Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Aug 2006 20:25 UTC
Internet Explorer Microsoft is releasing for public download on Aug. 24 a new test build of its browser, the near-final Release Candidate 1 milestone. RC1 may or may not be the final public test build of IE 7, officials said, depending on tester feedback. Microsoft has said to expect the final version of its standalone browser to be available in the fourth calendar quarter of 2006. Microsoft is planning to push IE 7 out to users via its Automatic Update software-distribution mechanism that is used to deliver security patches to users.
Order by: Score:
RE
by Kroc on Thu 24th Aug 2006 20:59 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Paul Thurrot has also reviewed here: http://winsupersite.com/reviews/ie7_rc1.asp

Reply Score: 5

anti-trust
by kevinlb on Thu 24th Aug 2006 21:35 UTC
kevinlb
Member since:
2006-08-09

I think pushing new products using their update mechanism is not an acceptable behavior and it should be denied by the anti-trust law. I think about IE, where you must choose to download some concurrent software like firefox or opera and to windows media player that already has nearly killed all is opponents. With the DRM the situation is even worse and the licences they propose to users (that like everybody know, they never read) are perfectly unacceptable.

Edited 2006-08-24 21:47

Reply Score: 3

RE: anti-trust
by WorknMan on Thu 24th Aug 2006 21:40 UTC in reply to "anti-trust"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I think pushing new products using their update mechanism is not an acceptable behavior and it should be deny by the anti-trust law. I think about IE, where you must choose to download some concurrent software like firefox or opera and to windows media player that already has nearly killed all is oponents. With the DRM the situation is even worse and the licence they propose to users (that like everybody know, they never read) are perfectly innaceptable.

Normally, I would agree with you. But in this case, considering that it's IE6 we're talking about here, I consider this to be more of a security update than anything else ;) Well, that is assuming IE7 is actually more secure, which I hope it is.

EDIT: Dammit, I wish this site supported UBB codes. I keep using UBB here and HTML everywhere else where it's not supported ;)

Edited 2006-08-24 21:41

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: anti-trust
by tpaws on Fri 25th Aug 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE: anti-trust"
tpaws Member since:
2006-06-02

I would tend to agree with both of you, but judging from Paul Thurrot's site there are a number of reboots needed to install IE7. Tells me its the same old IE with a few popular additions and some sort of standards compliance. To me it appears to be another example the common oxymoron, "Microsoft Security". At least some improvement in the arean of web standards would be appreciated, a bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: anti-trust
by kaiwai on Fri 25th Aug 2006 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: anti-trust"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I would tend to agree with both of you, but judging from Paul Thurrot's site there are a number of reboots needed to install IE7. Tells me its the same old IE with a few popular additions and some sort of standards compliance. To me it appears to be another example the common oxymoron, "Microsoft Security". At least some improvement in the arean of web standards would be appreciated, a bit.

MInd my french, but maybe they're making BIG f--kING CHANGES to how the operating system and browser operate - seperatring the two, enforcing much stricter security etc. Or course, there will need to be reboots; you're seperately the damn shell from the bloody browser THEN majorly modifying the underlying component object modelling infrastructure!

Reply Score: 2

RE: anti-trust
by Zoidberg on Fri 25th Aug 2006 01:46 UTC in reply to "anti-trust"
Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

In this situation I disagree. This is a major update to a program that everyone already has, as IE comes as part of Windows. I see this as a huge security update myself, whether you use IE or not so I think it's the right thing to do.

Reply Score: 2

RE: anti-trust
by kaiwai on Fri 25th Aug 2006 05:22 UTC in reply to "anti-trust"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I think pushing new products using their update mechanism is not an acceptable behavior and it should be denied by the anti-trust law. I think about IE, where you must choose to download some concurrent software like firefox or opera and to windows media player that already has nearly killed all is opponents. With the DRM the situation is even worse and the licences they propose to users (that like everybody know, they never read) are perfectly unacceptable.

1) They *CAN* claim it to be a security update, because thats what it is; a security update, be it one rolled into an upgrade.

2) If you don't want it to 'automatically updatae' then disable the feature; for me, I only have Windows XP to notify me when an update is available, then *I* decide when or if I wish to update; I hardly call that 'evil'.

3) Killed WHAT apponents; Quicktime/iTunes is being installed on MILLIONS of computers each quarter, so I hardly see Apple complain, and as for Real - who gives a shit about them!

I'm sorry, but if they want people to download and use their player, stop FORCING them to register! stop miss leading them into thinking that they have to purchase Plus by hiding the link at the top of the page to the free version!

Case in point; I go to www.real.com - I'm redirected to http://www.real.com/international, then I click on "Free Player" at the top right hand of the picture and this is displayed: https://order.real.com/pt/order.html?ppath=cpmacpl060204a&country=US...

I'm sorry, but I'm wanting to use YOUR product, you despirately want people to use THAT product, and yet the make it impossible for a person to download it without needing to register for something that the individual might not actually want! then to make maters worse, it then FORCES you to 'log in' once installed, and you end up finding crap littered from one end of the hard drive to another of spyware, adware and links to free shit I'm not interested in!

Reply Score: 0

the non crashing version
by griffinme on Thu 24th Aug 2006 21:41 UTC
griffinme
Member since:
2005-11-09

OOOOOOOO
Finally! An IE7 beta that doesn't crash after 30sec of use.

Just started using it. First impressions:

Google search was complained during the install, "Someone just tried to change your default search!"
Spent a looong time installing updates, which is odd since I do all the updates as they come in.
Bug...... after the updates complete a few minutes later before the install finishes a popup states "Your updates are almost complete, would you like to reboot now?" Not a good idea while the installer is still running.
Seems resonably snappy
Memory pig.....65meg almost as bad as FF after it has been running for awhile
I like the tab viewer, not sure how much it will get used but kinda neat.

Reply Score: 0

RE: the non crashing version
by flanque on Thu 24th Aug 2006 21:50 UTC in reply to "the non crashing version"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I've been using IE7 for months now and I have to admit that I have found it to be very stable and reliable. It's hard for anyone but experts (even then that's debatable) to truely comment on security with any level of credibility.

There were some minor layout issues on some websites I visited (for instance text was centre aligned rather than left) but without analysing the code for the page it's hard to know who's to blame there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: the non crashing version
by Sphinx on Fri 25th Aug 2006 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE: the non crashing version"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

They are for finally fixing some relative positioning bugs.

Reply Score: 1

CSS no better
by jackson on Thu 24th Aug 2006 21:54 UTC
jackson
Member since:
2005-06-29

Let me get this straight. From the Paul Therrott article linked to above:

"IE 7 offers two rendering modes. The first, called Quirks Mode (or Compatibility Mode), renders Web pages almost exactly like IE 5 and IE 6; this is the mode that IE 7 operates in by default due to the millions of internal and public Web sites around the world that rely on particular IE behavior. The second mode, called Standards Mode (or Strict Mode) is what Chor calls "our best standards-based implementation." To access this mode, Web sites need to add a special !DOCTYPE tag to the top of their HTML files. Curiously, this tag was available in IE 6 as well, though I had never heard of it."

So, in other words, IE7 will still default to the borked CSS support and will only enable the improved CSS support if a DOCTYPE tag is manually added. Just like IE6 can do now.

And how is that better?

Edited 2006-08-24 21:58

Reply Score: 2

RE: CSS no better
by Beta on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:14 UTC in reply to "CSS no better"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

To access this mode, Web sites need to add a special !DOCTYPE tag to the top of their HTML files. Curiously, this tag was available in IE 6 as well, though I had never heard of it."

heh, just because he doesn't know, doesn't mean it didn't exist ;)
This isn't an Internet Explorer only tag to get it to render sites correctly; its in the standard for html, and it should be used on all websites in the first place, as a tag to label the "version" of HTML used on the page.
Example:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
ie, this page is XHTML 1.0, Strict

Edited 2006-08-24 22:15

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: CSS no better
by buff on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE: CSS no better"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

It is not standard HTML the use of
DOCTYPE is part of the XHTML standard. It should work just fine without this declaration. The fact that it doesn't indicates the feature is still broken.

Microsoft might cause a lot of problems if they roll IE7 out using autoupdate since some CSS renders differently. I heard there are other compatibility problems with Javascript so some web applications might be broken by the roll out. In some way I would actually like to see this roll out break web sites since it would cause an uproar and it make people more aware of the difference between a software update versus a new application release.

Edited 2006-08-24 22:26

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: CSS no better
by Beta on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CSS no better"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

It is not standard HTML the use of DOCTYPE is part of the XHTML standard.

Nope, sorry, I call bull on this.

HTML 4 has it,
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#version-info

HTML 3.2 has it,
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#html

“Every conforming HTML 3.2 document must start with the <!DOCTYPE> declaration that is needed to distinguish HTML 3.2 documents from other versions of HTML.”

Hmm, how many broken sites are out there then ?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: CSS no better
by Sphinx on Fri 25th Aug 2006 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CSS no better"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

I think the bang, '!', would mark it as an SGML parser directive, note no closing tag, inherited by HTML and it's derivatives, should be in every version.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: CSS no better
by jackson on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE: CSS no better"
jackson Member since:
2005-06-29

Exactly. Forcing IE6 into strict mode is a hack on every CSS tutorial site out there. And if you need to do this with IE7, how is IE7's CSS support better than IE6?

Reply Score: 2

RE: CSS no better
by vimh on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:29 UTC in reply to "CSS no better"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

If I'm reading this right, this is better. Or at least not worse. If you do not enter a DDT (Doctype) then your browser enters quirks mode. Other browsers do the same thing.

There are MS specific doctypes but they were for forcing qirks mode when you have to declare a DDT. Now if you want IE in quirks mode, just don't declare a DDT.

Basically if you need quirks mode, it is available to you. Otherwise you need to declare a doctype which most developers do anyway.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: CSS no better
by Sphinx on Fri 25th Aug 2006 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE: CSS no better"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

What if you specify the quirky doctype? I'd use the directive, really don't want MS guessing, not pretty.

Reply Score: 1

RE: CSS no better
by BrianH on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:33 UTC in reply to "CSS no better"
BrianH Member since:
2005-07-06

So, in other words, IE7 will still default to the borked CSS support and will only enable the improved CSS support if a DOCTYPE tag is manually added. Just like IE6 can do now. And how is that better?

It is better because the actual support of the standards in this mode is much better in IE7 than it is in IE6. The standard requires a DOCTYPE declaration, and if you care about standards compliance you probably have one anyway.

If you don't care about standards compliance your code will still be compatible with IE5 if you like.

Reply Score: 2

RE: CSS no better
by JrezIN on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:52 UTC in reply to "CSS no better"
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

all websites with the DOCTYPE will have theses advantages and older sites won't broke to end users.

The web is a changing thing... but we still have a LOT of older content that won't be updated. A simple DOCTYPE isn't a nightmare for the HTML 4.0 generation.

I'm pretty sure that be bigger question here is... when we'll have real standards? MS isn't the only one with non-compliant rendering, ALL browsers (well... maybe W3C's Maya) doesn't have 100% compliant renders... Visual designers don't care enough for code quality, they just want it working (looking as they wanted). OSNews isn't compliant markup either, but it 'works' (very well)...

...so, does bitching IE's rendering do any good? Probably the best we can do is writing about most missed features and worst bugs, and discuss and attract attention from MS to follow our requests. They're business people, don't want to miss their costumers. IE won't vanish tomorrow, we have to make it work better. We don't need the Firefox's Web anymore than IE's Web... The web should be "plug'n play"...

Reply Score: 1

Any valid w3 code
by incon on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:34 UTC
incon
Member since:
2006-08-24

Its time for web developers to report any w3 validated code in ie7 that doest work correctly in ie7 as a BUG because that what it is a BUG and all other browser on the market class these errors as BUGS! They are happy to told about these errors so they can try and do something about them in due course. Get you act together Microsoft and start becomming interopable with with world not just yourselfs and your parterns.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Any valid w3 code
by MollyC on Thu 24th Aug 2006 22:57 UTC in reply to "Any valid w3 code"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

What is your problem?
IE has been in beta for about a year (beta 1 was last summer), and people have indeed been reporting bugs against it, including rendering bugs.

Hell, I don't even know CSS and all that, but I reported a particular site not working to the official IE7 bug database and now the site works.

Now, as for the DOCTYPE thing, MS has been communicating to web devs the changes in IE for a year, and they've had plenty of time to add a damn DOCTYPE tag. Competent ones have updated their sites to work with IE7 betas (or have at least looked into it and know what to do). Incompetent ones that only like to bitch are the ones whose sites might be borked, but then again, nobody visits those sites anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Any valid w3 code
by vimh on Fri 25th Aug 2006 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Any valid w3 code"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

"Incompetent ones that only like to bitch are the ones whose sites might be borked, but then again, nobody visits those sites anyway."

That's actually one of the whole points of why IE7 works th the way it does. If they don't declare a doctype and the browser goes into quirksmode and the site will display as it always has.

If The developer includes a doctype then they probably know a bit about CSS and standards and the site will display as they intended it to.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Any valid w3 code
by jackson on Fri 25th Aug 2006 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Any valid w3 code"
jackson Member since:
2005-06-29

"Now, as for the DOCTYPE thing, MS has been communicating to web devs the changes in IE for a year, and they've had plenty of time to add a damn DOCTYPE tag. Competent ones have updated their sites to work with IE7 betas (or have at least looked into it and know what to do). Incompetent ones that only like to bitch are the ones whose sites might be borked, but then again, nobody visits those sites anyway."

Actually, competent devs don't design to IE at all. Code for Firefox, validate at W3C, and your site will work. If it doesn't display in IE then that's IE's fault. That's what I've done with my sites and they have the DOCTYPE, they all validate, and they all display perfectly. If IE7 borks the site, then that's IE7's fault.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Any valid w3 code
by Nelson on Fri 25th Aug 2006 03:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Any valid w3 code"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Competant web devs design a site in mind for what the majority of users will be viewing it under. Maybe if Firefox had a stronger hold of the market over IE then maybe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Any valid w3 code
by MollyC on Fri 25th Aug 2006 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Any valid w3 code"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

No, you're one of the incompetent devs, that are too lazy to make sure their sites work with the most used browser. If you're only working on own little private sites, then fine. But I hope to God that nobody is actually paying you to develop a site for them, because 1.) you're too lazy to earn such a pay check and 2.) you wouldn't give a damn whether your client's sites work with the most use browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Any valid w3 code
by jackson on Fri 25th Aug 2006 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Any valid w3 code"
jackson Member since:
2005-06-29

Wow, a little hostile are we? I was being facecious, which I guess was too difficult for you to understand.

Of course I test the sites in IE and dp whatever is necesary get that awful browser to display the site correctly. The point is that those changes should not be necessary. IE should display according to the W3C standards and in a fashion that all other browsers do.

Jeez, lighten up, sister.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Any valid w3 code
by sappyvcv on Fri 25th Aug 2006 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Any valid w3 code"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Nothing about your post indicated you were not being serious, so that's your own fault, not hers.

It's too easy to make a post, then when someone calls it out, claim it wasn't completely serious. But sorry, I won't buy it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Any valid w3 code
by anonymousbrowser on Fri 25th Aug 2006 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Any valid w3 code"
anonymousbrowser Member since:
2006-04-28

So has this any relevance to the article or are you a disgruntled client of his making unpleasant remarks?

Reply Score: 0

IE is a OS component
by twickline on Fri 25th Aug 2006 02:59 UTC
twickline
Member since:
2005-12-31

Didn't Microsoft testify in court that IE was part of the OS and couldn't be pulled out? If that is the case then why is the browser being released as a stand alone product and not a OS service patch?

Reply Score: 0

RE: IE is a OS component
by tomcat on Fri 25th Aug 2006 03:38 UTC in reply to "IE is a OS component"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Didn't Microsoft testify in court that IE was part of the OS and couldn't be pulled out?

Yeah, and ultimately the appeals court agreed.

If that is the case then why is the browser being released as a stand alone product and not a OS service patch?

It's not a standalone product. It's an upgrade to the already integrated version of IE in Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE: IE is a OS component
by journey on Fri 25th Aug 2006 06:54 UTC in reply to "IE is a OS component"
journey Member since:
2006-08-25

It is integrated. Installing IE7 removes/replaces IE6.

Reply Score: 1