OSNews

One of the solutions that I've been doing with the beta is to install IE 7 on a copy of windows in virtual PC. It's a pain but it's better than not being able to test it at all in one of them.

Well I suppose it lends itself to more Windows licenses being purchased. What care do Microsoft have for the users, other than their money? They left us to rot for five years.

There is only one reason IE7 exists - to prevent people moving away from IE only and Windows only technologies. They've shown they don't care about users, and they're showing that they don't care about developers either.

There is only one reason IE7 exists - to prevent people moving away from IE only and Windows only technologies.

Ummm, why else would it exist? If MS didn't have the above as a motivator, we'd all still be using Internet Explorer v1.0. But this pretty much holds true for any business who ends up on top. For example, if AMD didn't exist, we'd all be paying $5,000 a piece for Intel P2-450's.

Thank God for competition

Ummm, why else would it exist? If MS didn't have the above as a motivator, we'd all still be using Internet Explorer v1.0. But this pretty much holds true for any business who ends up on top

We'd all be using Netscape, Firefox, Opera or Konqueror.

Mozilla would not have existed if IE didn't beat Netscape.

The codebase in Netscape 4.x was getting so bad that I think Netscape would have turned to the open source community for help (and an eventual rewrite) anyway...

Most companies that produce a product sell you something that is intended to help you solve a problem or accomplish a task. For example, a frying pan helps you accomplish the task of cooking food. In the case of IE, the sole purpose of this product is to further lock users into Microsoft products (eg. SharePoint). Providing the customer with a tool to accomplish a task (in this case, view the web) is something they use to bolster their first priority, which is vendor lock-in. You see, the first priority of the cookware model is help the customer do something. The first priority of the Microsoft model is to sell another product. Helping the customer is just something that gets in their way. So, they do as little of it as they can get by with.

And the #1 priority of Firefox is to get users to use Google. Thats why Google has paid them millions of dollars. Follow the money ...

and what ?
are you one of these Ballmer muppet who says they "MSN it " when they search for something on the internet ?

Most normal people say they " Google it".... what about you ?

Bet you use MSN search

Maybe. But, try using SharePoint with any other browser than IE. You can't. In contrast, Google uses open standards like html, javascript and ajax. Therefore, if you have a modern browser, all of the features of Google will work for you. Also, with Firefox, there is nothing stopping you from using other search engines. So, while it is true Firefox promotes Google, they aren't married. SharePoint requires IE. Even Microsoft's website doesn't work correctly with FireFox.

In contrast, Google uses open standards like html, javascript and ajax. Therefore, if you have a modern browser, all of the features of Google will work for you.

You don't follow Google very closely, do you? Google breaks web standards left and right. Moreover, they purposefully block alternative browsers like Safari, Konqueror, and Opera from many of their sites for non-technical reasons (i.e., sending a different user agent string (Firefox) gets you in).

Also, with Firefox, there is nothing stopping you from using other search engines. So, while it is true Firefox promotes Google, they aren't married.

There's nothing stopping you from using other search engines from IE7. Heck, with IE7 Microsoft's made it much easier to add new engines and change the defaults than on any other browser.

What are you whining about, Microsoft is making sure that the only people who can download Internet Explorer are those customers who have actually paid - aka, 'contributed financially' to the development of Internet Explorer; it may be free, but it still has been paid for via Windows sales, just as MacOS X R&D is partially subsidised via profits from other areas, thus making 'MacOS X for generic PC's' completely unworkable.

For me, I own a legal licence of Windows XP Professional, and as such, I don't think that I should be subsidising the few who think that the whole world owes them a living and thus deserve a free ride in regards to upgrades for Windows released by Microsoft - want the updates and upgrades, get legal.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who have paid for Windows (I'm one of them) that don't like the product activation or the "genuine" PITA verifications that Microsoft imposes on the consumer.

Serious pirates are going to run pretty much any version of Windows that they want with IE7 and pretty much any other software that they want regardless of tactics used by Microsoft or others to stop them.

Microsoft's actions in this regard have been much more of a hindrance and a hassle than a help to me. Why should I or anyone else be pleased that they're requiring us to jump through ever more hoops to get features that have been freely available in competitors' software for quite a while now?

If you are not pleased by MS, go to a competitor by whom you are pleased.

Unless you are so locked in by MS, that going Linux/BSD/OSX/whatever is absolutely no option to you.

But then again, maybe you should think about your application choice. Do you really want to run your computer and all your programs with .NET and ActiveX? Or would Java, Python, Javascript and OpenOffice.org be a viable option?

Maybe you could venture towards less lock in, by making sure, that all new applications you create/install are platform independent. It is less of a hassle now, than it ever was and than it will be when Vista will be released.

That's been possible ever since the first alpha builds:

Install IE7
Run IE6 standalone from: http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone

What is the problem ? You don't know that IE7 render websites like IE6 (with the same bugs as IE6). Only if you set your website in XHTML with every correct headers, IE7 will possibly adopt a more correct rendering. IE7 is very far of a very standard compliant browser, far from every other recent browsers.

Ideally...

But the purpose of testing is to be sure. Bugs do exists, and IE has a good track record of that.

It hardly matters if this software can be run side-by side. Web developers, or any developers for that matter, should already have virtual environments to test compatibility.

Testing multiple versions of software by having it installed side-by-side is in general a bad idea because there is no telling how the different versions have changed one another.

Only because of poor architectural design and coding.
I can run two copies of Firefox side by side without any cross pollination.

There should be no problems with several parallel installations. If there are problems it's merely due to poor handicraft than anything else.

"Does Microsoft literally expect web developers to abandon the largest portion of the market in the name of supporting the new version and the new version only. "

I would expect competent web developers to support the standards and not individual browsers.

I code to standards and then adjust for cross-browser compatibility. I would love to just support standards. How easy that would make my life. Plus, if every web developer did that, then the browser-makers would have to become more compliant, quickly! Unfortunately, the hard reality is that someone else is paying my bills. In the end, if there site looks different in all the browsers or doesn't work in IE6, then I've got a big problem - an unhappy client. I believe in standards-based design, but I'll always implement hacks in xhtml and css as long the majority of people are using browsers that don't render code properly. Even firefox and opera have their problems. (I don't mean to pick solely on IE6)

I am a very competant web developer, coding to the highest standards. You however clearly haven't if you think just coding to the standards instantly solves the issue of supporting every browser. You are living in a dream world if you think the standard works the same on even the three major browsers.

Thanks for not understanding the point.
It's not about standards solving everyting, it's about coding for standards first and tweak for browser quirks later. It would seem though, that many web devepers target browsers first and standards second.

Use VMware on Linux and install XP in it.

Yeah, I do that, but it's a pain. It seems like I never have it already running when I want to use it, so I have to fire it up. And often I've broken something or there is an update so they stop it from working until I acknowledge the message. Worst of all, I can't ALT-TAB between applications in VMware because it is one window. And the operation the mouse change slightly because it gets captured.

The truly wonderful thing of IEs4Linux (or actually Wine) is that I can run IE6 just like another application on my desktop. (Also I can run IE6, IE5.5 and IE5 simultaneously.)

> And the operation the mouse change slightly
> because it gets captured.

Not if you install the VMware tools on the emulated Windows system.

> The truly wonderful thing of IEs4Linux (or
> actually Wine) is that I can run IE6 just
> like another application on my desktop.
> (Also I can run IE6, IE5.5 and IE5
> simultaneously.)

And it doesn't take a shitload of RAM away from your system. I hope they update the script with IE7 too.

Hihi, I almost didn't get the joke!
You have a very dry humor, NotParker ...

Since you have no right to run the software at all, this shouldn't be a big surprise.

Actually, that's not why most people modded you down.

Claiming that IE7 is better than FIREFOX with no support and in a thread about IE7 is not pertinent to the topic and serves no other purpose other than flamebait. As such, it only made sense to mod you down.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your position.

Actually, your parting swipe constitutes personal attack/offensive language, which is a valid reason to mod down. Smooth.

"Maybe you meant the copy of the post I made after being modded down?"

Yeah, that one. My bad.

"What personal attack? "Crybabies" is offensive language?"

Um. Yes? Wouldn't you consider it a personal attack if someone called you that?

(You know, modding someone down because they prefer IE7 is kind of childish ... about what I would expect from OSS crybabies)

Well, what did you expect? You may be right, but you didn't say why.

So ... why do you think it's better?

"(You know, modding someone down because they prefer IE7 is kind of childish ... about what I would expect from OSS crybabies)"

Um, actually, who's being whiny now, troll? I mean, look at yourself: Waaah, waaah!.. OSS zealots mod my trolling down... Waah, waah, waah!..

Grow up.

You think "IE7 is better than Firefox"?

So I take it you are using IE7 right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orc.svg

Did you see the Orc?

So I take it you are using IE7 right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orc.svg

Did you see the Orc?




The image displays in both Firefox 2 and IE7, what is your point?

The image displays in both Firefox 2 and IE7, what is your point?

When I go there in IE7 the image seems to be a PNG. When I use FF, it is a SVG. I think wikipedia is detecting the non-SVG browser and delivering a PNG rendition for the IE users out there.

Well, I can't see any difference between the rendering in K-Meleon 1.02 and IE7. They look completely identical to me.

Well, the word "crybabies" is offensive.

And your style is typically very offensive. You cannot state a simple fact without resorting to personal attacks.

Clean up your act, and I'm sure you'll get a better treatment.

You weren't modded down for liking IE7. I like IE7 as well. This is written in IE7 - and I'm an incarnated Gnome-user btw. Thom don't like IE7, especially not the tabs. I see it completely different, and have no problems adapting to the "wrong" placement of the menu bar.

You were modded down for using the word "crybabies" and that word is offensive, whether or not persons are feeling offended.

If that post were your attempt at being polite, I really don't want to see you being impolite

And just a hint: People may mod you down for using offensive words, even if they aren't offended themselves.

I look forward to IE8 next year!

Perhaps that part did it? I don't know, I'm just guessing. But it might have been that. Claiming that IE7 is superior to Firefox, and claiming IE8 will be released next year - without a shred of documentation for any of these claims _could_ be considered offensive by persons with a more pragmatic view.

Of course, I'm merely guessing, since I thought the crybaby-thing was the reason for you being modded down.

Claiming that IE7 is superior to Firefox, and claiming IE8 will be released next year - without a shred of documentation for any of these claims _could_ be considered offensive by persons with a more pragmatic view.

"pragmatic view"? No.

I think the problem is that hating Microsoft and all its products seems to be part of what it is to be an OSS "fan". I don't have problems with people who disagree with me. I have problems with people who think using and liking Microsoft products is reason to shut them up.

Well, nobody is modding me down when I say I like Microsoft programs.

I still think you're too agressive and that's the reason why you're being modded down. Perhaps some are modding you down as a "preemptive" strike?

Developement of web pages would take 1/4 the time and resources if IE would get it's act together and quit reproducing bugs for the sake of backwards compatability.

Maybe Mozilla should lead the way, eh? It's full of crufty Netscape-specific, non-standards-compliant code.

It's full of crufty Netscape-specific, non-standards-compliant code.

Granted. But it doesn't come at the expense of properly implementing the standards.

There is a registry setting to move the menu bar back where it belongs.

Thanks. I actually prefer it where it is. I like the URL on top.

I like it too... it's really not a big deal.

Also, it took a bloody long time to uninstall the IE7 beta and install itself on my Windows XP SP2 machine at work (2GHz, 512MB).

It took the best part of an hour. Did anyone else see this?

Discriminative search box?! MSN search was default in IE7 before Google complained. Google is also most popular searcher, so I don't know what's so wrong with this.

And this one is the best: "Works with more sites than Firefox"...wtf?! I suggest you read what standards are and a bit about building websites, since you obviously don't know jack about it.

As for tabs: it's the same as in Firefox, even shortcuts, how can this be better than Firefox? You like color better?

Edited 2006-10-19 09:30

Not to bash IE, but MS needs to take it*s time on releases. It only lsted 12 houers from release to the first eksploit was reported http://secunia.com/product/12366/?task=advisories_2006
Let*s hope this will not set a trebd for IE7

Let*s hope this will not set a trebd for IE7

The sad thing is that the vulnerability discovered in IE7 is carried over from IE6 (http://secunia.com/advisories/19738/) where it was first reported nearly 6 months ago and remains unpatched. Granted it's not a run-for-the-hills type of vulnerability, but then some of the nastiest vulnerabilities start that way until somebody figures out an ingenious way to exploit them.

I applaud Microsoft's efforts to admit to and address the inherent security issues with IE6, I've been running IE7 for a while now on any of the Win systems I have to use and it seems decent enough. But if, despite the bravado, they've simply slapped a new layer on the same shaky foundation IE6 was built on, then I don't think we'll see much of anything change.

At least have the decency to patch the old code before you use it to build the new product. Seriously.

"New printing features are wonderful."

Oh, you mean, like, it doesn't cut off the right side of the page when printing it? Marvelous, indeed. Your MSIE (or WIE, if you're paying attention to the latest fit of rebranding at MS's marketing department) is finally on par with every other browser, congrats.

"Tabs are ok ... but IE users have had tabs since the Broadpage add-on in 1999."

Yes, Broadpage had tabs. Not MSIE. There's a difference. Unlike MSIE, Netscape-derivatives had tabs natively, without the need to install some third-party frontend. Before version 7 MSIE has never had tabs. Please, don't forget that, mmm-kay?

"New security features. The phishing filter especially is good. Much better than Firefox's."

Ah, yes, MS finally realized that fusing browser with Windows shell and file manager is a bad idea. Took 'em long enough.

Face it, pal, as far as some of the new features are concerned, your favourite browser is playing catch-up to other browsers, some of which are developed by a bunch of enthusiasts. No amount of semantic wiggling on your part can change this simple fact: MSIE 7 only today has features that have been present in other browsers for years.

Face it, pal, as far as some of the new features are concerned, your favourite browser is playing catch-up to other browsers, some of which are developed by a bunch of enthusiasts. No amount of semantic wiggling on your part can change this simple fact: Firefox/Seamonkey/Safari/OmniWeb only today has features that have been present in other browsers for years.

T,FTFY.

Feel free to copy and paste that into every Mozilla/Apple news story on OSNews.

You're wrong about two items.

1) Firefox does not *by default* make sure items are not cut off on the right side of the page. You have to manually tell it to shrink the page down to fix. All IE7 did was make this behavior the default. Browsers should have done this long ago

2) You didn't say anything remotely relevant to why IE7's anti-phishing feature is better or worse than Firefox's.

You are right though that IE7 has really just caught up with Firefox. There is nothing amazing about it, it's "just like everyone else" now.

2) You didn't say anything remotely relevant to why IE7's anti-phishing feature is better or worse than Firefox's.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3634916

"If you're looking to avoid phishing sites, you may need to look no further than Microsoft's soon to be released Internet Explorer 7 browser.

According to a new study published by technical services firm 3Sharp, security features in Microsoft's IE 7 lead a pack of anti-phishing utilities from Netcraft, Google, eBay and Geotrust.

The study gave top marks to IE 7, which was tested at its beta 3 level and was closely followed by Netcraft.

The report noted that IE beat out Netcraft due to IE's, "ability to anticipate phish," or sites the trick people into coughing up personal information. Google's Safe Browsing anti-phishing tool running on Firefox came in a distant third."

....1

http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=35684
Internet Explorer 7 - 24 hours and 1 vulnerability