New IE7 Information Announced 620
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."
The ones that I hope get fixed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
nuts to -moz-border-radius (Score:5, Informative)
Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius (Score:4, Informative)
I think it's that their support for the border module is terribly incomplete, so they're not going to suggest that they support any of it quite yet.
Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius (Score:4, Informative)
The same happened with opacity (it was left as -moz-opacity for quite a while until they fixed some bugs to actually let it conform to standards).
Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius (Score:4, Interesting)
If they were actually going to support the proposed standard, surely anything other than naming it in the standard way is embrace-and-extend (or, in this case, embrace-and-rename)!
Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius (Score:3, Insightful)
min-width and hacks (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:min-width and hacks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
FalconRe:min-width and hacks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:min-width and hacks (Score:5, Insightful)
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:min-width and hacks (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:min-width and hacks (Score:5, Insightful)
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]).
Re:min-width and hacks (Score:5, Funny)
Who says? The sites worked fine in IE6; that's what we got paid for. If they don't work in IE7, we can be paid again to fix them.
Re:min-width and hacks (Score:3, Informative)
<!--[if IE]>
<style type="text/css">
@import url("IE.css");
</style>
<![endif]-->
Re: CSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: CSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The ones that I hope get fixed (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Get this security feature (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow Alpha Transparency (Score:3, Interesting)
middle-click for tabbed browsing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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:middle-click for tabbed browsing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing (Score:3, Informative)
Uhmmm. Wrong. I use FireFox on windows at work exclusively and it most definitely does have the middle click. I don't even remember having to change any settings to enable it. In fact I find no dif
Mmmm! Competition! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mmmm! Competition! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
yawn. too little, too late (Score:3, Funny)
Too little...too late (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Too little...too late (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Too little...too late (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too little...too late (Score:3, Informative)
> 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.
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
Suggest they un-integrate IE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE (Score:3, Funny)
Poorly?
Competition is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
shall (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:shall (Score:4, Funny)
competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
I look forward to IE7. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I look forward to IE7. (Score:5, Funny)
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]
Too many features to match. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too many features to match. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Thank you, Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Thank you, Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Thank you, Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titanic? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
IE7 would be perfect if... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:IE7 would be perfect if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IE7 would be perfect if... (Score:4, Informative)
Thank God! (Score:3, Interesting)
IE holding a big percentage of usage may be good (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad news for Firefox (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK (Score:3, Funny)
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
Fifth, could you actually make it work with java?????
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
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????
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.
Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
IE will always be behind (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IE will always be behind (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:IE will always be behind (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:IE will always be behind (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Acid2 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Acid2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Acid2 (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
the rest of the story (Score:4, Funny)
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".
Who gives a damn about IE anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Consistent support? (Score:4, Funny)
Another reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
what I'm worried about is... (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Maybe Microsoft is starting to feel the heat (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
It's still fundamentally flawed. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I can't wait to hear Microsoft claim (Score:4, Funny)
Skeptical, as always... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:3, Informative)
Microsoft vs. the world? This should be interesting.
Will win what exactly? Customers win only when they have choice, not when there is one choice. Redundancy is what kept life going against all odds to this point, and now you're claiming having only one gateway, for yourself a
Re:Good. (Score:3, Informative)
Not true at all. The crowds you mentioned are annoyed but the big ones, they just do not know how to fix the problem or even where to look to find out.
I have found that the tech illiterate never understand why they get spyware. But they DO underst
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So long, Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So long, Firefox -- NOT!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course IE7 has potential to disrupt Firefox's share. However I doubt it will affect share much at all.
In order for Microsoft to steal share from FireFox it needs to improve and innovate to a point that surpasses Firefox. Right now, I believe that IE7 is playing catch-up to FireFox and Microsoft will not introduce anything innovative enough to bring share back to I