Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Oct 2006 21:13 UTC
Internet Explorer "When eWEEK Labs looked at Internet Explorer 6.0 more than five years ago, we were so disappointed in the browser that we said the only reason to upgrade to it was because it was free. That means you'd have to go back nearly nine years to find a release of the Microsoft browser that we found to be significant: IE 5.0. But with the release Oct. 18 of Internet Explorer 7, Microsoft is finally back in the Web browser game in a serious way: IE 7 takes major strides in reversing Microsoft's neglect of the flagship browser." And, surprise.
Order by: Score:
Shocked and appauled
by cyclops on Thu 19th Oct 2006 21:43 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

"In fact, the biggest weakness in IE 7—and one that will always keep it behind competitors—is the fact that it runs only on Windows systems."

That statement is soo wrong.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Shocked and appauled
by elektrik on Fri 20th Oct 2006 01:18 UTC in reply to "Shocked and appauled"
elektrik Member since:
2006-04-18

"That statement is soo wrong."

you're right-the fact that it only runs on XP and higher is what will keep it behind competitors =]

Reply Score: 5

RE: Shocked and appauled
by raver31 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 09:28 UTC in reply to "Shocked and appauled"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

It is in fact a correct statement.

As you all know Firefox is cross platform, and more and more people are switching to it everyday.

However,

The biggest competitor to IE7 is IE6, and this does not just run under Windows.

It will run sweetly under Wine and also Crossover Office.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Shocked and appauled
by g2devi on Fri 20th Oct 2006 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Shocked and appauled"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Actually, IE only runs under Windows. WINE is essentially a Windows layer for non-Windows machines.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Shocked and appauled
by slight on Fri 20th Oct 2006 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shocked and appauled"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

It's a compatibility layer. There's no Windows code involved.

So actually IE does run on other OSs

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Shocked and appauled
by Ookaze on Fri 20th Oct 2006 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shocked and appauled"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

It's a compatibility layer. There's no Windows code involved.
So actually IE does run on other OSs


No it doesn't. When people say it runs on other OS, they mean natively, not through an emulator or equivalent, especially on a unique architecture (x86).
The reverse-engineered Windows code involved is in Wine, the rest is in IE. Or if you prefer, Wine is not an OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Shocked and appauled
by slight on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shocked and appauled"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

I'm sorry but you're wrong. WINE Is Not an Emulator, it maps calls to Windows functions to Linux functions.

No it's not ideal, but it is running on Linux, it's just using a library without realising it.

WINE also isn't reverse engineered Windows code, it is an implementation of the Windows APIs using Linux libraries / kernel.

No it's not ideal that it's x86 only, but that doesn't change the fact that it is technically running natively.

Flash player for Linux is native, but it still doesn't work on x86_64 because it's closed source and not compiled for x86_64, ditto for IE under WINE.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Shocked and appauled
by hkl8324 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 12:20 UTC in reply to "Shocked and appauled"
hkl8324 Member since:
2006-01-01

True...because we dont need IE on other platform.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Shocked and appauled
by Carl on Fri 20th Oct 2006 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Shocked and appauled"
Carl Member since:
2005-06-29

We do. At our office we have a bunch of macs and a couple of linux desktops. We develop web sites, therefore we need to check our sites in IE6 (and now even IE7). Luckily we have a windows box in the corner for remoting. :/

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Shocked and appauled
by tryphcycle on Fri 20th Oct 2006 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Shocked and appauled"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

STOP CATTERING TO IE!!!!!! focus on open standards... put a link to FF on you site... and to hell with MSs infuence on the internet!

this is OUR web... not theirs!!!!

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Shocked and appauled
by slight on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shocked and appauled"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

I guess you don't have a job in web design / development?

Reply Score: 2

Impressed, but still using Firefox
by flanque on Thu 19th Oct 2006 21:43 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

I'm impressed with IE7. I've been running the betas for months now and have very little to complain about.

That being said, I'm still using Firefox as my primary web browser at the minute.

Reply Score: 3

v The "vulnerability" isn't much of one
by NotParker on Thu 19th Oct 2006 21:46 UTC
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Apparently the bug is with Outlook Express not IE7 (http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=35702)

Reply Score: 4

Mathman Member since:
2005-07-08

First off I'd imagine Firefox bugs are much more visable due to Firefox's open nature. But just for the sake of argument let's say that Firefox is 100 times buggier than IE. I'll still feel 100 times safer running Firefox on OpenSuse as opposed to running IE on Windows. IE on Windows is just so much more of a target. But hey, it's your data. Do what you want.

Reply Score: 5

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

hmmm, it might be his data. fair enough
but life is not that simple.

it is my email address his zombie machine is spamming.

Reply Score: 1

Good but not good enought
by Simon S. Law on Thu 19th Oct 2006 21:47 UTC
Simon S. Law
Member since:
2006-10-19

In MS rush to halt FF eating away at their market share.
They still have large gaps in following current web standards.
If you are going to wait 6 years to release a browser why not be forward thinking. 100% compliance with old starndards CSS2,JS,XHTML...
AND some finilized parts of new starndards like CSS3,xforms...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Good but not good enought
by NotParker on Thu 19th Oct 2006 22:10 UTC in reply to "Good but not good enought"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

In MS rush to halt FF eating away at their market share.
They still have large gaps in following current web standards.


Ok. Is there a website summarizing those standards and which browsers are compliant and why or why not?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good but not good enought
by brewin on Thu 19th Oct 2006 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Good but not good enought"
brewin Member since:
2005-06-30

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/

"The only major browser not to pass the test. Not only does it not pass, but it fails quite spectacularly."

And that's just CSS...

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Good but not good enought
by NotParker on Thu 19th Oct 2006 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good but not good enought"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 failed.

Some weird imaginary? 1.6 branch passed:

"Originally planned to have the 1.6 engine branch in version 2.0, this was abandoned as it would delay the release, meaning that Firefox 2 will have the same engine as 1.5. The Reflow branch has been developed further than the original 1.6 branch, and now passes the Acid 2 test, making it the fifth browser to do so. This branch is not yet in any public releases, and although it can be compiled from the CVS source, it is certainly nowhere near ready for public use yet (images fail to appear on many pages, several form inputs do not work, layout does not cope with resizing, and parts of the page or interface may appear and disappear). It will probably become part of the Firefox 3 release (once the regressions are fixed)."


Let me know when Firefox 2.0 passes. Maybe I'll worry about IE7 not passing (or IE8) at that time.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: Good but not good enought
by NotParker on Thu 19th Oct 2006 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good but not good enought"
RE[5]: Good but not good enought
by DrillSgt on Thu 19th Oct 2006 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good but not good enought"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Modded down by 2 people for this?

"Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 failed."


Of course. You posted facts. What were you thinking?? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Good but not good enought
by raver31 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good but not good enought"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

There are some venom spitting, spotty, 15 year olds sitting in their mothers basement, on her Dell, who think the - and + buttons are for statements they either agree or disagree with.

I will admit, I disagree with a lot of the stuff you say, NotParker, but that is not reason to mod you down.

Modding should be used against blatant trolls, ones who spout off crap all the time.

Usually you do that, and those posts that deserve it will indeed go down, but people should actually READ the post before clicking !!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Good but not good enought
by peejay on Fri 20th Oct 2006 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good but not good enought"
peejay Member since:
2005-06-29

There are some venom spitting, spotty, 15 year olds sitting in their mothers basement, on her Dell, who think the - and + buttons are for statements they either agree or disagree with.

The "living in one's parents' basement" argument only applies to those that should've already moved out. It is perfectly appropriate for a 15 year old to still be living at home, using resources provided by their legal guardian(s).

If you're gonna insult, get it right. ;)

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, it doesn't change the fact that 15yo can be quite immature - but so can adults...

I prefer trying to educate NotParker rather than bash him. The first thing is way beyond his scope ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good but not good enought
by raver31 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good but not good enought"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Read what I wrote....

I said SITTING in the basement, not LIVING in it.


duh'

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good but not good enought
by smitty on Thu 19th Oct 2006 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Good but not good enought"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

There is this site, but I'm not sure how accurate it is:

http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php?uas=IE6-IE7-FX...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good but not good enought
by NotParker on Thu 19th Oct 2006 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good but not good enought"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

There is this site, but I'm not sure how accurate it is:

http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php?uas=IE6-IE7-FX.....



Thanks. Thats what I was looking for. I'll check back when its update for IE7 final.

It seems 100% compliance is a bit rare.

Edited 2006-10-19 23:46

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It seems 100% compliance is a bit rare.

That's an understatement, I dare say. None-the-less it shows IE7 is quite behind FF1.5 in regard to standard compliance - on the other hand, none of the browsers are excellent, so one may wonder about the accuracy of the stats, as well as wonder about the need for supporting the newest and the oldest standards, and the least used possibilities.

IE7 seems to render most webpages quite well, so the lacking compliance doesn't seem to be that much of a problem.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Good but not good enought
by smitty on Fri 20th Oct 2006 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good but not good enought"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

IE7 seems to render most webpages quite well, so the lacking compliance doesn't seem to be that much of a problem.

I'm sure most webpages treat it just like IE6, and the backwards compatibility is good enough that they aren't broken. IE7 is way behind the others in standards compliance, but it is hard for me to tell exactly how far that is. The CSS specs are enormous, and most of them are hardly ever used. Nevertheless, I think there is a clear consensus among web developers that they are still going to have to create a specific IE path that is seperate from another that would pretty much work on all the others.

Reply Score: 3

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

IE7 seems to render most webpages quite well, so the lacking compliance doesn't seem to be that much of a problem.

Likely because of its similarity to IE6 which, due to its prepoderance, is a de-facto standard itself, for better or worse.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good but not good enought
by cyclops on Thu 19th Oct 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "Good but not good enought"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

IE7 was intended as the new bowser for vista, but as we are all aware it slipped and slipped.

Its not good enough. The article actually annoyed me.

Summary:-
tabs
rss
anti-phishing
cleaner interface

"Finally, Something to Write Home About". I think not; its a disgrace. 5 years for this from a company with 70,000 employees vs the like of Firefox and opera.

The other side of the coin has become for most people why switch to Firefox its so similar to them.

I believe that IE8 will be wow, because it will have to be, Firefox 2.0 is a good improvement but has no "this is better" or even worth switching to from IE7. The article says it all; 9 years and the innovation is a cleaner interface; tabs; rss; anti-phishing no wonder everyone is talking about web 2.0

Reply Score: 5

anyweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I had a problem with the tabs not appearing as a right click option after installing IE7,

after trying a few things I finally reset the browser (internet options/advanced/reset) and it removed the google toolbar I had installed back in IE6 days.. Once done, the tabs work when i right click !

fyi

http://www.windows-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13

cheers
anyweb

Reply Score: 2

Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

I had a problem with the tabs not appearing as a right click option after installing IE7,

after trying a few things I finally reset the browser (internet options/advanced/reset) and it removed the google toolbar I had installed back in IE6 days.. Once done, the tabs work when i right click !


Strange.... I have the Google toolbar installed, and it's not causing any problems with IE7. I've got tabs & everything.

Reply Score: 1

Hm
by Nelson on Thu 19th Oct 2006 22:27 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/10/19/information-on-rep...
Vuln debunked.

IE7 is a "good" release, not great. It's amazing if you look at what IE6 is and what IE7 is. When comparing it to Firefox and Opera however it falls short (not my too much) but it's still short.

Things I long for are a download manager and a clean interface (Firefox does it right, get it right IE team..please)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hm
by kaiwai on Fri 20th Oct 2006 04:52 UTC in reply to "Hm"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The download manager in Firefox doesn't work; press pause, and it doesn't actually pause it, try to restart it and it starts from the beginning again.

Internet Explorer 7 did have a download manager, but they pulled it because it wasn't ready - the litmus test as to whether Microsoft is actually going to maintain it for the long term is how quickly they get IE 7.x and 8.x out the door; if they take another year, its not good enough, if they release it within 6months of releasing Windows Vista, they're on the ball.

Microsoft has no excuses, it has 50billion and thousands of programmers; it is crap management and crap leadership, coupled with beacratic bungling than anything to do with 'programming Windows is complex'.

Reply Score: 1

All about the extensions
by Lambda on Thu 19th Oct 2006 22:28 UTC
Lambda
Member since:
2006-07-28

IE7 might be a good browser, but I'm pretty much "locked-in" to Firefox extensions at this stage of the game. Couple that with it only being windows and that I've heard that Firefox 2.0 has some nice speed and memory consumption improvements.

But I am looking forward to WPF/E. It's the "flash killer" that should be (should have already) coming to developers as a beta soon. It'll be cross-browser and cross-OS. If the browser is going to be a major applications platform, I'd like to have an engine that is n't as clunky and messy as the stock HTML/CSS/Javascript.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: All about the extensions
by tryphcycle on Fri 20th Oct 2006 15:39 UTC in reply to "All about the extensions"
RE: All about the extensions
by Ookaze on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:11 UTC in reply to "All about the extensions"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

But I am looking forward to WPF/E. It's the "flash killer" that should be coming to developers as a beta soon. It'll be cross-browser and cross-OS

Dream on ! That would be a first. I predict it won't be cross-browser nor cross-OS, unless you think IE6-IE7 is cross browser, and WinXP-WinVista is cross-browser.

If the browser is going to be a major applications platform, I'd like to have an engine that is n't as clunky and messy as the stock HTML/CSS/Javascript

Unfortunately for you, none of these are engines, but just languages.
And one big thing you missed about these, is that they are true standards (meaning they're free to use by anybody).

Reply Score: 1

Is IE7 good enough?
by WorknMan on Thu 19th Oct 2006 22:46 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Other than tabbed browsing, IE6 had all the features that 95% of the masses really ever needed. And most of them didn't even need tabbed browsing. Anybody interested in features galore and wants to use the IE rendering engine will probably use browsers like Maxthon and its ilk, as they are probably already doing. Most of the people I switched to Firefox still couldn't tell you what tabbed browsing is, even though I showed it to them when first installed.

All MS really needed to do was plug the security holes, and I suppose only time will tell if the succeeded at this. The only reason the majority of users who flocked to Firefox did so was because of security concerns.

Sure, a few of us switched for the features (such as tabbed browsing and adblock), but the reason why the majority of my friends and family switched because I insisted on it, due to security concerns. A lot of these systems I upgraded myself because I cared about the users' security. But if IE6 didn't have more holes than swiss cheese, I never would've bothered to switch them, and they never would've bothered to switch. It got annoying to get those late night phone calls asking such questions as, "Hey, why can't I view videos on Launchcast?" Because of people like me who will no longer be interested in maintaining Firefox installs,If IE7 proves to be decent on security, I'm guessing Firefox usage will slip.

Reply Score: 3

Security as a seller
by cyclops on Thu 19th Oct 2006 23:08 UTC in reply to "Is IE7 good enough?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I'd love to know; see a survey. I am not convinced that security is a good seller, admittedly IE6 was notoriously bad it can't have hurt.

Where is the "innovation" (sic)?

I believe that "Songbird" or "The Democracy Player" or its ilk is going to break internet. Something that makes it even easier to access content. RSS; Podcasts only go so far at pushing content.

Microsofts billions spent on r&d on capturing advertising must have something cooking.

Reply Score: 1

Me Likes!
by Jon Dough on Thu 19th Oct 2006 23:19 UTC
Jon Dough
Member since:
2005-11-30

I've been running the new IE7 for just a little while, and I must say, I like what I see! Good job, Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

works fine in Vista RC1
by rockwell on Fri 20th Oct 2006 02:37 UTC
rockwell
Member since:
2005-09-13

Internet Explorer 7(+) ... works fine in Vista RC1 ... in fact, it seems double-fast when compared to running it on XP.

Reply Score: 1

IE 7 Security
by twickline on Fri 20th Oct 2006 02:39 UTC
twickline
Member since:
2005-12-31

Well Microsoft claims IE-7 will be secure and the UI is revolutionary...
When if fact its insecure and the UI is a disaster.

Here is the first of what will most likely be many IE-7 Vulnerabilities.

http://secunia.com/Internet_Explorer_Arbitrary_Content_Disclosure_V...

And as for Microsoft ever supporting open standards, that is toatle joke!

Edited 2006-10-20 02:40

Reply Score: 2

RE: IE 7 Security
by jayson.knight on Fri 20th Oct 2006 06:06 UTC in reply to "IE 7 Security"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

The IE 7 build included with the last release of Vista (7.0.5744.16384) passes that test.

Reply Score: 1

Most wanted feature
by twickline on Fri 20th Oct 2006 02:48 UTC
twickline
Member since:
2005-12-31

After a quick survey I have found the number one wanted feature in IE..
And that is a "UN INSTALL" now if Microsoft really cares about it's customers they will give them what they really want. the ability to remove unwanted software from there operating system.

Reply Score: 5

i wasn't suprized.
by graigsmith on Fri 20th Oct 2006 03:40 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

wait, the suprize was supposed to be a suprize? we all know that they cant make it secure. come on now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: i wasn't suprized.
by BluenoseJake on Fri 20th Oct 2006 13:50 UTC in reply to "i wasn't suprized."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

except that the exploit is actually in Outlook Express, which is still at version 6, and the problem is also evident in IE 6 because of that. they just ahve to fix OE, not IE

Reply Score: 1

I'm tired of this crap.
by l3v1 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 05:47 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

These articles, and loads of blog posts appear in packs during the last months and keep coming, most of them bragging about the novelties and the newly found superiority of IE7. Those who try to keep a bit of a distance and look more closely what IE7 really has in itself, come to the conclusion (myself included) that IE7 has absolutely no feature that about any other browser doesn't have, and most of these features are much better realized in other browsers. In seurity elements, in anti-phishing, in content zooming, in interface and gui, in reliability, in speed, in plugins and extensions, in customization. I won't even mention standards, since the average crowds couldn't care less about them, but I expect most of the OSNews reader base knows about IE7's "capabilities" regarding CSS2+, DOM2, XHTML, Javascript, etc.

Usually I don't care if some people prefer one product over the others and try to advocate it for the masses. But there's so much bullcrap I can take after I got fed up.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I'm tired of this crap.
by Beta on Fri 20th Oct 2006 10:21 UTC in reply to "I'm tired of this crap."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

++

Reply Score: 1

Mixed
by TBPrince on Fri 20th Oct 2006 09:54 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't install IE 7 on main systems yet but on a couple of VM, on which I'm using IE 6 as standalone browser now.

Apart from the browser itself, my main concern is tests I did on final version show that IE7 doesn't render websites like IE6 (obiuvsly) neither like FF or Opera so this means I need to support another major revision in my code. Pfff... I'm not happy about this, actually.

This is partially mitigated by the fact Microsoft is pushing IE7 to customers via automatic update which will make IE7 adoption rate quite high (two of my Windows2003 systems already had IE7 waiting to be installed yesterday...) however, given IE6 huge market share, it will surely take a while for IE7 to replace it and in the meanwhile I need to support both editions. More work... pfff....

Edited 2006-10-20 09:54

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mixed
by Coxy on Fri 20th Oct 2006 11:47 UTC in reply to "Mixed"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

I don't think it will be as high as you think. 12mb? On dial up? How many people are going to wait to get that downloadedd before they can use the internet that they're paying by the minute for?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mixed
by TBPrince on Fri 20th Oct 2006 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Mixed"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Dial-up connections will be slow in updating but anyway we have millions of PCs which are connected by xDSL connections and we have server installations too.

Consider Italy, for example: we have over 7,5millions xDSL connections on a 22millions userbase. That means that 1 out of 3 PC will be updated (yeah, not all of them are runinng WinXP or Win2003 but it's safe to estimate 90% of them will be updated).

If you consider servers (Wind2003 installations), IE 7 could gather 1/3 of IE 6 userbase in a few weeks. Of course, dial-up connections will be slower to upgrade but a good part of them are occasional Internet users who don't care that much about this.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Reply Score: 1

Others have said this...
by leech on Fri 20th Oct 2006 10:35 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Just not quite so directly yet, so I'll state it here. The reason it sucks that IE is not standards compliant, is that it means that web developers have to put in more code and work into their websites to make sure it works with everyone's browsers.

Of course if it were up to Microsoft, they'd want websites to only display properly in IE anyhow. It's the same thing with everything that Microsoft does. They'd rather have a closed document format that only displays properly in their word processor, etc.

It's crap that for example, if you want transparent menus in a website you have to use a different line for Firefox, IE and even older Mozilla builds. Maybe now even a different one for IE7.

The web was created as a standard, so that any website should appear the exact same no matter what program you would use to look at it. But since not all browsers are created equally under the hood, then this doesn't happen.

The fact that there IS a group that puts out the specifications of how things should be coded makes it entirely the fault of the Browser programmers themselves.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Others have said this...
by eMagius on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:02 UTC in reply to "Others have said this..."
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Why doesn't Mozilla take the lead? The Fx fans and developers are always bashing IE on how it's got all these non-compliant technologies whilst their own product is full of proprietary Netscape cruft.

Of course, as soon as Fx became standards-compliant, all the big sites would be unusable (including most of Google).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Others have said this...
by llanitedave on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Others have said this..."
llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

"Of course, as soon as Fx became standards-compliant, all the big sites would be unusable (including most of Google)."

Not true, unless for some reason the new versions forget about backward compatibility. Standards-compliant doesn't mean that there can be only one way of doing things. They can be standards-compliant as well as retaining the ability to handle older, deprecated code. That's what's more likely.

Reply Score: 1

The only reason ...
by aGNUstic on Fri 20th Oct 2006 12:33 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

to continue using IE is compliance to websites that live on their knees to MS standards.

Reply Score: 2

IE7: one step sideways
by jo42 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 14:44 UTC
jo42
Member since:
2006-02-20

I tried IE7 final on fresh XP SP2 install yesterday.

The first thing I noticed is that overall it seemed slower than IE6 viewing the exact same web sites. Long pauses before pages where rendered. Very long pauses on long web pages (Slashdot) and that it didn't render articles on Slashdot correctly - text overlapping itself something awful.

So, while it may be more standards compliant, it has gone backwards in usability.

Reply Score: 1

bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

If nothing else, it might stop online thievery for all those people unwilling to download and use Firefox or Opera.

It's sad Microsoft wasted so much time to bring enhancements to the browser but at least, they've delivered something that possibly has fewer security holes.

Reply Score: 1

snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

IE 5 was released late enough to support CSS2. IE 7 only marginally supports CSS2 and supports NO PROPERTIES missing from IE 6, as well as not repairing the HTML tags IE 6 breaks badly (BUTTON, for example) or removing incorrect CSS implementations (text-align:center aligning block-level elements instead of their contents). So, no, it isn't everything IE 5 should have been.

Reply Score: 1

Don't Like It
by patrick_ on Sat 21st Oct 2006 00:54 UTC
patrick_
Member since:
2006-03-02

I honestly must say, I do _not_ like the IE7 interface, at all. I think it's poorly designed; IE6 looks beautiful in comparison. The only reason I like IE (though I don't use it ever) is because it's got a faster rendering engine, and uses less resources, than FF.

Reply Score: 1