Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:01 UTC, submitted by Tudy
Internet Explorer In a recent blog posting, Internet Explorer's lead program manager Chris Wilson revealed many of the technical improvements that Microsoft will add to IE 7.0 for its final release. Almost all the improvements are related to bugs in IE's implementation of CSS. Many of these bugs aren't fixed in the currently available IE 7.0 Beta release. Wilson's post raises some serious questions about IE 7.0.
Order by: Score:
ouch
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

tough words from Paul Thurrott:

"My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators."

Reply Score: 2

v RE: ouch
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:40 UTC in reply to "ouch"
RE[2]: ouch
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: ouch"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This is an odd reply to someone quoting Windows IT Pro.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ouch
by Raven on Thu 4th Aug 2005 18:20 UTC in reply to "ouch"
Raven Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a bit odd though that Microsoft with all its resources can't keep up when it comes to browser features and web standards. They have been doomed by their own monopoly, but suddenly people started to care about standards and technology progress, that was when MS started to fall behind. I don't think a boycott of IE in necessary people are already switching to Firefox and Opera and will continue to do so because not even IE7 is standards-compliant and IE7 will not work on Win2000 which will ultimately push those users over to other browsers.

Microsoft is doing a good job getting users switch to alternative browsers. ;)
---
http://bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

Reply Score: 1

Boycott?
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Boycott IE? Twist my a.... Stop! I'll do whatever you say!

Reply Score: 0

Thurrott gets religion
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Nice to see him suddenly concerned about web standards after developers like myself have been bitching for five years. It rings a little false, though: none of us are demanding IE pass ACID2 (at present, only a developer build of Safari does). ACID2 is a test suite for exceptions and errors, kind of a "check what you forgot" thing.

He's fishing for controversy. IE 7 will be underwhelming, but if it fixes the things mentioned in that blog, it's still an improvement.

The bigger issue is going to be how Microsoft deals with IE-centric sites that break now. Hopefully most of the crap sites have no DTD or an HTML4 DTD. It's a difficult philosophical concept in Redmond that you can't always fix a mistake AND guarantee backwards compatibility, and that sometimes you have to look the customer straight in the eye and tell them to get on the farking bus, change is inevitable and quit bitching about it.

Treat your customers like they can't accept change, and you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Reply Score: 5

v Damn retards
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:24 UTC
Backwards compatibility
by youknowmewell on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:25 UTC
youknowmewell
Member since:
2005-07-08

It's a blessing and a curse. It makes developers both happy and unhappy at the same time.

I say that they should simply include proprietary DOCTYPE-like code to allow developers to simply tell the new IE7 to render as IE6. This would allow MS to fix the problems and at the same time allow developers a smoother transition. For developers that need or want the new goodies (later on at least), this will allow them to use them. For developers that need or want to keep the old code they already have, this helps them as well. Of course, there will be those people that will yell, "NO PROPRIETARY CODE!", but I think this is a good compromise for now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Backwards compatibility
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:55 UTC in reply to "Backwards compatibility"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes. Then they'd have to listen to complaints like "It's BLOATED!". Truelly a no win situation. Being #1 puts on handcuffs that #2 and 3 don't have to deal with.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Backwards compatibility
by ma_d on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:06 UTC in reply to "Backwards compatibility"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That's a horrible idea. If the people with badly written websites do get around to fixing their sites we want them to fix them: Not add a line at the beginning indicating that it's bad code. There may be sites that don't work now, but that's fine: They'll have to fix them correctly for once. Yes, they'll complain about it. But they should have been complaining when they implemented it wrong to work around buggy IE rendering. Or when they implemented it wrong and someone noticed: Hey this only seems to work on one browser.

Here's another question: When will they be releasing and IE7 for Mac? At this point Mac is the only platform on which you can test against every major browser. Windows lacks khtml, Linux lacks IE, and Mac just has a one-step outdated IE (Mac still has IE 5.5 right?).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Backwards compatibility
by youknowmewell on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Backwards compatibility"
youknowmewell Member since:
2005-07-08

That's unrealistic and foolish in my opinion. The code would be a bandaid to fix things up temporarily, but eventually those people that use it would fix their site. It's unreasonable to force people to spend money and time fixing an artificial problem at someone else's will. Whilst I see room for compromise, you see only black and white. That's the sort of attitude most people hate. It's arrogant, unproductive, and unreasonable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Backwards compatibility
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Backwards compatibility"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Mac does not have IE 5.5; the latest version of IE on Mac is 5.2.3. More importantly, IE/Mac is not really comparable to IE/Win. The former uses the Tasman rendering engine, the latter uses Trident.

As for Microsoft releasing IE7 for Mac: don't count on it. MS has announced that they will not release any more versions of IE/Mac.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Backwards compatibility
by Clinton on Thu 4th Aug 2005 19:22 UTC in reply to "Backwards compatibility"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

As a web developer, I completely disagree.

IE is a piece of garbage and needs to be thrown away. I don't care if doing so required me to rewrite every piece of code I've ever written. Throwing IE out is the only way to go.

Microsoft needs to properly support web standards (in particular CSS) and to retard their dumb tendency to put proprietary junk in their web browser.

A web browser should be like a phone. Add whatever features you want (tabs, gestures, Javascript debuggers, themes, DOM browsers, etc.) but the redering of a page should be standards-compliant across the board. If it isn't? Junk it!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Backwards compatibility
by youknowmewell on Thu 4th Aug 2005 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Backwards compatibility"
youknowmewell Member since:
2005-07-08

Personally, I'd like to forget IE exists. But I realize there are web devs out there that can't do so. We must deal with the reality of the situation, and the reality is that web sites MUST work with IE, web devs can't ignore it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Backwards compatibility
by CPUGuy on Thu 4th Aug 2005 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Backwards compatibility"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

They ARE supporting CSS!!!

How hard is this to understand?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Backwards compatibility
by Clinton on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Backwards compatibility"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I realize they say they are going to support CSS, but they've said that before and look what happened.

I may change my opinion once it is finally released, but past experience suggests that I won't have to.

Reply Score: 1

No big surprise
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

That Microsoft has blatantly decided to ignore web standards with this new version of their browser doesn't surprise me in the least. They are bullies and thugs, and I avoid any site that doesn't open with Firefox or Konqueror, but will open with IE. They had a chance to redeem themselves in the web community by embracing all accepted web standards. Instead, it looks like they're just gonna use what they like and throw out the rest. And let's not even talk about that piece of crap ActiveX! I've been boycotting MS at home for 2 years, and I'll never voluntarily use another MS program again.

Reply Score: 0

RE: No big surprise
by eMagius on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:04 UTC in reply to "No big surprise"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's bear in mind that it's not like the Mozilla developers are saints when it comes to adhering to web standards.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No big surprise
by kaiwai on Thu 4th Aug 2005 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: No big surprise"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

True, but at the same time, one must be pragmatic about what is supported; the most important thing is to support all the MAIN and POPULAR standards to the letter - then evangelise the use of those standards above prioprietary alternatives.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No big surprise
by CPUGuy on Thu 4th Aug 2005 18:51 UTC in reply to "No big surprise"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

They aren't abandoning web standards.

Simply, IE hasn't been updated in years, and as such, it's going to take quite a bit to just put out IE7. The blog says exactly what is being fixed. They are going to fully support CSS1 (I think beta1 has everything supported) and CSS2(.1). They will be supporting transparent PNGs. How is this abbandoning web standards?

No browser currently passes Acid2. Heck, Acid2 isn't even about testing your compliancy to web standards, it's a wishlist that developers would like to see.
A lof of the things it tests are very hard to implement. This is why 7.0 won't pass (Chris says this flat out in the blog). He also says that such features on the back burner, and that they are focusing on taking care of the bugs that are really giving developers a hard time right now.
I'm sure that the next version after IE7 (after they take care of the bugs they are doing now) will at the very least attempt to pass Acid2 and beyond (CSS3).

The real question is, have you ever even coded a webpage in your life? (Dreamweaver et al do not count)
Do you even have a clue as to what you are talking about?

Reply Score: 2

IE 7 blog
by TaterSalad on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:38 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Now that is one cool cat. He didn't try to sugar coat anything. Came out straight and said we are fixing these bugs, working on css support, and that we won't pass acid2. I can respect that honesty rather than a straight out lie.

Reply Score: 5

v virus,worms,malwares
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:45 UTC
v RE: virus,worms,malwares
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:48 UTC in reply to "virus,worms,malwares"
v RE[2]: virus,worms,malwares
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE: virus,worms,malwares"
This is awesome
by youknowmewell on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:51 UTC
youknowmewell
Member since:
2005-07-08

Two anons going at it. I think OSNews needs an option to ignore all Anonymous users.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is awesome
by Wrawrat on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:14 UTC in reply to "This is awesome"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

There IS an option. Look in your Preferences.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This is awesome
by youknowmewell on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: This is awesome"
youknowmewell Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm retarded. Thanks for the heads up.

Reply Score: 3

RE: This is awesome
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:44 UTC in reply to "This is awesome"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Two anons going at it. I think OSNews needs an option to ignore all Anonymous users.

Wow, rabid elitism. OSnews really is turning into Slashdot.

Yes, "rabid" is a suitable description of someone with the idea that if there are two bad ACs then all of them should be ignored.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: This is awesome
by Anonymous Coward on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE: This is awesome"
Anonymous Coward Member since:
2005-07-06

Hey, hey hey! Don't devalue my good name! They are Anonymous here, not Anonymous Cowards!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This is awesome
by pravda on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE: This is awesome"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

The forum would be FAR more interesting if you had to give a verifiable company affiliation to post.

I don't care about names per se, but requiring corporate identification would help balance the viewpoints out.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This is awesome
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is awesome"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't care about names per se, but requiring corporate identification would help balance the viewpoints out

You can't be suggesting that MS's competitors are spamming OSNews comments to create bad PR for MSIE?

That's nuts. If you've ever visited this site before you know, or you should know, that OS News did not get shorted when they were divvying up the Mac & Linux zealots.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: This is awesome
by pravda on Fri 5th Aug 2005 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is awesome"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't be suggesting that MS's competitors are spamming OSNews comments to create bad PR for MSIE?

That's nuts. If you've ever visited this site before you know, or you should know, that OS News did not get shorted when they were divvying up the Mac & Linux zealots.


No, the opposite. Many Microsoft employees read this site all day and pump up the Microsoft bias.

You will notice all the editors/moderators have an incredibly pro-Microsoft bias to the point of ruthlessly moderating down posts that point out critical issues with Microsoft.

I think because the editors are so biased many users tend to be biased as well. The bias feeds on itself.

It would be great to have company affiliations as the overall site bias would be cut way down.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This is awesome
by CPUGuy on Fri 5th Aug 2005 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is awesome"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't mistake bias for someone with a brain.

Fact is most of the people that come here are ABMer zealots who will do anything (for God knows why) to discredit Microsoft. Rule #1, all software is better than anything Microsoft has or ever will put out. Rule #2, if Microsoft puts out something better, refer to Rule #1.

Sadly, I'm not joking. I can't believe the amount of zealotry on either side, not only here, but every tech website.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: This is awesome
by pravda on Fri 5th Aug 2005 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This is awesome"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't mistake bias for someone with a brain.

Fact is most of the people that come here are ABMer zealots who will do anything (for God knows why) to discredit Microsoft. Rule #1, all software is better than anything Microsoft has or ever will put out. Rule #2, if Microsoft puts out something better, refer to Rule #1.

Sadly, I'm not joking. I can't believe the amount of zealotry on either side, not only here, but every tech website.


I think that if the corporate affiliations were public, we would get more reasonable conduct. I would like to see who is saying what. And who is voting on the comments.

When Microsoft was found guilty of being an illegal monopoly and nothing was done about it, the perception of Microsoft was forever changed. For anyone able to think at all, it was clear that Microsoft had bought off the government. As it stands today, Microsoft funds one of the largest, if not the largest, lobbyist efforts.

With the government bought off, there will be no remedy for Microsoft's anti-competitive and illegal behavior. And thus the people have realized the burden falls on them. However misplaced and however distorted as the burden of a corrupt system is never handled gracefully by the people. Thus the simple "logic" of Microsoft hate. It is the only option left to the people.

From my personal perspective, I know a lot about Microsoft. I have worked with them in the past and listened to them openly brag about criminal actions they've taken against competitors. I know far too well about Microsoft's propensity to steal intellectual property. These things of course I hold against them as I would hold them against any company. It is an absolute judgment, not a comparative judgment.

Without rambling on too much, it is personal opinion that Microsoft deserves a lot of criticism. Not bias, not zealotry and not mindless attacks from Mac "true believers" or FOSS "idealists". It is only through massive resistance to their criminal tendencies that Microsoft will be forced to change. And this resistance must be intelligent, not the kiddie stuff you see on most tech sites.

For this site and other sites, more accountability is needed to reduce the bias/noise level. It won't reduce it 100%, but something should be done vs. nothing. OSNews could be a much more interesting and profound site if the rudimentary forums were replaced with something better.

And that makes two cents. In 100% pure copper, please.

Reply Score: 2

v what ?
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:52 UTC
What's a BETA ?
by test on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:53 UTC
test
Member since:
2005-07-06

A Beta is supposed to include all the final features and is released in order to solve bugs.

Microsoft however names anything a Beta. Proof? The latest Vista "Beta" and IE7 "Beta". Both lack features that will make it (so they say) in the final version.

Microsoft's Beta products are no more than Alpha versions!....

It's very deceiving, to say the least.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What's a BETA ?
by butters on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:20 UTC in reply to "What's a BETA ?"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Very much agreed. These releases are somewhere between proof-of-concept and alpha. It will take brilliant execution to get this thing in shrink wrap by Christmas '06.

Reply Score: 1

v what is the story
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:54 UTC
RE: what is the story
by Sphinx on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:09 UTC in reply to "what is the story"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Must be the intelligent readers over age twelve who actually have the 'nads to log in.

Reply Score: 1

v Moron
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:55 UTC
Standards? What Standards?
by segedunum on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:56 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's very simple. Those inconsistencies and bugs that IE has keeps people locked into using IE to see most sites. Microsoft doesn't want to go and spoil it by adhering to standards. Goodness. Whatever next?

Paul Thurrott has always been accused of being pro-MS (well, it is his livelihood) but he's always had some harsh words for Microsoft on occasion over some of their software - IE and Longhorn most recently. He's spot on about IE though. There is simply no reason whatsoever in the world that Microsoft cannot fix the bugs in IE completely and make it as standards compliant as possible. IE could still be backwards compatible with old code, because they could just build standards compliance on top of the current engine to make sure well written HTML and JavaScript does run and render correctly. At least web developers would know where they are.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Standards? What Standards?
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 21:36 UTC in reply to "Standards? What Standards?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, they can NOT fully support CSS1 & 2 without breaking old code, most websites use hacks relying on IE not rendering some CSS 1/2 code as it should.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Standards? What Standards?
by CPUGuy on Fri 5th Aug 2005 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Standards? What Standards?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Despite the fact that this is exactly what Chris is saying they will support in his blog? Or did you even read it?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Standards? What Standards?
by unoengborg on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:39 UTC in reply to "Standards? What Standards?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


It's very simple. Those inconsistencies and bugs that IE has keeps people locked into using IE to see most sites. Microsoft doesn't want to go and spoil it by adhering to standards.


Actually, mosts sites renders well in mozilla, firefox, and other resonably standard compliant browsers. The only problem is intranet applications that often rely on active X components.

The dominating OS for business use is still win2k. This means that it really doesn't matter what standards IE7 complies with. Home users can always get a full web experience by downloading firefox and IE6 will remain in use to handle ActiveX at work.

Reply Score: 1

Re: No big surprise
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Did you actually read the blog posting? How exactly do you relate "I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2" to blatently ignoring web standards?

As far as I can see, the eventual aim for IE7 is to support as many of the current standards as possible. To me the fact that it won't pass Acid2 isn't an issue at all, it is something you can design a product to pass for PR reasons, but as they say on the Acid2 web site, "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification. After careful consideration, we have selected and are testing the features we consider most important for the future of the web.". It is not a standards measurement, it is a test to see if your browser will deal with the specific issues that WaSP feel are/will be important.

Reply Score: 3

ACID 2 is NOT a compliance test
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Almost forgot to mention to people who believe otherwise that ACID 2 is NOT a compliance test. It's a test to see how well browsers handle intentionally broken code. Now, if ACID 2 was fully and completely valid xhtml/css it would be something to complain about if they don't think it's worth passing.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Almost forgot to mention to people who believe otherwise that ACID 2 is NOT a compliance test. It's a test to see how well browsers handle intentionally broken code.

No, it's not - it's a general test of how well a browser conforms to standards. That includes the parts of those standards dealing with how bad code should be handled, but error handling is only a small part of the test.

Reply Score: 0

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it's not.

It even says it on its own website. Acid2 does not test for standards compliance.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

From the Web Standards Project website:

Acid2 tests features that web designers have been requesting. Everything that Acid2 tests is specified in a Web standard, but not all Web standards are tested. Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification. After careful consideration, we have selected and are testing the features we consider most important for the future of the web.


I looked at many pages on the website and nowhere did I find any mention, implied or explict, that the Acid2 test "does not test for standards compliance."

But even so, characterizing the statement from the Web Standards Project site as "a test to see how well browsers handle intentionally broken code" is completely false. "a general test of how well a browser conforms to standards" is a far closer paraphrase of the text.

Reply Score: 0

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't see where it's mentioned? How about the part with "Acid2 does not guarentee conformance with any specification."

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Acid2 does not guarentee conformance with any specification." is not even close to "does not test for standards compliance" especially when the website clearly says that "Everything that Acid2 tests is specified in a Web standard". Clearly making the claim that Acid2 is "a test to see how well browsers handle intentionally broken code" false.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

When there are faster, more stable, more secure and more feature rich browsers like Opera and Firefox available, why does anyone bother with crippled junk like IE?

It's like getting excited about an update of Wordpad, the only thing IE is useful for is downloading a different browser when Windows is first installed.

Personally I've been using Opera for years and the only time I run IE is when I use Windows update.

Reply Score: 0

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

When there are faster, more stable, more secure and more feature rich browsers like Opera and Firefox available, why does anyone bother with crippled junk like IE?

Because a lot of fershinglugger, frisshin frasshin sites won't support anything but

My Bank, for example. If I try to surf in Opera identifying as Opera, no-go. (A quick F12 and identify as IE6 fixes that.)

Several of the on-line databases that I use on a regular basis are IE Only. Most of them are fooled by Opera, but some aren't.

And then there are the people that have used IE and know/like nothing else. We've had seminars and classes about Firefox, but most people still use IE 6. I put Opera on my husband's work computer and even imported all his IE bookmarks and he still uses IE.

(And now he's gotten his machine so bolloxed up by spyware, that in order for it to get the defrag it really needs, I'm going to have to dig out a DOS bootdisk and defrag from the commandline. [He's got some cruft in there that has resisted all of my attempts to scrub it off.])


Personally I've been using Opera for years and the only time I run IE is when I use Windows update.

Me too. Oh, and to install drivers for the network printers here at work -- you download the driver from a server here in the building and if you use anything but IE, it doesn't install. Don't ask me why.

Reply Score: 2

IE is like cigarettes
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

To me the IE is lot like cigarettes. Everyone knows it's bad for you but people will continue to use it. If you're still using IE full knowing that there are superior alternatives like Firefox or Opera out there, you pretty much deserve whatever the consequences of using IE at this point. I just think people should be responsible for the choices they make. Everyday you choose to run Windows and you also choose to double click on that blue e. I know there isn't a loaded gun pointed at every IE users' head.

Reply Score: 2

v worm, virses, malwares
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:38 UTC
v RE: worm, virses, malwares
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:40 UTC in reply to "worm, virses, malwares"
Genuine Advantage
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

For the ones who still think MS takes security serious and reacts adequately to new threads have a look at this one:A vulnerability in default installations of the affected software that allows malicious code to be executed with minimal user interaction.(remotely)
Affected:win2000,XP,win2003

http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/20050329.html

MS has been informed in March and is now 68 days overdue.
I would say that's a genuine advantage (not).

Reply Score: 0

v dead winblow users
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:54 UTC
Which standards?
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Actually, there are no real standards at all!

There are just a couple of W3C recommendations, which aren't truly interoperable. I appreciate the division of content (xhtml) and style (css) like it was done in the XHTML 1.0/1.1 and in the corresponding CSS recommendations because it's at least possible to write interoperable web sites (although it's much work because of browsers like MSIE).

But have a look at XHTML 2.0: IT WILL BREAK THE WWW!

I just can't understand why the W3C wants to add so much new complexity with no obvious benefit. I hope that no browser vendor will accept this crap.

Years will be needed until all browsers will be compliant to the current XHTML and CSS recommendations (MSIE has just begun to move in the right direction) - so why break it again?

Reply Score: 0

Acid 2 is not just errors
by JaredWhite on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:37 UTC
JaredWhite
Member since:
2005-07-06

When I heard people here saying that the Acid 2 test only checked to see how browser handle errors and incorrect markup, I was very skeptical because I didn't remember that it served only that purpose. So I went and actually read the goals of the test myself on their site, and as it turns out the errors are only one small part of the test. Other goals include making sure CSS table markup works, the CSS box model, painting layers, transparent PNGs, fixed positions, etc. Lots of good stuff. If IE 7 blows up on some of that stuff, then it doesn't bode well for MS.

Jared

Reply Score: 2

alpha pngs yeah!
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's about time they supported alpha png's.. Stupid MS

Reply Score: 0

Two faced, Thurrott
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 18:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Um, so IE isn't standards compliant. Neither is winsupersite.com. So Microsoft is a cancer product producer. What is he?

Reply Score: 1

IE7 is obsolete
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 18:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Who needs IE7? Firefox is already so far ahead in regards to features etc. and, even though the Deer Park release has been pushed back a bit, the speed at which Firefox develops is breathtaking and leaves the IE developers in the dust.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

IE was a gateway to every piece of viral gunk on the web to come and inhabit my computer. I had to stop using it, or spend the whole weekend trying to clean up the damage. There's no way I'm ever going back.

Reply Score: 0

the real issue...
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 18:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

While your at it, stop using the entire Microsoft product line - it's no better written than IE7.

Fact is, Windows is and always has been a catastrophic mess and a kludge at best with no other purpose to generate an instant system Billy could sell to IBM – i.e., it was never design to solve a problem, just make money.

Lose it and you will soon discover the joy of computing again!

Reply Score: 0

Money...
by JPortal on Thu 4th Aug 2005 18:57 UTC
JPortal
Member since:
2005-07-06

Money is an issue for me, because time = money.

Being a programmer, IE has cost me thousands of dollars. For example, just recently a client said he would pay me to set up a very simple chat room. I decided to write my own script - I finished it in about 45 minutes, literally. It worked absolutely perfect in Firefox, and extending it to Opera and Safari was also trivial.
And then I tested it in IE, and because of one really obscure bug in IE, I literally spent five hours on a freaking chat script.
I've felt this way all along. Screw IE, screw Microsoft. They've screwed both users and developers over, they cost us all money, and they're holding back web technology. I've had enough.

Reply Score: 3

IE7 is just for XP/2003
by pravda on Thu 4th Aug 2005 19:36 UTC
pravda
Member since:
2005-07-06

Longhorn/Vista will have a much nicer new browser.

Reply Score: 1

RE: IE7 is just for XP/2003
by youknowmewell on Thu 4th Aug 2005 19:37 UTC in reply to "IE7 is just for XP/2003"
youknowmewell Member since:
2005-07-08

Where did you hear that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: IE7 is just for XP/2003
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE: IE7 is just for XP/2003"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Longhorn is supposed to include IE 7.5, but I'll bet the rendering engine isn't too different. I think it's mostly supposed to add features and have a new interface.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: IE7 is just for XP/2003
by pravda on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE: IE7 is just for XP/2003"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

Where did you hear that?

Because the new IE is part of the system specification for Longhorn/Vista. And for reasons that may never see the light of day, I know quite a bit about this spec.

Reply Score: 1

youknowmewell Member since:
2005-07-08

I hope you'll forgive me if I think you're a liar.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: IE7 is just for XP/2003
by pravda on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: IE7 is just for XP/2003"
v MagnusA
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 21:00 UTC
acid2
by smashIt on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:40 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

just give it a run with the css-validator ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: acid2
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:15 UTC in reply to "acid2"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ofcourse it will have errors because there is bad code included to make sure browsers render code properly

Reply Score: 0

msie
by Mellin on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:46 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

if people complain that my website doesn't work with msie 7 im going to tell them that they should complain to micrsoft (im not going to use ugly hacks to get it to work with that garbage browser)

Reply Score: 1

On another note...
by Anonymous Coward on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:40 UTC
Anonymous Coward
Member since:
2005-07-06

So far, the only sites I have had to fudge involve a bug that doesn't allow Google Maps to render inside a DIV element (table, span (yes, IE treats SPANS as DIVS), etc.

I had to use some shoddy iframe tricks to make it look like it was actually on the page.

Worked fine until my Boss opened it in IE...then the IE DIV Bug had to be there...dammit!

Reply Score: 1

be careful of unchecked anti-MS sentiment
by schvenk on Fri 5th Aug 2005 04:04 UTC
schvenk
Member since:
2005-07-13

I don't know much about Acid2, nor can I guarantee how much of Wilson's blog can be taken at face value. But Thurrott's response, and many of the responses here, almost seem like responses to another statement altogether.

Wilson says compliance with more CSS standards, and fixes to CSS bugs, are a high-priority goal. Regardless of which standards or how many standards make it in, that's a good thing and very much what Web developers have been asking for. If this is MS's intention and they follow through on it, they should be commended for it.

I'm not a big fan of Windows, and use Macs most of the time. I have some serious criticisms of Microsoft on a number of fronts. But if we attack MS for their positive moves as well as their negative ones, the only logical conclusion on their part is, "Those guys will never be happy. Screw 'em." It serves everyone's interests to commend them when they do the right thing.

Reply Score: 1

pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

From my readings around the web, it seems people are deeply disappointed that Microsoft is not going to the effort to be "all the way there" in IE7.

Instead, Microsoft is slipping compatibility with existing standards to IE 7.1 with an unknown release date which of course is subject to change. And this future "compatibility" is itself unknown and subject to change.

So we get "some changes" but not enough to make coding for IE vs. Firefox vs. Mozilla vs. Opera vs. Safari as simple as it would be if Microsoft put more resources on the project and got it all done for IE7.

People on the inside know that with what Microsoft is doing for Longhorn/Vista that this stuff for IE7 doesn't matter all too much. Microsoft's big push is not going to be "compatibility with other browswers" but to use all their clout to move all the websites to be compatible with Longhorn/Vista. Because of IE's vast market share, Microsoft knows the alternative browser people are fucked for the time being. Anyone who develops for the web *must* support IE. This fact is not changing and will likely never change.

With the facts on the table, we see IE7 is nothing more than a "damage control" release. The release has not even been given enough resources to move IE7 fully up to standard. This makes IE7 just a different edition of IE6 -- more standard support but more unique IE bugs and workarounds to go with the new stuff.

And so we are back full circle. There are very good reasons why people are pissed at what Microsoft is doing for IE7. Because, as always, it is about Microsoft and not Microsoft's customers and not about truly making the world a better place. Microsoft has the power to do it right but elects not to. And thus the anti-MS sentiment is actually well justified. As it usually is. As what we see with IE7 happens for every single Microsoft product. Nothing Microsoft makes is fully standard. It is always a little bit (or more) off from the standard so that it is really "Microsoft edition" for any protocol, standard, etc.

It's time for a change I dare say.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ouch
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 04:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

its industry standard.

Whatever is most popular = standard. So, that W3C standards aren't industry standards but technical standards...

Guess what matters more? industry standards

SAD EH

Reply Score: 0

v ha
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 06:48 UTC
CSS2
by MadDwarf on Fri 5th Aug 2005 11:57 UTC
MadDwarf
Member since:
2005-07-07

PT: "Wilson's post is disappointing because Microsoft doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0."
CW: "Our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate Web standards, in particular CSS 2."

PT:"Microsoft's admission that it will fail the crucial Acid2 browser-compliance test"
CW:" "Acid2 ... is pointedly not a compliance check,"
WaSP: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification...We believe Acid2 will highlight problems in all current browsers."


So IE7beta1 isn't perfect. They have lofty goals, and we shall have to wait and see.
How does FF1.0.4 deal with ACID2? Are they being slated for "intent .. to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate Web standards, in particular CSS 2."?

I have never been a MS apologist, but it seems disingenuous to see a review where the Lead Programmer for a project says something, the reviewer turns it into its opposite and the comments following deride the project for not doing what the Lead Programmer explicitly says the project will do.

Reply Score: 1

Acid2
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 14:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Acid2 does not guarentee conformance with any specification."

Maybe the wording should be changed to "guartenteed to FULL conformace." I dont know much about Acid2, but from what I have read and this statement, it sounds like that it does not test everything in your browser but everything it does test is wrt to the standards.

So this isnt a web browser validator like W3C's website validator, checking everything. It instead only spends its space (and developers time) and the important sections of the standards

Reply Score: 0

RE: Acid2
by Anonymous on Sat 6th Aug 2005 08:42 UTC in reply to "Acid2"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It instead only spends its space (and developers time) and the important sections of the standards

Er, no.

If you look at the Acid2 test you'll see it tests the esoteric CSS features that NONE of the browsers supported when the test was written.

Acid2 is a complex web page. It uses features that are not in common use yet.

(taken from... http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/guide.html )

The important sections of the standards don't get a look in.

Reply Score: 0

v IE7 is a total joke
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 16:43 UTC