Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by DeadSea (69598) * on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:22PM (#12325505) Homepage Journal

    My pet peeves with IE that make my life harder when I write web pages:

    Sounds like they are fixing the .pngs for sure. I hope the two css tweaks that I want make it in.

    • by rebug (520669) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:26PM (#12325525)
      Instead of implementing a vendor-specific tag, why not support the proposed CSS3 border-radius property? [w3.org]
    • min-width and hacks (Score:5, Informative)

      by UnConeD (576155) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:32PM (#12325573)
      Internet explorer actually treats width and height as min-width and min-height. Very annoying if you don't want it, but you can use it like this:

      select {
      min-height: 100px;
      _height: 100px;
      }

      IE will (mysteriously) ignore the underscore prefix and parse the second style, while compliant browsers only recognize the min-height style.

      This shows that the important question is in fact not "how many CSS bugs will IE7 fix?" but "how many CSS bugs will IE7 keep?". These bugs are currently needed to make IE6 behave properly. 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.

      • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000&yahoo,com> 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.

        Falcon
        • by Phroggy (441) * <{moc.yggorhp} {ta} {3todhsals}> 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 validator.w3.org 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.
      • 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.
        • by Sentry21 (8183) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @11:04PM (#12326635) Journal
          The worst is that web designers used specific parsing bugs in IE5 to trick it into rendering things the way it's supposed to. IE6 then went ahead and fixed the parsing bugs (so the trick doesn't work) without fixing exactly what it was that the trick was needed for in the first place.

          The latest trend is to use Javascript to set the styles, which (imho) is a much better idea - never rely on bugs to implement features.
      • 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 [quirksmode.org] 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 [microsoft.com]) 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 [edwards.name]).

      • You don't really need hacks to make IE display right, just an IE specific css file
        <!--[if IE]>
        <style type="text/css">
        @import url("IE.css");
        </style>
        <![endif]-->
    • 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>

      ;-)

      • Re: CSS (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Feztaa (633745)
        "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...
    • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> 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.

    • Background Color (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nurgled (63197)

      IE blends PNG images with an alpha channel against their default background color. When there is no default, it uses one of the system colors that happens to be the default for GDI surfaces.

      You can give IE a better (but still solid) color to blend against by having pngcrush write in a bKGD chunk with the desired color. This doesn't help you if you are trying to blend against a texture, but it's handy if, as in your case, the image is blended against a solid background color anyway.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:23PM (#12325509)
    Welcome to the twenty-first century Microsoft. I guess someone will have to update this [wikipedia.org] page. Will IE7 have a central repository for extentions/plugins?
  • by SpecialAgentXXX (623692) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:24PM (#12325515)
    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.
    • Then I probably shouldn't tell you about Maxthon [maxthon.com] or any of the other IE wrappers that add tabs and retain all the ActiveX holes.

    • 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.
    • All my porn, er, video plug-ins work fine in Firefox.
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • Weird. (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.
  • 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 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 stirlingneg (832272) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:26PM (#12325529)
    are people still using that old browser?
  • by Foofoobar (318279) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:27PM (#12325541)
    Fixing those bugs will not show customers that their product is good. People now have the name Microsoft associated with insecurity. It took them only 8 years to update their browser and since then people have been screaming for support, better features, etc.

    No... 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.

    Even if IE7 turns out to be the best product ever created by mortal man, people will immediately assume it sux (minus MS zealots of course).

    They need to reinvent themselves in the eyes of the consumer, the business and world.
    • 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.

    • Remember winsock? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xtal (49134) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:42PM (#12325632)

      No... 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.


      They got caught with their pants down in 1993-4 with the internet and TCPIP revolution, too. "It's good enough" certainly does sound framiliar. This was a multibillion dollar company that somehow MISSED THE WHOLE INTERNET THING. They pulled that one off and came out of it smelling like roses.

      They got caught with their pants down AGAIN in 1997 with the widespread acceptance of Java and the beginnings of true cross-platform computing. They pulled turning that event into a stillbirth and came out of it smelling like roses.

      So, here we are in 2005, and they've been caught again with a stagnant product in IE. Not just caught, but being actively made to look stupid by comparison by the third party browsers, and on top of all this, they have OSX and Apple breathing down their necks. I think the wake-up call has been heard.

      I'm not a betting man, but I know where I'd be putting my dollars.
      • Re:Remember winsock? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jesterzog (189797) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:41PM (#12326253) Homepage Journal

        This was a multibillion dollar company that somehow MISSED THE WHOLE INTERNET THING.

        I'm not sure if it's quite correct to say they missed the Internet... it's more like they underestimated it and made a bad decision about dealing with it. Instead of embracing the open-ness of the Internet, Microsoft decided to try and undermine and compete with the Internet by effectively creating its own, Microsoft controlled Internet.

        Remember The Microsoft Network? At the time, Microsoft managed to make some exclusive deals with certain entities (the official Star Trek franchise was the one that comes to mind), so that they would only provide online content on the Microsoft Network and nowhere else, forcing people to pay money to Microsoft if they wanted access.

    • You're talking about enlightened consumers. I'm sorry to say that bsed on my own observations, it seems they're a small minority.
    • > Even if IE7 turns out to be the best product
      > ever created by mortal man, people will
      > immediately assume it sux (minus MS zealots of
      > course).

      If MSIE 7 will be better product I'll use it. What defines better product that it is better for me. So if it is better why I need to use worse? But it will not happen. ;) My definition of good product:

      1. It actually works.
      2. It actually works on my system (X11 and so on).
      3. It is actually better.
      4. It (as I am developer) is easy to develop against.

      I
  • 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.
    • Erm. If you're using any modern OS, all you should need to do is to recreate your user profile to fix any trashed application weather or not it's part of the OS.

      The guts of the browser should never be touched by the operating system just like the system files. User preferences are stored in the user folder.

      Of course, IE just like the rest of windows is vulnerable to various permission-related bugs in which the core guts CAN get screwed up by an errant program -- of course, this is true of any part of th
  • 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.
  • shall (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:29PM (#12325555) Journal
    So shall weall complain active X is still included when they ask for feed back? We could slashdot them with "feedback".
  • 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 Construct X (582731) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:31PM (#12325567)
    "Supporting exciting new standards in which life improving spyware bring you more features than ever before!" *sulks* I tried.
    • by RichM (754883) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:35PM (#12325916) Homepage
      In my experience IE7 will transform wireless relationships, repurpose frictionless models, harness visionary infomediaries and furthermore iterate end-to-end experiences.

      I think I speak for us all when I say that we can look forward to an exciting new e-technology era where we can deploy plug-and-play e-services and engage mission-critical e-commerce at the click of a button, which will serve to enhance scalable e-business and orchestrate bleeding-edge content.

      -- This post was brought to you by the Web Economy Bullshit Generator [dack.com] ;)
  • 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 [mozdev.org], the web developer toolbar [chrispederick.com], 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.
  • by wyldeone (785673) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:35PM (#12325593) Homepage Journal

    They have finally added proper PNG support

    I am so happy to hear this. In this IE6 world a webdesigner cannot use transparent pngs, because roughly 90% of your viewership's browser would not render them correctly. One was then forced to either use transparent gifs (which only support 2 level of transparency, i.e., on or off) or else try to fake it (which is difficult because IE and Gecko don't always render colors the same.) Hopefully they'll finally implement some more CSS2, like allowing the hover pseudo class to be used with any object, rather than just links. Oh, and perhaps they could finally fix the box model.

    • by mmusson (753678) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:35PM (#12325910)

      In this IE6 world a webdesigner cannot use transparent pngs.

      This is not completely true. PNGs with 8-bit alpha channels render correctly. Google maps uses this trick to create the push pin drop shadow.

      • by medeii (472309) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:32PM (#12326209)

        Your assertion is misleading.

        Firefox, Opera, Safari, and other "niche" browsers render PNGs correctly, with the use of the 8-bit alpha channel. IE6, on the other hand, ONLY recognizes boolean transparency in PNGs -- in other words, it treats them like GIFs. It is possible to force IE5+ to recognize the full alpha channel, but only with the use of a Direct3D filter command.

        • by _xeno_ (155264) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @01:22AM (#12327124) Homepage Journal

          It is possible to force IE5+ to recognize the full alpha channel, but only with the use of a Direct3D filter command.

          It's better (well, worse, actually) than that. You can add a Direct3D filter command to display a transparent PNG on top of an image.

          So, for example, an image with transparency in Firefox, Opera, and Safari is simply:

          <img src="myTransparentImage.png">

          To make IE work, you cannot simply add an attribute or anything simply like that. Because if you do, your transparent image will display behind the Direct3D filter applied over the image, without transparency. So instead you must use:

          <img src="infamousTransparentGif.gif" style="width: 32px; height: 32px; filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader (src='myTransparentImage.png');">

          (Not sure if the above really works due to spaces added to make it format better, but you get the idea.)

          Again, this means you can can't simply add the IE-specific "code" to make the image transparency work. Instead you must jump through hoops to get it to display as properly, since you can either make it work in IE (by displaying a completely transparent image with the PNG image draw over that) or work in other browsers. Ultimately, this means either using IE's conditional comments or a JavaScript based solution so that you give the right code to the right browser.

          Usually with special code to catch when it's really Opera and not Opera pretending to be IE so you don't screw that up too...

          Note that you must provide the width and height of the transparent image you want to display in Internet Explorer, otherwise IE will scale it to whatever size the transparent image you use underneath. Plus, strictly speaking, the above <img> tags aren't HTML compliant, because I left out the ALT attributes.

  • 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 RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:56PM (#12326023)
      "most of the reason I junked IE was security issues"

      What did you switch to? Mozilla?

      I don't think that Mozilla is exactly a model for security. At my company, we've had to deploy three complete updates since the release of Firefox 1.0.

      It's clearly not "perfect".

      Of course, IE is far from a model citizen, but IE6-SP2 is much better, and *security* is the focus of IE7 according to the developers.

      I think that Microsoft can build a competitive browser. They just need an incentive to do so.

      Now they have that incentive. Firefox has given it to them.

      I, for one, welcome the new browser wars.
  • by green pizza (159161) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:39PM (#12325615) Homepage
    IIRC, the *original* release of IE was based heavily on Mosaic. This always struck me as kind of funny, since even Netscape 0.9 was faster and had more features than any version of Mosaic 2.x.

    At any rate, Microsoft should put their resources into making one killer browser. Make it as lightweight as Netscape 2.0 was, yet support the latest CSS kung-fu. Implement all of the latest widgets and hoohaws as plugins so I can remove ActiveX support if I want. And above all, make it cross platform. Use a library like FLTK so it can be used just about anywhere.

    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?

    • 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.
  • Thank God! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by paragonc (813536) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:42PM (#12325631)
    Seeing as how i develope on a Mac all my sites seem to render perfectly in Safari - Firefox - Mozilla - and Opera. It usually takes me about a day to crank out a page. Then i have to leave myself 2 days to make that page compatable with IE 5 - 5.5 - and 6 with assorted javascript hacks and what not - even though IE 7 sounds like it might be a nice fix to many of my CSS issues, it's still gonna take years before everyone is running IE 7. I've actually opted into giving my clients a price cut if they just let me throw in a sniffer that excludes IE. + i can sell them on the fact that they are actually helping their clients by making them drop support for an awful product :)
  • 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.
  • CSS Problems (Score:3, Informative)

    by ArAgost (853804) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:48PM (#12325665) Homepage
    They may have solved the consistency problems, but the standards supports is in great part unimplemented. IE is still far behind its biggest competitors as can be seen easily by doing a quick comparison [chipx86.com]. The user might not care, but the developer does.
  • by argoff (142580) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:50PM (#12325684)
    First quit stuffing this proprietary crap down my throat, at least have the decency to put it under the GPL.

    Second, please don't default load to the msn page, WTF, google.com would be much nicer.

    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 !!!!!

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

    Fifth, could you actually make it work with java????? .... no I mean the real java from Sun. And the same with the "real" javascript too now that I'm thinking about it.

    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 ... eg ... overwrite the blocks on the hard drive with random data. Get it!

    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!!!

    Eigth, can't you natively render PDF's. Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap???? ... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it.

    Ninth, please put something in there that makes it easy for me to "steal" (GASP!!!) someone's "intellectual property". Yeah I know that's hideous to you, but that's what I want so get with it or get over it and get lost.

    Actually, forget this, mozilla's not perfict, but at least it's going in the right directions.
    • 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 doubleclick.net was in by default.

      I think the request for it being GPL'd is wishful thinking too. Maybe you need to calm down?
      • 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 doubleclick.net was in by default.

        Well, that's sorta the whole point though. MS is working under the pretense of being a service to their customers, not a service to industry honchos. If that's what they really want, then fine lets force them to be honest about it.

        I think the requ

      • Plus, say goodbye to slashdot. And a whole lot of websites would either start charging or leave town. I like things better the way they are now--where I don't see any ads and no one notices.
    • 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 i
    • 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 CastrTroy (595695) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @07:55PM (#12325705) Homepage
    IE will catch up to Firefox 2 years after Firefox already had all these features. By the time IE7 is done, FireFox will have many more features, not to mention tons of extensions, that are the real key to it's power. By the time IE gets to where FF is today, FF will have advanced way beyond what IE can hope to achieve from typical corporate development.
    • 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 the time IE gets to where FF is today, FF will have advanced way beyond what IE can hope to achieve from typical corporate development.

      Remember your history [wikipedia.org]; when MS became interested in this new intarweb thang, Netscape was far ahead in features and product quality. MS came from behind to catch up and pass Netscape (and before somebody starts whining about bundling with Windows, I'm talking product quality: remember the difference between IE 4 and especially 5 and the catastrophe that was Navigator 4
      • MS came from behind to catch up and pass Netscape

        With no disrespect to you or the other poster(s) in this thread who've made this argument, a comparison of the Netscape Communications of 5 years ago and the Mozilla Foundation of today is asinine. When Microsoft overtook Netscape, it was because Netscape had left its front door wide open and placed a detailed map of its weaknesses in public view. The Netscape of yesteryear was shipping a hugely bloated everything-in-one application that didn't work right
  • Acid2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Omniscientist (806841) <matt AT badecho DOT com> on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:07PM (#12325767) Homepage
    Looking at the blog's comments, I saw someone mention the Acid2 test. I did a google and took it, and my Firefox 1.0.2 failed it.

    Anyone know more details about this test and what browsers do pass it (I'm guessing IE6 doesn't, I don't have it so can't test it)? I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.

    This is the test [webstandards.org] and this is what it should look [webstandards.org] like. Here's some info [webstandards.org] about how it works.

  • by ocularDeathRay (760450) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:13PM (#12325801) Journal
    They forgot to mention that the new IE will render the letter "K" as the letter "O", and vice versa.

    This feature should be easy to deal with, so long as pages are designed with it in mind. Unfortunately this will cause some confusion when trying to use the expression "O.K." or the boxing term "K.O.".

    The new feature that causes the letter "e" to appear as a tiny version of the explorer logo is now slated for version 7.1, it had to be delayed due to technical problems. Consumer research shows that people think that the explorer logo is cuter than the letter "e".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 23, 2005 @08:46PM (#12325973)
    Microsoft have proven - repeatedly - that they're going to ignore open standards and are unable to approach a technology without their classic "embrace and extend" asshole tactics. There's a reason for this - if they fully support open standards, competitors will be able to perfectly replace their products. And they will lose.

    Their only hope is to keep making deliberately flawed products - and keep their consumers hooked. The consumer knows their products are bad, but nobody else (at least, nobody with a sense of self-worth and pride) is willing to produce a broken product.

    For example, if IE 7 and Firefox supported the exact same standards, people would use Firefox because it does the things that Microsoft dare not do - free source code, cross platform (they're still stuck on IE 5 for the Mac), platform neutral plugin support and far faster turnaround for bugfixes since the community has so many eyes on the code. Small wins for Firefox, but they are wins nevertheless.

    The only good version of IE was version 3. It was going up against the well-established Netscape. They manged by making it leaner, faster and better. They had no legacy customers hooked on their product - and had to prove that they were worthy. Today they are lazy and their main goal is to maintain their supremacy and suppress the peons - not to wow them back into the fold.

    The worst example of this would be, as far as I'm concerned: ActiveX. The tech might have sounded cool on paper - but in practice it was a disaster. It introduced a new type of executable to uninformed and uneducated users who were simply unable to comprehend how dangerous it was, and a raft of thieves and liars who were trying to take advantage of it. As far as security goes: Worst. Feature. Ever.

    Putting ActiveX in a browser capable of accessing the internet is like storing apples in a bucket of medical waste: you'll be infected with something nasty and be completely fucked within a very short space of time. But Microsoft didn't care, so long as they had more corporate buzzwords to achieve platform lock-in with clueless customers.

    And this corporate character oozes out their products. If Microsoft was a person, he would be a compusive liar, thief, bully and control freak. He would be unable to hold a conversation without trying to take something, and would be instantly hatable.

    I use Microsoft Windows XP because I am forced to and am held hostage by the platform - but I am a bitter, angry hostage with brutal vengeance on my mind. Unless Microsoft makes a radical change to it's corporate attitudes, I will never willingly use IE again.
  • by porneL (674499) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @09:21PM (#12326158) Homepage
    "Improving CSS support consistency" means that CSS in IE is going to be consistently broken.
  • Another reason? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Quixote (154172) * on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:03PM (#12326336) Homepage Journal
    I view this as more than just a competition issue. Yes, FF is gaining share. Yes, people are turning away from IE in droves. But the fact is: as long as 90% of the people use IE, Microsoft of yore wouldn't have given a damn. So what gives?

    I think Microsoft is worried about the way Firefox is being extended and turning into a true thin client. Just look at what Google has done with maps, GMail, etc. With AJAX (or whatever they are calling it), FireFox becomes a serious long-term threat to Microsoft. And the folks there aren't stupid. As Bill Gates said in The Simpsons, "Homer, I didn't get to be the richest man in the world writing checks" (or words to that effect). Microsoft has a bunch of nerds on the payroll too, toiling away. They see the looming threat and are responding now instead of waiting (like IBM did when it failed to recognize a similar looming threat from Redmond ;-) ).

    I would like to hear points/counterpoints, if any.

  • Scrolling TBODY (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eGabriel (5707) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:06PM (#12326347) Homepage
    It's the only thing in the whole world I want. Why IE doesn't support it, I don't understand. IE generally does pretty well with a lot of things.

    I guess there are two things in the whole world I want. The second is for IE to show me a big nasty error instead of my web page if it is not compliant with the DTD. If browsers worked that way the whole web would be in better shape.
  • by dickens (31040) on Saturday April 23, 2005 @10:31PM (#12326450) Homepage
    that they'll make IE7 nice and standards compliant but break all the hacks we use to accomodate IE6 like the Holly Hack [communitymx.com] et al.

    This would make it impossible to support IE6, IE7 and other standards-compliant browsers while still allowing them to (rightly) claim that they're compliant. Would they do this ? Hopefully not.

  • 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 sopuli (459663) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @04:09AM (#12327664)
    Now that companies like SAP have started putting out support notes advicing their customers to use Firefox instead of IE, Microsoft may start to take things seriously. For example take a look at the following support not from SAP (note 828595 for those with access to OSS):

    Symptom

    When you are using the SAP GUI for HTML in the Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, the "progress bar", which describes the load progress for the page, may in some cases continue to display activities although the page is fully loaded, and it never confirms that a page has been completely loaded.

    Other terms

    Microsoft Internet Explorer; IE; HTMLGUI; load; webgui; login page; status bar; status bar; loading progress; blue horizontal bar;

    Reason and Prerequisites

    This is caused by a visual error in the Microsoft Internet Explorer.

    Solution

    SAP has consulted closely with Microsoft, to eliminate this error. Unfortunately, Microsoft is not prepared to implement a correction and suggests workarounds that can be implemented in SAP software (SAP ITS). All workarounds proposed by Microsoft are not acceptable due to the considerable quality-related risks posed for all SAP customers using the ITS. There is therefore no solution for this error, other than changing Browsers (the problem described above does not occur with Mozilla / Firefox).
  • by TractorBarry (788340) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @05:31AM (#12327840) Homepage
    Who cares ?

    Anyone who doesn't understand that a web browser should NOT be integrated into the guts of an operating system deserves all the problems that IE will give them.

    Have they changed this major flaw in this release ? No. So only use it if you're an idiot.

  • by IntergalacticWalrus (720648) on Sunday April 24, 2005 @10:03AM (#12328648)
    that they invented tabbed browsing. They'll probably give it a fancy buzzword name too, something like "XPTab" or whatnot.
  • 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.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...