http://www.osnews.com/story/16240/IE_7_Finally_Something_to_Write_Home_About Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:52:22 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?173202 http://osnews.com/thread?173202 "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. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyclops) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173203 http://osnews.com/thread?173203 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. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flanque) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173204 http://osnews.com/thread?173204 The "vulnerability" isn't much of one ... unlike the last batch of Firefox ones where "execute arbitrary code" is mentioned 4 or 5 times http://secunia.com/advisories/21906/.

I find it hard to get too worried if someone can read the Google news page within the context of my browser.

Can't that be done by a bunch of other ways too? Like Iframes etc.


I like IE7. I look forward to IE8.Edited 2006-10-19 21:46 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NotParker) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173205 http://osnews.com/thread?173205 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... Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Simon S. Law) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173208 http://osnews.com/thread?173208 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 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (anyweb) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173219 http://osnews.com/thread?173219 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? Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NotParker) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173221 http://osnews.com/thread?173221 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... Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (brewin) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173224 http://osnews.com/thread?173224 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... Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (smitty) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173226 http://osnews.com/thread?173226 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) Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Nelson) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173227 http://osnews.com/thread?173227 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. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lambda) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173228 http://osnews.com/thread?173228 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. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NotParker) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173229 http://osnews.com/thread?173229 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 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyclops) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173230 http://osnews.com/thread?173230 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. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Jon Dough) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173231 http://osnews.com/thread?173231 Apparently the bug is with Outlook Express not IE7 (http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=35702) Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Deviate_X) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173236 http://osnews.com/thread?173236 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. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173242 http://osnews.com/thread?173242 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. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyclops) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173246 http://osnews.com/thread?173246 I've been running the new IE7 for just a little while, and I must say, I like what I see! Good job, Microsoft. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Jon Dough) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173247 http://osnews.com/thread?173247 Modded down by 2 people for this?

"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." Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NotParker) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173248 http://osnews.com/thread?173248 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 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NotParker) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173252 http://osnews.com/thread?173252 "Modded down by 2 people for this?

"Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 failed."

Of course. You posted facts. What were you thinking?? Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DrillSgt) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173268 http://osnews.com/thread?173268 "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 =] Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (elektrik) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173288 http://osnews.com/thread?173288 Internet Explorer 7(+) ... works fine in Vista RC1 ... in fact, it seems double-fast when compared to running it on XP. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rockwell) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173289 http://osnews.com/thread?173289 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 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twickline) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173291 http://osnews.com/thread?173291 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (twickline) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173294 http://osnews.com/thread?173294 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mathman) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173295 http://osnews.com/thread?173295 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173300 http://osnews.com/thread?173300 wait, the suprize was supposed to be a suprize? we all know that they cant make it secure. come on now. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (graigsmith) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173301 http://osnews.com/thread?173301 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (smitty) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173316 http://osnews.com/thread?173316 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'. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173325 http://osnews.com/thread?173325 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MamiyaOtaru) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173329 http://osnews.com/thread?173329 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (l3v1) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173331 http://osnews.com/thread?173331 The IE 7 build included with the last release of Vista (7.0.5744.16384) passes that test. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jayson.knight) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173356 http://osnews.com/thread?173356 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (raver31) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173357 http://osnews.com/thread?173357 hmmm, it might be his data. fair enough
but life is not that simple.

it is my email address his zombie machine is spamming. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (raver31) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173358 http://osnews.com/thread?173358 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 !!!! Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (raver31) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173363 http://osnews.com/thread?173363 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 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TBPrince) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173368 http://osnews.com/thread?173368 ++ Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Beta) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173369 http://osnews.com/thread?173369 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (leech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173377 http://osnews.com/thread?173377 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? Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Coxy) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173379 http://osnews.com/thread?173379 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (peejay) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173382 http://osnews.com/thread?173382 True...because we dont need IE on other platform. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hkl8324) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173383 http://osnews.com/thread?173383 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TBPrince) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173384 http://osnews.com/thread?173384 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 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173387 http://osnews.com/thread?173387 to continue using IE is compliance to websites that live on their knees to MS standards. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aGNUstic) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173403 http://osnews.com/thread?173403 Actually, IE only runs under Windows. WINE is essentially a Windows layer for non-Windows machines. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (g2devi) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173404 http://osnews.com/thread?173404 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 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173405 http://osnews.com/thread?173405 It's a compatibility layer. There's no Windows code involved.

So actually IE does run on other OSs Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (slight) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173406 http://osnews.com/thread?173406 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. :/ Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Carl) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173413 http://osnews.com/thread?173413 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jo42) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173423 http://osnews.com/thread?173423 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ookaze) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173439 http://osnews.com/thread?173439 Flash killer my A**

cross browser and cross OS my A@@

IE 7 My A%% Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tryphcycle) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173441 http://osnews.com/thread?173441 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!!!! Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tryphcycle) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173449 http://osnews.com/thread?173449 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). Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (eMagius) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173455 http://osnews.com/thread?173455 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). Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ookaze) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173471 http://osnews.com/thread?173471 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (slight) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173473 http://osnews.com/thread?173473 I guess you don't have a job in web design / development? Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (slight) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173483 http://osnews.com/thread?173483 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bousozoku) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173512 http://osnews.com/thread?173512 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. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (snozzberry) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173550 http://osnews.com/thread?173550 Read what I wrote....

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


duh' Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (raver31) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?173596 http://osnews.com/thread?173596 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. Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (patrick_) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?174145 http://osnews.com/thread?174145 "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. Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (llanitedave) Comments