the settings.

    Tools, Options, Settings. Change it yourself.

    Fifth, could you actually make it work with java?

    Every Java app I've tried works. Gotta download the Java plug-in first. Blame Sun and their lawsuit for that.

    Sixth, don't renember all my crap - I want privacy and security - and when I close the browser I want the option to not only take out the cache, cookies, and history of web sites visited, but also want it to TRUELY ERASE IT.

    Paranoid much? There are probably a dozen third-party apps that do this already.

    Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!

    Hold down Control when you hit F5 or press reload.

    Eigth, can't you natively render PDF's. Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap?

    I have a suspicion that Adobe would take issue having PDF rendering part of IE without any Adobe app. As for Reader bloat-ware, go bark up Adobe's tree.

    Ninth, please put something in there that makes it easy for me to "steal" (GASP!!!) someone's "intellectual property".

    Uh huh. Why not just add a "warez" button which takes you right to your favorite IRC channel too?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 24, 2005 @01:51AM (#12327224)
    > The latest trend is to use Javascript ... never rely on bugs to implement features

    Except that nearly every javascript useragent detector makes huge implementation-specific assumptions that are almost certain to break when new browsers come out. They're one big bug waiting to happen.
  • by xgamer04 (248962) <> on Sunday April 24, 2005 @02:32AM (#12327352)
    Sometimes I have to use IE from time to time due to lack of support for the browser I'm using.

    This is why I exclusively use a non-IE browser (and the fact that I'm in Linux most of the time, but I digress...). Getting a stranglehold on the web and forcing people to use proprietary applications to exchange information is like adding new words and conventions to a language and charging people to use them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 24, 2005 @02:54AM (#12327430)
    You still need tables, but with CSS you can use them for what they were actually made for (displaying formatted data) and not for layout. If you need to represent data in a table use a table. If you need to handle page layout use CSS.
  • by arevos (659374) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @04:26AM (#12327698) Homepage
    Doesn't Microsoft realize they could easily make the end-all browser that'll end up running on almost every palmtop, cell phone, set-top-box, automobile, and personal computer?
    To what end? They make no money off IE. A cross-platform IE would just give people more reason to switch away from Windows. And Windows does make Microsoft money.
  • by DrXym (126579) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @05:05AM (#12327776)
    But if the standard is actually a draft and subject to change, how can they possibly implement it and guarantee compatibility? That's exactly the kind of mess that IE got itself in with CSS, XSLT and DOM where they ploughed ahead when the draft hadn't been finalised and consequently became non-standard in the process.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 24, 2005 @05:25AM (#12327824)
    In order for it to take away FF's marketshare it would have to be unsucky enough for people running windows and Firefox to switch back to ie.

    No, it merely has to be unsucky enough for people to not switch to Firefox next time they get a new computer (or probably if they upgrade to Longhorn).

    You have a very short term perspective. Have you considered a career in banking?
  • by Mycroft_VIII (572950) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @06:14AM (#12327909) Journal
    I dunno, from here it looks like alot of designers have problems designing a site that will render if you don't use the exact software and monitor and settings they used.
    I've seen sites that can't even survive re-sizeing the font. Slashdot won't for example fit width wise when the font is enlarged (at least not under FF .8 through 1.0). And many sites lock the font size under IE and the collum widths are fixed by pixel count or inches or some other stupid absolute measurement without any need, usually such that the sum of the collum widths is NOT a typical monitor width (I've seen sites that are to wide for 800x600 and too narrow for 1024x768?!?!?).
    I really wish people would stop over fixing the layout of thier sites so they could be view without exactly matching the designers preferences, and wierd ideas of proper page width (I'm assuming whatever fits inside the toolbars of his design tool).
    Used to be web pages were viewable because almost all markup was proportional, not absolute, and it didn't matter that much what browser you were using or resolution.

  • by Foofoobar (318279) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @12:30PM (#12329523)
    But this is changing, it is the latest meme. Spreading through media, TV, radio, word of mouth. I have talked to technophobes who have switched merely because a friend did. I have even met a few moms who did.

    Internet cafe's are disabling IE, businesses are switching to Firefox internally. It is spreading and people are waking up to the fact that there ARE choices.

    And once they realize that there is another choice for their browser, they will also begin to wonder if there are other choices for their other products like the OS, Office apps, media players, etc.

    Once the browser begins to fall (as it already has), people become aware that there are choices and once they are aware that there are choices, they will begin to make them.
  • by XeRXeS-TCN (788834) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @12:44PM (#12329624)
    No offense to the IE7 development team, but as usual this just seems like the standard Microsoft ploy.

    They stopped all IE development and let the browser utterly stagnate because they had no real competition; there were many complaints about the insecurity of ActiveX, the refusal to follow the w3c standards, the refusal to provide proper PNG alpha support, and the amount of work involved in trying to get sites rendering the same in IE as they did in pretty much any other browser around.

    Microsoft have had *years* to address these issues, and selectively chose to do absolutely nothing about them, because they couldn't care less about the customer, just about stifling competition and making money. (Granted at engineer level you may well have people taking offense at the suggestion that they don't want to make a better product for their customers, but that clearly isn't the corporate policy.)

    Now all of a sudden along comes Firefox, which provides an amazing base, and doesn't have any of the IE issues. Microsoft have some competition in the first time in a while, and suddenly they're back to how trumpeting about how wonderful they are, and how they're implementing all these brilliant new features, like popup blocking, better (but still not perfect) CSS compliance, proper PNG alpha support, and all the other things that people have been complaining about for years, and the things that other browsers have had since day one.

    Sorry Microsoft, but I find your claims insincere. You had years to implement this stuff, but you didn't bother your ass to help your customers out until you had a whiff of competition come your way. I'll stick with FireFox.

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.