Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Oct 2006 14:38 UTC
Internet Explorer "We've gotten some questions here today about public reports claiming there's a new vulnerability in Internet Explorer 7. These reports are technically inaccurate: the issue concerned in these reports is not in Internet Explorer 7 (or any other version) at all. Rather, it is in a different Windows component, specifically a component in Outlook Express. While these reports use Internet Explorer as a vector the vulnerability itself is in Outlook Express." Meanwhile, Adam has published an article on IE7 on his blog: "IE7 is a major plus for anyone who understands the internet and networks, and especially for those who do web development. Read on for a lengthy review."
Order by: Score:
twickline
Member since:
2005-12-31

Just because a vulnerability comes from an underlying component, this does not relieve Internet Explorer from responsibility, seeing as it provides a direct vector to the vulnerable component.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35253

Reply Score: 5

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

As a friend said:
"it can be exploited via tcp/ip
so it's clearly a tcp/ip vulnerability
via a linux server
it's clearly a linux vulnerability then
but the network card let it happen
so it's clearly a hardware vulnerability!"

Reply Score: 5

Please.
by diegocg on Fri 20th Oct 2006 15:28 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

"and especially for those who do web development"

Depends on how you take it. You may take it as "hey, the glass is half full: IE6 was horrendous in terms of web development (because of the lack of standars support), IE7 is better"


Maybe my glass is half-void, because IMHO IE7 is one of the worst news in the latests years in the web development world. After so many years of lacking decent standards support, Microsoft spends a year improving the most used browser in the world and still they manage to leave standards support almost as sucky as before. This means web masters will have to wait until IE8 (and let's see what IE8 brings us), which won't be released anytime soon. Now that the web is the top #1 computing resource for everyone around the world, Microsoft makes it harder to evolve it.

How it's possible that the most powerful software company in the world is not capable of creating a browser with decent standards support? And why should web masters consider that IE7 is a "major plus", except if you add "major plus shit"?

If IE weren't shipped in windows, nobody would use it due to their inferior rendering technology and the fact that in the last 5 years they've been always the last on including cool features

Edited 2006-10-20 15:48

Reply Score: 5

RE: Please.
by CPUGuy on Fri 20th Oct 2006 15:32 UTC in reply to "Please."
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

The point of IE7 (which was stated from the get-go), was to update the UI, to fix the rendering bugs in IE6, and add support for a few new things.
They never, ever said that any different.

However, they also said that they would be releasing updates to IE itself frequently. So, we shall see about that.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Please.
by eMagius on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:05 UTC in reply to "Please."
RE[2]: Please.
by Shkaba on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Please."
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

From the get go, Firefox was more secure then IE and included more features then IE had, and THAT is the reason why it was so "religiously" promoted.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Please.
by eMagius on Fri 20th Oct 2006 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please."
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

From the get go, Firefox was more secure then IE and included more features then IE had, and THAT is the reason why it was so "religiously" promoted.

And yet it was much less secure, much less stable, must less sleek, much less usable, and much less featureful than other browsers.

But OSNews/Slashdot zealots will continue in their fanatical devotion, modding up any pro-Firefox/Linux post (no matter how erroneous and off-topic) and modding down any "anti"-Firefox/Linux post (no matter how factual and on-topic).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, apart from you being factually wrong...

FF 1.x is more secure than IE 6.x. Much more secure. It's not 100% secure, but it is much more secure. Opera seems to be even better, but the userbase is so small, it's difficult to say, since nobody cares about attacking it. But it does seem to be the safest around.

FF 1.X have more features than Opera and IE, especially if you count in extensions. So you're factually wrong again, eMagius.

Does FF/Mozilla have stability issues, memory issues and security issues. Yes. Should we be worried? No.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Please.
by raver31 on Sat 21st Oct 2006 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

We should not be worried about the menory issues in Firefox ? hmmm sorry, but I am.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Please.
by TomB7 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 18:14 UTC in reply to "Please."
RE: Please.
by NotParker on Fri 20th Oct 2006 19:11 UTC in reply to "Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

If IE weren't shipped in windows, nobody would use it due to their inferior rendering technology and the fact that in the last 5 years they've been always the last on including cool features

Then why do so many pages not render properly in Firefox? Because they were written for IE.

Why were they written for IE? Because it was by far the best browser available for years and years while Netscape committed product suicide.

IF (and its a big IF) every time some new "standard" came out every website in the world immediately started using that new standard then that would be a reason to use a newer browser.

Instead, there are millions of webpages coded for IE.

So whats the best browser for most pages on the web - IE.

IE7 is a great browser.

And for those that say Firefox is more secure - 64 vulnerabilities and half of those "own the PC" vulnerabilities in 2006 alone says otherwise.

(Yes, I know I'll get modded down for that... but I'll just repost it)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Please.
by umccullough on Fri 20th Oct 2006 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Please."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Why were they written for IE? Because it was by far the best browser available for years and years while Netscape committed product suicide.

Are you so sure? - did you ask all those people if that's why they used IE?

I suspect the reason so many people used IE is because it came with their computers, and worked out of the box. No additional software required. The reason so many websites are written for IE is because so many people are/were using it.

Granted, Netscape wasn't exactly "great software" in it's day (and still isn't) - but your logic is still flawed nonetheless.

Edited 2006-10-20 19:18

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Please.
by NotParker on Fri 20th Oct 2006 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Are you so sure? - did you ask all those people if that's why they used IE?

Were you around in those days? I was.

I used Mosaic when it came out.

I download used Netscape 1,2,3 and 4. (Which were all free by the way no matter what anyone says)

I downloaded and used IE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

IE 3 and Netscape 3 were close enough that it wouldn't make you switch. IE 4 was way better than Netscape 4 and then the Netscape 5 project blew up and 5 never really came out. Then IE 5 cameout and there was no question which was better.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Please.
by umccullough on Fri 20th Oct 2006 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Were you around in those days? I was.

toot toot...

Of course I was around in those days... I used Mosaic, and I did use IE exclusively on Windows until Phoenix appeared. I also messed with the Mozilla suite, but it just wasn't for me. I never seriously used Netscape other than installing it to see how different it was.

So, you seriously missed my point... most people did not even know there was such a thing as a "browser" - or that they had a choice. I can't tell you how many people consider the "blue E" on their desktop to be synonymous with "internet". There's nothing wrong with this notion, but you still seem to turn a blind-eye to the fact that IE gained popularity due to its market-share, not the other way around.

But, let me spin this a different way for you: Why would web designers feel the need to design for a specific browser in the first place? That's why standards are created is it not? If IE had been standards-compliant from the start, I can't see how anyone would be sitting around today saying: "People should use IE because websites are built for IE". Now, to give you something, I'll admit that Netscape did this first with their initial "non-standard" extensions to the HTML spec...

Finally, you seem to be dead-set on trolling and generating flamebait - so you'll have to get used to being mod'd down as a result. Facts cannot be presented in that form if you want to be taken seriously.

Edit: added a point I missed.

Edited 2006-10-20 22:16

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Please.
by NotParker on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

So, you seriously missed my point... most people did not even know there was such a thing as a "browser" - or that they had a choice.

A browser was not bundled with Windows until Windows 98 (technically Windows 96 OSR 2 but that was not buyable in the store) . And that was IE 4. And it was better than Netscape 4.

So, until Windows 98 was released, everyone had to either download a browser from the web or buy it on floppies at a store.

So yes, those who were using a browser knew what it was for at least until IE4.

Finally, you seem to be dead-set on trolling and generating flamebait - so you'll have to get used to being mod'd down as a result. Facts cannot be presented in that form if you want to be taken seriously.

The new definition of flamebait: Remembering how it was instead of the "legend" or posting facts that you disagree with.

I get threatened a lot now. Be nice or we'll mod you down. Tell it like we want to hear instead of how it actually is or we'll mod you down.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Please.
by umccullough on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

A browser was not bundled with Windows until Windows 98 (technically Windows 96 OSR 2 but that was not buyable in the store) . And that was IE 4. And it was better than Netscape 4.

You ought to go back and check your facts bud. IE 2 was released with Windows 95 OSR 1 which was installed on every OEM machine after 1995 (yes, for more than the last 10 years even)

This I know being involved in companies building Windows-only software for the last 13 years, having access to MSDN subscriptions during this time, and also having re-installed many, many PCs and laptops during that time.

If you need reassurance, please check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_%2795#Editions

And I wasn't threatening - only pointing out how the real world works... I generally choose to educate and inform rather than punish and degrade.

Edit: removed my incorrect date reference - as that applied to OSR2 even. OSR1 came out later in 1995, not 1996

Edited 2006-10-20 23:53

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Please.
by NotParker on Sat 21st Oct 2006 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

You ought to go back and check your facts bud. IE 2 was released with Windows 95 OSR 1

I stand partially corrected since IE 2 did not come with the shrink wrapped version of Windows 95 which is how (in my memory) most people ended up with Windows 95.

People with shrink wrapped versions of Win95 bought IE via the Microsoft Plus Pack.

Even if you did get IE 2 on your PC, most people downloaded Netscape 2.0 and later and future versions of IE from places like Strouds.

Very few people stayed with IE 2.0 during the browser wars.

And then, after a while, IE 4 was better than Netscape 4.0. Both were free to download, but IE was better.

Edited 2006-10-21 00:51

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Please.
by Coxy on Sat 21st Oct 2006 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please."
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Are you sure? Have you asked all the IE users if they just use IE because it came with their computers? I use IE because it's fast, you can edit bookmarks in Explorer and yes, because it came with my computer. It's just a browser. It does everything I need, I'm not interested in other browsers. I've tried them all and never found any reason to switch.

'it came with their computers, and worked out of the box.'

I assume you also try and pursade Linux users who find their OS comes with pre-installed with FireFox to install another browser too? Or are you just biased against MS?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Please.
by SlackerJack on Sat 21st Oct 2006 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Linux users try different browsers all the time, in the past IE was the only way of doing certain things. Firefox only comes with distros because it's the browser of choice not because mozilla say so.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Please.
by umccullough on Sat 21st Oct 2006 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I assume you also try and pursade Linux users who find their OS comes with pre-installed with FireFox to install another browser too? Or are you just biased against MS?

Where do all you guys come from? -- it's like you're all in this combative, anti-anti-MS mode. If someone uses a fact to further their previous statements, you get all huffy and obnoxious.

My statements were not pro-FF or anti-IE - but for some reason the assumption is that they were. I was merely trying to point out that IE's marketshare was not necessarily because it was great. It was because it was there, and most computer users that buy a computer do not know how to change their browser. If Firefox was installed on every machine sold in the last 10 years, I would be using the EXACT SAME LOGIC.

Please don't take facts and statistics and try to prove they are wrong simply because you don't believe them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Please.
by NotParker on Sat 21st Oct 2006 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

was merely trying to point out that IE's marketshare was not necessarily because it was great. It was because it was there

And the point I was trying to make is that for the first 2 years of the browser wars, IE was not installed on any copy of Windows.

For the next 2 years of the browser wars IE was not installed on any shrink wrapped copy of Windows.

Only when Win98 came along was IE 4.0 installed on all copies of Windows.

And most people who tried IE 4.0 and Netscape 4. agreed IE 4 was the better browser.

If you read my earlier quote about Netscapes master plan, the reality is that if Netscape had not chosen to give away Netscape for free, it would not have had any market share either.

Something like 20 companies were building browsers on technology licensed by the University of Illinois to Spyglass.

Netscapes "giveaway plan" screwed all those companies (except for Microsoft who also gave away the browser).

The biggest myth of the internet age is that IE beat Netscape by giving away IE.

The reality is that Netscape stole the IP of Mosaic from the University of Illinois and gave away Netscape to screw all those companies that had licensed Mosaic technology from Spuglass.

Edited 2006-10-21 20:50

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Please.
by Shkaba on Sat 21st Oct 2006 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please."
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

I suppose you would consider a myth the fact that IE is (was) integral part of windows. But that was established in the court of law, and considered monopolistic behaviour.
No matter how much you guys mod down my post, simple truth remains: IE was the biggest gate for malware, closely followed by IIS and outlook

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Please.
by NotParker on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

suppose you would consider a myth the fact that IE is (was) integral part of windows. But that was established in the court of law, and considered monopolistic behaviour.

"The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

And yet, we know very well that for first crucial years of the browser wars that was not true. And we also know Netscape gave aways its browser for free for its whole history.

Judges aren't infallible.

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds, that he gave off-the-record, but nevertheless disclosed, interviews to the news media during the case, and that Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper."

"the appeals court did affirm in part Judge Jackson's ruling on monopolization. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy for "drastically altered scope of liability" that the court had upheld, under Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly."

"the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future."


Frankly, the case was an appalling miscarriage of justice since Microsoft main competitor was giving away its products for free.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Please."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, you cannot look at the number of vulnerabilities alone.

You need to consider how much damage can the vulnerability result in, and how likely it is that the vulnerability can or will be used. Most FF vulnerabilities are non-issues and several of them are from the same code flaw, and therefore should only be counted as one vulnerability.

The close integration between IE and Windows makes for a much easier attack vector.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: Please.
by NotParker on Fri 20th Oct 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please."
RE[4]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

*LOL*

You have to read the description of the bugs much closer.

Critical bugs are NOT bugs that can be used to run attacker code and install software. Critical bugs are bugs that Mozilla PRESUME can be used to run attacker code and install software.

They PRESUME. They don't know for sure. There's a heck of a difference here.

Several of these flaws have turned out to be most theoritical. Fact is that the Mozilla devs have a very strict view on whether something is critical or not. Several of the "critical" vulnerabilities are rated as "low risk" by security companies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Please.
by NotParker on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Critical bugs are NOT bugs that can be used to run attacker code and install software. Critical bugs are bugs that Mozilla PRESUME can be used to run attacker code and install software.

They PRESUME. They don't know for sure. There's a heck of a difference here.


Have you heard the term "grasping at straws"?

Edited 2006-10-20 23:09

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'm just being most accurate.

But it is fun after all to see you throwing around with stats, with absolutely no regard to proper scientific practice ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Please.
by eMagius on Sat 21st Oct 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please."
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

But it is fun after all to see you throwing around with stats, with absolutely no regard to proper scientific practice

Kind of like your claim that Opera's (or Safari's or Konqueror's) security record doesn't count because it's not quite as popular as Firefox? Firefox is not nearly as popular as IE, but you don't use the same argument there.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Please.
by smitty on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

The close integration between IE and Windows makes for a much easier attack vector.

It seems there are 31 refutations of that statement in 2006 alone.


LOL. Did you even read what you were replying to? He never said Mozilla's security was perfect, he just said it was better than IE's. If there were 31 critical Mozilla vulnerabilities, you need to prove that there were fewer than 31 IE vulnerabilities of a similar severity. Then on top of that you would need to show that they had a smaller chance of being abused. 31 vulnerabilities open for 1 week a piece are going to be much safer than a single vulnerability that goes unfixed for a year.

Edited 2006-10-20 23:05

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Please."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Why were they written for IE? Because it was by far the best browser available for years and years while Netscape committed product suicide.

That one is going to get you modded down, I'm almost positive. It's so offensive to pragmatic persons you're bound to be modded down. Or perhaps people will consider it so funny, they'll mod you up.

Microsoft killed Netscape through illegal means, and most people use IE because it is shipped with Windows, and because they are completely clueless, and because they are scared of the technology. The technology controls them instead of opposite. They are afraid of learning new things.

(Yes, I know I'll get modded down for that... but I'll just repost it)

Now - THAT would be VERY offensive. If you repost it, I'm positive it will be modded down. No matter how factually correct the post may or may not be. By reposting it you'd be challenging good ethical behaviour on the net. I cannot recommend doing that.

EDIT: Yes, IE7 is a good browser. After a little tweaking it's pretty good. I still prefer K-Meleon, but at least IE is no longer laughing stock.

Edited 2006-10-20 19:28

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Please.
by NotParker on Fri 20th Oct 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Microsoft killed Netscape through illegal means

Netscape gave away every version of their browser to home users for free.

So did Microsoft.

Why would you claim giving software away for free is a crime? Isn't that what OSS is all about?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I wasn't talking about the price. The price is irrelevant. I'm talking about Microsoft hiding information from Netscape despite agreements between Netscape and Microsoft, and internal emails from Microsoft stating that tying IE close to Windows was necessary to destroy Netscape.

And that was despite an earlier ruling that Microsoft could not bundle other applications with Windows.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Please.
by NotParker on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please."
RE[6]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Netscape didn't steal any code.
However, Microsoft was involved in a case with SpyGlass. It resulted in a settlement.

Your way of interpreting the world around you is so skewed I really don't know what to think of it. The only other person in this world to be that... alternative is Bo Warming. And I doubt you'd like that comparison.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Please.
by NotParker on Sat 21st Oct 2006 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Netscape didn't steal any code.

Bzzzttt. Wrong again!

"There was one major problem facing Mosaic. The University of Illinois claimed that Mosaic Netscape had stolen Mosaic from them and demanded they change their name and quit distributing their product. Mosaic changed their name to Netscape Communications Corporation., but refused to quit distributing their software. On December 21, 1994, an agreement was reached. The University of Illinois made no further claims on Netscape and received a financial settlement. The settlement plus legal expense cost Netscape close to $3 million"

http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/andreesen.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Please.
by tertiary_adjunct on Sat 21st Oct 2006 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please."
tertiary_adjunct Member since:
2006-01-15
RE[7]: Please.
by NotParker on Sat 21st Oct 2006 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape, was one of the creators of Mosiac and was actually the project leader. He didn't steal anything.

It would depend. Was he paid to develop Mosaic by the University?

Then it was the Univerity's intellectual property. The University licensed the technology to Spyglass, so the Univerity certainly thought they owned it.

And in fact Mosaic paid the university 3 million dollars in admission of that fact.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Please.
by kaiwai on Sat 21st Oct 2006 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Please."
v RE[6]: Please.
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Oct 2006 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Please."
RE[7]: Please.
by kaiwai on Sat 21st Oct 2006 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"NotParker #2"? Please, just because I might share the occassional opinion which s the same as his, doesn't mean that we're some how related, the same or agree on everything.

The problem with you Firefox fanboys is simple, you get offended to easily, you abuse the points system, and worst of all, use adhomein attacks on people rather than debating the issue at hand.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Please.
by kaiwai on Sat 21st Oct 2006 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Please."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"NotParker #2"? Please, just because I might share the occassional opinion which s the same as his, doesn't mean that we're some how related, the same or agree on everything.

The problem with you Firefox fanboys is simple, you get offended to easily, you abuse the points system, and worst of all, use adhomein attacks on people rather than debating the issue at hand.

Reply Score: 0

SNAFU
by Sphinx on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:05 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Did anyone actually expect anything really different?

Reply Score: 2

Interesting...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:39 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

I agree with the Adam Scheinberg on most of it, except the bit about the Acid2 test.

And Thom's getting support from Adam, I can see. Truth is that nobody can explain why the menubar had to placed beneath the addressbar - as the only application I've ever met on any platform.

Not that I cannot easily adapt, but modifying the registry to place the menubar properly did give a much nicer result.

In regard to the vulnerability, I'll have to wait and see what the investigation brings forward. Anyway, use common sense - it helps a lot.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting...
by grat on Fri 20th Oct 2006 18:21 UTC in reply to "Interesting..."
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

And Thom's getting support from Adam, I can see. Truth is that nobody can explain why the menubar had to placed beneath the addressbar - as the only application I've ever met on any platform.

One of the new "Features" of the Vista UI is that menus, by default, are hidden. Tapping the Alt key causes them to appear at the top of of the window frame, which in this case would be below the URL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Interesting...
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Oct 2006 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

One of the new "Features" of the Vista UI is that menus, by default, are hidden. Tapping the Alt key causes them to appear at the top of of the window frame, which in this case would be below the URL.

Irrelevant. I am using Windows XP on my laptop, and I expect menubars to appear in the same place as they appear everywhere else in my operating system. I don't care about Vista when I'm using XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Interesting...
by grat on Fri 20th Oct 2006 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting..."
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Irrelevant. I am using Windows XP on my laptop, and I expect menubars to appear in the same place as they appear everywhere else in my operating system. I don't care about Vista when I'm using XP.

Irrelevant or not, I'm guessing that's why they did it. ;)

Having read the article, it's full of opinions, little facts, and basically "Hey, look at all these great features IE 7 has that the other browsers implemented years ago!".

If it's more secure than IE6, I'm happy. I'm still recommending firefox to people, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Interesting...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 20th Oct 2006 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yeah. Irrelevant, since IE7 is designed to run on several Windows versions. It may make sense on vista, but it doesn't make sense in XP or Win2K3. Personally I don't think hiding the menubar makes any sense at all in any DE.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Interesting...
by stooovie on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting..."
stooovie Member since:
2006-01-25

Irrelevant or not, with this kind of attitude, we would be still clicking text-menus at the bottom of the screen as we did with Word 2.0 for DOS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Interesting...
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Oct 2006 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No we wouldn't. (And who used Word for DOS? Ever heard of WP?)

All I'm saying is that Microsoft should make sure that the UI of their applications are consistent for each platform.

That doesn't mean Vista cannot be different than XP, just that MS applications for XP must be consistent with other MS applications for XP.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Interesting...
by kaiwai on Sat 21st Oct 2006 02:53 UTC in reply to "Interesting..."
dumb?
by l3v1 on Fri 20th Oct 2006 16:53 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

IE7 is a major plus for anyone who understands the internet and networks, and especially for those who do web development.

I think this is the most subtly scornful way that I've ever been called dumb :]

Reply Score: 5

Double standards
by Barnabyh on Fri 20th Oct 2006 17:12 UTC
Barnabyh
Member since:
2006-02-06

The author recommends us all to upgrade to RC1 right now and would urge all his family to install it, yet he writes he will continue to use Firefox and Camino because IE7 is actually not that much of an improvement to make him drop them. So I guess that means they are still better but he wants the rest of us to use an inferior product. Talking about double standards.

"This browser is a step up and a valiant effort from a company whose innovation pipeline has been exhausted for some time."

Shame though that a company with these resources could 've done so much better if they were actually really interested in giving us a good product rather than doing some half assed quickie 'it's good enough' development. Could 've started with the interface.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Double standards
by CPUGuy on Fri 20th Oct 2006 17:18 UTC in reply to "Double standards"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because you don't like the interface doesn't mean that no one likes the interface.

I really like it, personally.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Double standards
by umccullough on Fri 20th Oct 2006 18:30 UTC in reply to "Double standards"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The author recommends us all to upgrade to RC1 right now and would urge all his family to install it, yet he writes he will continue to use Firefox and Camino because IE7 is actually not that much of an improvement to make him drop them.

No, this is really an important step - if IE7 is any more secure than IE6, everyone should upgrade to it even if they're not using it... since it MUST exist on a windows machine anyway, you might as well make sure it's the most secure version available - to prevent possible abuse from malware that STILL may accidentally land on the machine one way or another.

EDIT: Updated a stupid typo.

Edited 2006-10-20 18:30

Reply Score: 4

RE: Double standards
by Adam S on Fri 20th Oct 2006 18:48 UTC in reply to "Double standards"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

So I guess that means they are still better but he wants the rest of us to use an inferior product. Talking about double standards.

No, I'm recommending that the people who DON'T want to use FF, Opera, or Camino (because they prefer IE) use this instead. I'm still telling everyone to use a Gecko browser when they can.

EVERYONE on Windows, IMHO, should upgrade to IE7 whether they use it or not, simply because IE is used by so many components, and why would you want a less secure system?

By the way, IE7 is gold, not RC.

Reply Score: 1

IE 7 with pop up notifications
by Southern.Pride on Fri 20th Oct 2006 23:31 UTC
Southern.Pride
Member since:
2006-09-14

Microsoft has taken it to the extreme with popup notifications for example, the Internet Security Properties, this box pops up a prompt that will not go away until you allow the 'standard' recommendations from MS.

In Linux I can configure my browser anywhich way, taking in account I am responsible for my mishaps. IE7 is on the right track, but they need to allow options to disable these messages instead of iron fisting set in stone settings that you cannot change.

The worst part of security is grant the least possible permissions the first time around because you can always add, but Microsoft is trying to take away from a full house full of holes which is a mess.

Reply Score: 1

Windows 95 and Explorer
by jaygade on Sat 21st Oct 2006 06:22 UTC
jaygade
Member since:
2005-06-29

When I bought Windows 95 in 1996 for my first homebuilt PC, it included a separate CD with IE 3 on it.

How can Marc Andreeson steal his own code from University of Illinois? He wrote the fricken' code!

Plus your own posts make it sound like the code was re-written pretty much from scratch based on web standards at the time.

Reply Score: 1

Wtf?
by Soulbender on Sat 21st Oct 2006 07:33 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Everthing else aside (IE7 good, bad, whatever), I don't see the "major plus" for people who "understands the internet and networks".

Reply Score: 0

RE: Wtf?
by Adam S on Sat 21st Oct 2006 19:55 UTC in reply to "Wtf?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Ok, let's see...

1. IE7 is very controllable via Active Directory Group Policy. Opera is not. Firefox is not.
2. IE7 allows you to reset the browser to a safe state. For people who manage networks with Windows clients - which is EASILY most networks - this is GREAT news, since IE is often the entry point of malware. This is not so telling in and of itself, because IE is preinstalled on all machines.
3. IE7 supports alpha-channel PNGs and much CSS2.
4. IE7 requires more aggressive input to install ActiveX controls.

So, yes, if you understand networks and web design, this is a good thing. And if you still don't believe me, then I don't believe your priorities are in network management, network security, or web design and compatibility. I stand by my statement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wtf?
by MysterMask on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Wtf?"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

What's your point? that we should stick with the MS IE monopoly? That we should kill CSS3 because MS does not support it? That we should stick to IE optimized web sites. That ActiveX should stay for good? That we should be forced to buy Windows to use certain web sites and services even though the net itself was build with the idea of vendor neutrality and standards?

If peope managing windows client only networks have problems with network management, security, ActiveX and so on and are in a desperate need of the IE7 udpate they should probably ask themselfes if their choice of network and client technology was good in the first place!


So if your priorities are in network management, network security, or web design and compatibility you'd IMHO better wish for an end of the MS-only era and a failure of MS with IE7 (and Vista). This will speed up the process of replacing Windows-only stuff on the net and will in turn benefit users, security, (open) standards, our money bag, network engineers, web designers, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wtf?
by Adam S on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wtf?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

-1. Anti-Microsoft fanboy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wtf?
by MysterMask on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wtf?"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

I see you're running out of arguments..

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wtf?
by Adam S on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wtf?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

No, I stand by what I said. Your argument is a straw man, and it's pointless. I say, this helps network admins **today** - network admins who run Windows networks, which is about 90% of networks. This is a BIG step up in management of security.

You say, "No, IE sucks, so it helps get rid of Windows. Migrate the Linux today!"

You're completely missing my point, which is the improvement it offers RIGHT NOW, and you're aiming for the totally typical, completely predictable, fully rebuttable, wholly irrelevant, overused argument - get rid of Windows for Linux. That illustrates the issue: people who take that stance typically have very little knowledge of how it works when you're running a REAL business, and in all liklihood, little relevance in IT business anyway. You can't just switch out OSes without THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of dollars of re-training your IT staff, retraining your users, migrating your applications, etc. So, I repeat: you fail it.

Come back when you address the actual argument and not just trumpet your own anti-MS agenda.

PS: I'm a realist, not a Microsoft fan.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wtf?
by MysterMask on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wtf?"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

You say, " [..] Migrate the Linux today!

No. I didn't, nor did I used the word Linux once (I don't use Linux or Windows but that's irrelevant). Your world is pretty black-and-white, isn't it?

I said it would be better to ignore MS and move on the better solutions. A good IT policy should not be dependent on vendors but on standards. Every company chooses which way they like to go with every new system/solution or upgrade thereof. Migration does not necesserally mean to "pull the plug all of a sudden", but to change gradually by e. g. not upgrading but planing and moving to viable alternatives.



network admins who run Windows networks, which is about 90% of networks

Most companies I know have switch to "Windows clients - Linux or Unix servers". I wouldn't call that a "windows network". BTW, the Internet uses TCP/IP. Call it an open-standard success story ...

You can't just switch out OSes without THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of dollars of re-training your IT staff, retraining your users, migrating your applications, etc.

1. That's exactly what MS wants us to believe. Funny thing that most big companies shelled out money and managed to migrate from Unix to NT, from NT to 2000, from 2000 to XP or to Linux, etc. In fact, migration (or change) is the only constant in the computer history and will always cost money and retraining.

2. It's not that a switch to IE7 commes for free. Switching to new or upgraded MS software costs too. E. g. the company I work for uses web-bases apps and migration to IE7 costs money for re-testing and possible adaption. So droping IE support and staying FF-only would actually be cheaper for us.

3. People don't have the usage of MS software hardcoded in their brain. Except for standard software, most people and staff has to be trained anyway.

4. There is also a thing called TOC. You can't just look at current costs to determin current actions.


I'm a realist, not a Microsoft fan.

By your reasoning people are condemned to upgrade and use MS till judgement day. I call that FUD and is of form of MS fangirl behaviour (the "oh god, we're so helpless and have to use MS"-kind). Pathetic!

Edited 2006-10-22 14:56

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wtf?
by Adam S on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wtf?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Your post reveals a distinct lack of experience in the real world. It should be that easy, but, sadly, it's not. You don't just swap out your servers when you have a multi-million dollar company running on VB-based apps that have hundreds or thousands of concurrent users, or when you have significant investment in sites written using ASP.net, because that is FAR easier to find qualified commercial support for.

By your rationale, all of your "Windows clients" would be kept on IE6 indefinitely.

Your agenda is so transparent it's humorous. We'd all like to be rid of "the evil empire," but the process is a slow one, and it's one you clearly have experienced nowhere but web pages and success stories you probably read via a link on Slashdot or digg. If there were fewer of you, there would be a lot less fighting and trolling on the internet.

I could pick apart all of your naive points one by one, but you've bored me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Wtf?
by MysterMask on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wtf?"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

You say, " [..] Migrate the Linux today!

No. I didn't, nor did I used the word Linux once (I don't use Linux or Windows but that's irrelevant). Your world is pretty black-and-white, isn't it?

I said it would be better to ignore MS and move on the better solutions. A good IT policy should not be dependent on vendors but on standards. Every company chooses which way they like to go with every new system/solution or upgrade thereof. Migration does not necesserally mean to "pull the plug all of a sudden", but to change gradually by e. g. not upgrading but planing and moving to viable alternatives.



network admins who run Windows networks, which is about 90% of networks

Most companies I know have switch to "Windows clients - Linux or Unix servers". I wouldn't call that a "windows network". BTW, the Internet uses TCP/IP. Call it an open-standard success story ...

You can't just switch out OSes without THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of dollars of re-training your IT staff, retraining your users, migrating your applications, etc.

1. That's exactly what MS wants us to believe. Funny thing that most big companies shelled out money and managed to migrate from Unix to NT, from NT to 2000, from 2000 to XP or to Linux, etc. In fact, migration (or change) is the only constant in the computer history and will always cost money and retraining.

2. It's not that a switch to IE7 commes for free. Switching to new or upgraded MS software costs too. E. g. the company I work for uses web-bases apps and migration to IE7 costs money for re-testing and possible adaption. So droping IE support and staying FF-only would actually be cheaper for us.

3. People don't have the usage of MS software hardcoded in their brain. Except for standard software, most people and staff has to be trained anyway.

4. There is also a thing called TOC. You can't just look at current costs to determin current actions.


I'm a realist, not a Microsoft fan.

By your reasoning people are condemned to upgrade and use MS till judgement day. I call that FUD and is of form of MS fangirl behaviour (the "oh god, we're so helpless and have to use MS"-kind). Pathetic!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wtf?
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 03:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Wtf?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"1. IE7 is very controllable via Active Directory Group Policy. Opera is not. Firefox is not."

While this can be usefull for corporations it's really not a "major plus" for people who "understands the internet and networks" in general.

"2. IE7 allows you to reset the browser to a safe state."
Nice but again it's mainly for controlling the corporate desktop.

"3. IE7 supports alpha-channel PNGs and much CSS2."
Nice but this benefits *everyone*.

"4. IE7 requires more aggressive input to install ActiveX controls."
Again, this benefits everyone, probably even more so people who *don't* understand "the internet and networks".

"then I don't believe your priorities are in network management, network security, or web design and compatibility"

Are my priorities in web design? no.
Are they in network management and network security? Very much and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wtf?
by Adam S on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wtf?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Nice nitpick. Do you feel better now that you've contributed this valuable tidbit to the conversation? I like how you agree that all the points are benefits, but decide that my "who" is slightly off.

I can't wait for this thread to be closed.

Reply Score: 1

browser hijackers, spyware and adware
by Shkaba on Sat 21st Oct 2006 19:30 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

have one thing in common ... they work very well in IE. None of my friends who is running FF or Opera have such a problem. As for the feature sets, please be realistic, FF and Opera had tabbed browsing and pop up blockers far earlier then IE. FINALLY IE is catching up in this area which is good for the general population but for me it's too little too late. One more thing ... on how many platforms does IE work (as oppesed to FF or Opera)?

Judging from how some people around here are twisting simple fact we'll be convinced pretty soon that MS pioneered "windows" and "mice" ... could one say
MS = copy cat

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Mozilla = "copy cat" too

Who cares?

Reply Score: 3

IIS6 is very secure compared to Apache
by NotParker on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 00:05 UTC
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

IIS6 is very secure compared to Apache.

And of course the 2 main applications for communicating outside of a PC (browser and mail client) would be the gateway for malware.

But you know, even when people were using non-Microsoft mail clients (like Eudora) they clicked on attachments they shouldn't have.

Just like the IIS 6 team learned from the mistakes made on IIS 5, so it appears that the IE 7 team has learned from the IE 6 mistakes.

And surely the Firefox team should have learned from Microsoft/Mozilla/Netscape mistakes - yet Firefox has had 31 "arbitrary code execution" security holes this year alone.

Reply Score: 1

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

"But you know, even when people were using non-Microsoft mail clients (like Eudora) they clicked on attachments they shouldn't have."

With outlook you didn't even have to click ... makes a big difference

As far as integrating a browser with the OS ... please don't insult us ... there was a time when you IE was not available in Add/Remove and it showed up only after the court process.

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

With outlook you didn't even have to click ... makes a big difference

But that was fixed in Outlook 2000 SP1. 5 years ago.

As far as integrating a browser with the OS ... please don't insult us ... there was a time when you IE was not available in Add/Remove and it showed up only after the court process.

But the point is that Netscape was giving aways its product. Firefox gives away is product. Mozilla gave aways it product.

Of course a browser is essential to an OS package. Why not Microsoft's since their main competitors always gave theirs away for free too ... and there was zero impediment to downloading alternative browsers.

In fact if IE wasn't bundled with Win98 how would you download Netscape if you wanted it?

Reply Score: 2

Time to think about the future
by rain on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 11:14 UTC
rain
Member since:
2005-07-09

So IE is catching up with Firefox. Then perhaps it's time to start thinking about how FF can take yet another step ahead of IE rather than having pointless discussions about the browser war history as it really doesn't matter much.

I was hoping the IE7 would finally be the version of IE that would make life easier for us web developers. Seems that we have to wait until IE8 for that.
Seriously, IE makes web development a major pain since it's more a matter of trial and error instead of reading the manual.
MS did acutally say that they had listened to the developers this time and that they would fully support the CSS2 standard in IE7. So much for that.

If everyone would start using Gecko, Opera and KHTML it would allow us to focus on making good websites/applications instead of making ugly hacks to get the darn thing to work in IE.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Time to think about the future
by eMagius on Sun 22nd Oct 2006 15:45 UTC in reply to "Time to think about the future"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

So IE is catching up with Firefox. Then perhaps it's time to start thinking about how FF can take yet another step ahead of IE

By continuing to play catch-up to Opera, of course. ;)

Reply Score: 1