New IE7 Information Announced

Brandon writes "Looks like the IE team is trying to catch up to some of the major OS browsers. They have finally added proper PNG support and have fixed numerous CSS bugs. The full post is on The Official IEBlog." From the post: "We're doing a lot more than this in IE7, of course, and we're really excited that the beta release is almost here - we're looking forward to the feedback when we release the first beta of IE7 this summer. Stay tuned for more details as we get closer to beta."

Comments

The ones that I hope get fixed

[DeadSea]

My pet peeves with IE that make my life harder when I write web pages:

• Transparency on PNGs is rendered as white. It makes the logo of my Java translation editor look white.
• CSS does not support min-width and max-width properties. For example text areas on my contact form that have a max-width of six inches stretch the entire way across the page in Internet Explorer
• I've fallen in love with the border-radius CSS property in Mozilla that puts round corners on tables and divs without using images. I use that effect on my Attesoro Java translation editor pages. While it isn't part of the w3c recommendations, it would be a great one for IE to pick up.

Sounds like they are fixing the .pngs for sure. I hope the two css tweaks that I want make it in.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[man2525]

I only heard about this recently, but it should help with PNG transparency...

Alpha Image Loader

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Just Some Guy]

For example text areas on my contact form that have a max-width of six inches stretch the entire way across the page in Internet Explorer

I'm glad to see Internet Explorer doing something right, even if inadvertently. See, I have this nice 19" monitor, and people who insist on making tiny little pages that fill the top-left corner of my screen make me leave their site as quickly as possible. I spent good money to have a lot of screen real estate - please don't try to take it away from me.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[morbuz]

Transparency on PNGs is rendered as white

It doesn't render it as white, it uses the image's background colour, which in your case was white.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[RobertKozak]

I've fallen in love with the border-radius CSS property in Mozilla that puts round corners on tables and divs without using images. I use that effect on my Attesoro Java translation editor pages. While it isn't part of the w3c recommendations, it would be a great one for IE to pick up.

That's weird. The tables in the link you provided don't have rounded corners at all!

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[earthbound kid]

What's the point of running a high resolution if you only have one window open? Try restoring the window size and opening a couple new ones! You'll be surprised to find, yes you can use more than one application at a time!

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Just Some Guy]

What's the point of running a high resolution if you only have one window open?

Setting large fonts and placing the monitor far enough away that I have nice, sharp text at a comfortable viewing distance. It works perfectly except when certain web designers want to restrict parts of their layout to an absolute rather than relative size.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[GreyWolf3000]

Unfortunately, truly resolution-independent display systems are a ways off. OS X is almost there, though. I believe Longhorn will be that way as well. Gnome and gtk are moving in that direction.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[chris_mahan]

on the screenshot page, last screen desc: typo: languge.

I would click edit and fix it, but it's not a wiki... :|

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[digitalchinky]

The only simple solution to that is to reduce the number of colours in the image - 256 appears to allow for transparency to work as expected.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Mycroft_VIII]

I've always felt the ability to set max and min sizes in absolute terms is a bad thing in web-design.
The abuses of it occure so often compared to the rare occasion when it makes sense.
On your listed page for example I get the left 2/3 of the page used and the rest wasted. Not that bad in this case, just looks a little odd.
But I've seen far worse, places where the whole web page is about 1/3-1/2 the width of my monitor (a normal 19" flat crt) and scroll for about two screens. The text is set to about 6 pt. At best and when I force the size large enough to read I get about 15 char a line.
I could go on for some time about the things I see on websights that only make sense if the 'designer' assumed everyone would view it in exactly the same resolution and setting and browser as he used. I'm just curious as to WHY that assumption (or any asumption that leads to fixed sized elements) gets made.
Perhaps it's inherent in how web pages are designed these days (eighter the most common tools, or the languages themselves. I dunno just asking because the results sure are anoying and do make most web-designers look eigther self centered or stupid these days. I do remember at first almost any page you hit would render reasonably at any resolution I tried on eigther netscape or IE.

Mycroft

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Mycroft_VIII]

This is what I don't understand. WHY is it even possible to use absolute sizing. At most it should be a recomendation with relative sizes also specified.
I get sick of sites the fall apart the minute I dissagree with thier so-called designers idea proper font size (3pt) or collum widths (3 collums, each 1/7th the width of my screen, or 7-8 characters at 12pt or 15pt).
One of the original points of html and such was to have sites that were NOT dependant on knowing or otherwise making assumptions about the viewers display.
There may be a few legitimate uses for fixed sizing, but a web designers fickle whim is NOT one.
A web designer should do his best to build a site without absolute sizes.

Mycroft

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Mycroft_VIII]

Because maybee he expect a site to render properly without having to guess at what software and hardware and settings the so called designer happened to be using at the time. That is supposed to be how it works. It used to be coding in assumptions about the viewers display setup (including browser and monitor size/resolution) was not only harder, but discouraged as bad practice (it's still bad practice, just not as discouraged these days).

Mycroft

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Ma�djeurtam]

The whole point of transparencies in 24-bit PNG's is _alpha_ transparency, something you can't achieve with 256-colors (8-bit) PNG's.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[arose]

AFAIK IE renders transparency in PNGs as the background colour you saved.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[DeadSea]

I usually select uncheck the "save background color" when I save as png from gimp. I didn't know any program would actually try to use it. I resaved this particular image with the background color of the page and IE does it correctly.

I guess that means that all the pages I use that image on have to have the same background color. True in this case, but still rather limiting.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[DeadSea]

The biggest problem with allowing text to be as wide as the browser is that it makes multiple lines of text very hard to read. There is a reason that newspapers and magazines use a column layout. When text is only 3 inches wide, it makes it easy for your eyes to jump from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. When text is 20 inches wide (the width of my web browser) it is just about impossible for me to read it properly. On many really simple sites I tend to resize my web browser down to about 3 inches to make it easier to read.

Having said that, it would be really nice for there to be a column layout in html. I could see it so that you specify the column width and it will make each column the width you specify and the height of the browser. Then the page scrolls out sideways as the extra columns appear to the right. Until then, I prefer blank space to unreadable.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[DeadSea]

Despite the fact that it isn't a wiki, you were able to fix the problem by complaining on slashdot about it. :-)

(Thanks for noticing my bad spelling, btw)

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[drsquare]

Oh great, now the cunt uses his second account or his gay lover to mod me down rather than accept criticism. How fucking mature, I'm sure your shitty little program is just as awful as your attitude.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[jonadab]

> I could go on for some time about the things I see on websights that only
> make sense if the 'designer' assumed everyone would view it in exactly the
> same resolution and setting and browser as he used. I'm just curious as to
> WHY that assumption (or any asumption that leads to fixed sized elements)
> gets made.

Something like 99% of the time, this is an indication that the web designer in question is trained in art, *not* computer science, and does not understand all of the important conceptual differences between a web page and a printed page. In particular, the whole concept of adaptive layout is lost on these people, because their brains are stuck in what I call Visual Art Mode -- i.e., they are so busy *looking* at the webpage that they are practically incapable of thinking about the logical structure of the information it contains. WYSIWYG HTML editors significantly exacerbate this problem.

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Mycroft_VIII]

But that's a personal preference, which should be set at the VIEWERS discression, not the web designers.
I find narrow collums anoying as hell, you have to scroll down and down and down just to get one paragraph read. Jumping lines every third word is anoying to me and makes the text seem disjointed and poorly formated, especially when there are 3 collums (One just for adds usually) and enough blank space to the right for 1 to 2 more at thier tiny widths. Allowing text to go the width of the browser makes it EASIER for me to read rather than have to scroll down 5 to ten screens then hit next page and so on just to get one page worth of info.
All that I'd still rather scroll down than sideways most of the time, which is what really anoys about some sites that assume thier defaults is what your using. Then lines scroll off the edges and you have to scroll back and forth for each line(like /.).
Perhaps this is because I grew up reading full sized books that didn't try and fit whole ideas into the textual equivalent of a sound-bite.
But at any rate the web designer should leave it up to ME or YOU or whom ever is reading the site, unless he deliberately desires to anoy readers.

Mycroft

Re:The ones that I hope get fixed

[Mycroft_VIII]

That's one of the possibilities I had in my head. But I couldn't understand why it so seldom gets caught, at least you'd expect someone somewhere to say "hey Bob you screwed the page up, it looks like sh*t" the first time someone at the company looked at it in a different resolution or font size. I WOULD expect the web designers superior to notice, someone somewhere should have caught it.
It'd be like hiring a math major to do banking sofware and no-one noticing the software always printing everything including checks out to 7 decimal places, or even the more subtle problem off rounding everything down.
Now for small mom and pop setups that hire Joe the sophmore art major next door to put up a webpage about thier handcrafted furniture or some such, shure this sort of thing happening isn't such a suprise. But when a major news source, or worse a tech site, not only makes these mistakes but keeps making them, it baffles the mind.
WYSWIG tools shouldn't default to fixing sizes and such without the user haveing to specifiy it directly and giving warning (CAUTION fixed sizes are not recomended and may not render as intended in all browsers or at all resolutions/screen sizes). Last time I used a wyswig editor was a long time ago and fixing sizes like I see now wasn't even an option unless you hand coded it (even then I think it was very limited in how you could, just tables IIRC) but that was 6-9 years ago.
Of course it says something about those that hire someone for x when who is only trained in y.

Mycroft

Wow Alpha Transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the twenty-first century Microsoft. I guess someone will have to update this page. Will IE7 have a central repository for extentions/plugins?

Re:Wow Alpha Transparency

[StarWreck]

I noticed that comparison between web browsers is missing all 3 of the browsers for Amiga: IBrowse, Aweb, and... I forget..

Re:Wow Alpha Transparency

[AlienRelics]

And that the Amiga browsers have had full PNG support for a long, long time.

Re:Wow Alpha Transparency

[ozmanjusri]

I noticed that comparison between web browsers is missing all 3 of the browsers for Amiga: IBrowse, Aweb, and... I forget..

For slightly large values of 3, Voyager, AMosaic, Chimera?, Amiga Lynx, and (at a stretch) Emacs W3 mode

Good.

[Maskirovka]

Real competition. Good.

Re:Good.

[CSMastermind]

The concept of real competition entering the market is really an illusion. It's not a competition when 89% of the world uses your browser. What microsoft is doing right now is taking steps to make sure it doesn't become a competition. For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. Right now there isn't one. There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about. I applaud them for taking a step in the right direction, but lets not forget that they're still the big dog in the software market. They won the first browser war and they're ready for another.

Re:Good.

[xtracto]

Quote
For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. /quote

But, that will not be enough, also, there needs to be a web page that a lot of people use (Hallmark?, MSN? or any other) which has this "feature", but, any of those sites will implement a feature that does not work with the browser 89% of the people uses so, it is a vicious cycle.

Re:Good.

[__aadhrk6380]

Good points, but to me it looks like compliance with standards is becoming an issue at Redmond. If you think about it, it almost sounds like Microsoft is trying to play by the rules instead of trying to establish them.

If they are ready for another browser war, I hope it is on an even playing field and not an MS-IETF type of rule set. Given a level playing field, Firefox, Opera, et al stand a good chance of winning.

Vive la Chance!

Re:Good.

[ShyGuy91284]

For 60 year old grandmother? Tie MSN into it and have MSN display pics of her grandkids as her homepage, and for 16 year old girls, just display the current hot pop guy. Then MSN will have them for sure....

Re:Good.

[hunterx11]

What microsoft is doing right now is taking steps to make sure it doesn't become a competition.

I'm pretty sure that improving a product to maintain one's marketshare, even if it is the vast majority, is in fact competition already. There's no reason that Microsoft can't make IE7 good. During the browser wars I used Explorer instead of Netscape because I really did like it better. Certainly they have the hackers and the resources to make the best browser if they want to. If Microsoft really does release a product better than Firefox, it will be sad to see the underdog lose, but really the consumers will win.

Re:Good.

[NanoGator]

"They won the first browser war and they're ready for another."

Good, I'd like to have a better browser.

Re:Good.

[Sparr0]

The concept of real competition entering the market is really an illusion. It's not a competition when 89% of the world uses your browser.

I'm sorry, what was that? Did I just hear the same argument about 89% that I heard about 98% when IE6 came out? :)

Re:Good.

[Joe Jarvis]

But isn't this the same logic behind evolution and natural selection? FOSS may not be the end use for everyone. In other words, who cares if the world is dependent on IE so long as the external pressures FOSS create result in a better IE product, which will be used by nearly everyone for the time being.

Re:Good.

[shaitand]

"For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. Right now there isn't one. There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about."

Not true at all. The crowds you mentioned are annoyed but the big ones, they just do not know how to fix the problem or even where to look to find out.

I have found that the tech illiterate never understand why they get spyware. But they DO understand that after they started using firefox they don't need a tech to speed up their computer every couple days/weeks/months (depending on the sites they browse). They also understand pop-up blocking that works. They even recognize flashblock and tabbed browsing if you deliver it as a second installment later since it requires additional learning.

As techs we all take these fundemental benefits for granted, they have been around for awhile and we are looking at the details. But most of the users who know they exist have already switched to a browser that has them. The ones still using IE are using it because they do not know about these benefits.

Re:Good.

[CSMastermind]

I must admit, you are spot on. I agree with almost everything you've said, perhaphs I should clarify my poition on the issue.

There are a few factors that drive people to coutinue using IE. They way I see them they are:

Fear of change
I've found that people don't like to mess with something that works even if something else might work better. I've fixed alot of freinds, teachers, and neighbors computers. Sometimes, with good reason, I've installed firefox. Some of the things I've heard a lot: "Here's how I used to get online.....will that still work?". "Can you make Internet Explorer work?"

Igorance of other choices
This is what you were touching on I'm sure. The problem I have with your senario is the fact that you assume (like many people do) that spyware and popups are a good reason to switch to another browser. What we as a community have to understand is that changing browsers is really just running from the problem. The reason IE is open to attacks by spyware is because the people who make spyware know that that's what most people use. As soon as people move to another selection, they'll simply target the new browser.

Lack of need
I'll hold firm, that as long as people can do what they need to do online they're happy and don't care to mess with what "works". In fact, they're proablly happy that their SP2/google bar now blocks popups.

Favortism
Heh, I wouldn't have put this in but belive it or not I know windows fanboys. I also know linux posers (they slap stickers of tux everywhere and talk about how evil redmond is but only use microsoft products and can't name a single linux distro). Some people like windows, and they only use offical windows products.

What I'm basically trying to say is that for another browser to gain a large market share in the long run, they'll have to offer the users something big. It will have to be usefull to the common user and more than just, "security" and "safty from spyware" because those things will go away once the browser becomes more popular.

Re:Good.

[DeadScreenSky]

If Microsoft really does release a product better than Firefox, it will be sad to see the underdog lose, but really the consumers will win.

How will consumers win when MS promptly stops all development of IE once they have won the 'second browser war'?

A win for consumers is if multiple browsers prosper. The market is actually pretty close to this point right now - let's hope it stays that way!

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "first browser war" ended because Netscape went under. Firefox is, for the purpose of this argument, public domain. They will have to fight this browser war until IE greatly exceeds Firefox in quality, they find a lock-in strategy, or the world moves on from the web.

Re:Good.

[sac13]

During the browser wars I used Explorer instead of Netscape because I really did like it better.

Same here. I advocated IE over Netscape because the releases were coming faster and the product worked better. It just stagnated after it won... which should be expected since there's no real revenue stream attached to the browser market.

There's no reason that Microsoft can't make IE7 good.

I agree. They did it before and it's not like a browser is something as complex as an operating system. However, I suspect that I will continue using Firefox on OS X for quite awhile.

Re:Good.

[cloudreader]

> There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about.
The old grandmother and the 16 year school girl are not annoyed because the geeks and the tech nerds spend countless hours to find a way around IE quirks. I develop webpags for living. When ever I get new concept to develop, it takes 3-4 hours to develop it in firefox (excellent compliance to standards). Then comes the nighmare of making it to work in IE (literally takes days to make it work completely). The company does not care if this product works in firefox or any other browser but it should work in IE. Recently I had a hell of a time with windowless selects (thanks to the geeks who figured the way around it) On the otherhand I welcome IE7 if it follows standards but otherwise too bad, I think they will face extinction by the pressure from other browsers eventually.

Re:Good.

[jp10558]

Seriously. The reason I stopped using IE was not security. I never got spyware, I know how to protect my PC.

What got me using Opera was originally sheer speed over IE. It's just always been 3x or more faster than IE, and I hate wasting time, or staring at a blank screen like IE is wont to make me do.

Later on, tabbed browsing is another biggie. I love instantly having a new tab, as opposed to waiting a second for a new instance of IE to open.

etc...

Basically, most people switch because of features, especially the ones they can see. Security isn't something they can see, and nothing is perfectly secure.

Re:Good.

[Fwonkas]

Listen, I'm a *nix and OS X geek all the way, but I think you're going about this backwards. As far as I'm concerned, what we need are browsers that consistently and accurately render XHTML, CSS, etc. While I'm all gung-ho about Firefox, Mozilla and Safari, all I really care about is whether I can write pages and style-sheets that validate and look relatively correct. As far as I can tell, Firefox (in particular) is responsible for IE's developers getting off their asses. If or when IE starts rendering valid pages correctly, I know I'll stop bitching. Or at least bitch less. At least this browser war seems to be revolving around the support of standards.

Re:Good.

[SCVirus]

but really the consumers will win.
But then they won't update it again until a new browser rises to challenge them.

Re:Good.

[shaitand]

"The reason IE is open to attacks by spyware is because the people who make spyware know that that's what most people use. As soon as people move to another selection, they'll simply target the new browser."

I would disagree with this. There are problems to be found in Firefox and other new browsers to be sure. The way things look it will be Firefox if anything that ends up with significant market share. To date, almost every Firefox vulnerability has still been related to the broken windows zone-based security model (read IE security model). The two big issues are ActiveX and that model. I believe that without ActiveX and that security model to ride on, NO BROWSER would ever carry the sort of spyware overhead we see today again. That includes IE, but I do not see Microsoft dropping their biggest market lockin 'features'.

I think Firefox will always be safe from spyware when compared to any browser with ActiveX. However, spyware was only one thing I mentioned. Everything else mentioned was a feature.

Big features from a user perspective.

-Spyware free weather status(any idea how many weatherbuggers there are?)

-Popup blocking that works (IE popup blocking does not 'work', largely thanks to popups launched by spyware.)

-Flashblocking (flash ads are notoriously annoying)

-Tabbed browsing. After browsing a link heavy site for two days with tabbed browsing, nobody will ever use a browser without this again.

Honestly I believe Favortism is the next biggest problem. The truth is that end users do NOT install functional software on their computers (although they will install cute little holiday related crap that breaks functional setups). Techs install software on their computers. If the local tech shop is still using IE, all of their customers will be using IE.

I once worked for a shop with a Microsoft bias. We were slammed with spyware problems and when doing a spyware cleanup I would routinely install firefox with a standard set of extensions. I showed people how to "open this page in IE" if they needed to and off they went.

If someone else did work for the user after that point I would get a call everytime regardless of the problem. The good ol' boy Microsoft techs would claim they couldn't work on these funky 'firething' setups. This included the boss. Finally I just gave up.

Re:Good.

[ShieldW0lf]

Unless IE7 is going to implement all the functionality of the multitude of extensions I use in Firefox, they're not going to get me back on board. If it includes at a minimum tabs, adblock, nuke any object, gestures, Venkman and a search bar as good as Firefoxs, maybe I'll consider it. Can't see that happening though.

Re:Good.

[antrik]

> Same here. I advocated IE over Netscape because the releases were coming faster and the product worked better.

Sure, IE was really better than Netscape. But that wasn't hard, considering how much Netscape sucked at the time.

It's a *very* different story with Firefox now.

> it's not like a browser is something as complex as an operating system.

Wrong. A good browser is actually a lot more complex than a simple OS nowadys. All the newer W3C standards are just absurdly complex. (Ever wondered *why* still no browser in existence supports all of CSS2, and never will?...)

Creating a browser that fully supports all the newer standards, is stable, secure, featurefull, *and* has good performance, is a tremendous task. Even the Mozilla family (by far the closest to this ideal, except for performance) is still very far from being an ultimative browser. (About an order of magnitude in terms of developement effort, I'd say.)

IE will really have a hard time catching up. I doubt they will even come very near.

Re:Good.

[dabigpaybackski]

Good point. MS may indeed be prepared for another browser war, but they will emerge weaker from it when the dust settles. Their competitors are of a higher caliber than was Netscape. These competitors have structured their product around the very grievances that MS has ignored.

That, and the fact that they have waited too long to release another operating system. The notion that MS is not the company it once was is gradually filtering into the public consciousness. I say this not as a Microsoft-hater, just an observer. Things change. Even the titans trip on their own shoelaces.

Re:Good.

[dabigpaybackski]

At least this browser war seems to be revolving around the support of standards.

Which is exactly why the alternative browsers need to start focusing on performance, that is, building a cleaner, faster browser. They will be even better poised to make inroads in the browser market if they succeed in this respect.

This is particularly important if the economy should falter badly and people forego upgrading to faster computers. There is ample reason to think this is true.

Re:Good.

[sac13]

A good browser is actually a lot more complex than a simple OS nowadys.

Not sure where you get this idea. Sure the W3C standards are complex, but an OS does A LOT more than a browser. I guess I could agree with it if you're extreme about the modifier "simple." However, any OS that supports enough hardware to actually be useful to the world is going to be much more complex than the most complicated browser. Just look at the sizes of them. Firefox is in the 10's of MB. I don't know of any useful OS that is that small. Sure, you could compile a kernel with the minimal of what you would need to run a specific system and only do a base OS install, but that's still going to be larger in size than a complex browser and the configuring building process itself would illustrate how complicated the whole thing is.

Creating a browser that fully supports all the newer standards, is stable, secure, featurefull, *and* has good performance, is a tremendous task.

And an OS is less so? Which has taken more development hours and time to mature, Linux or Firefox? Which is the most criticized as not being mature enough for the average person to use even though it has had a longer time to develop and has more development effort put into it, Linux or Firefox?

Re:Good.

[hazah]

Certainly they have the hackers and the resources to make the best browser if they want to

Microsoft vs. the world? This should be interesting.

If Microsoft really does release a product better than Firefox, it will be sad to see the underdog lose, but really the consumers will win.

Will win what exactly? Customers win only when they have choice, not when there is one choice. Redundancy is what kept life going against all odds to this point, and now you're claiming having only one gateway, for yourself as a customer, to view the interweb from is a good thing?

I've been called a zealot or what have you before, but I just don't understand this mentality. At the very least it sounds childish. Here's what I basically picture...

For a significant part of their lives, the majority of the population that frequents sites like /. have relied on their parents for their needs. While this, in itself, is natural, the outside world does not mirror that process. To optimize, as we grow up we create the networks of friends of various statuses so that, ideally, we'll be able to rely on them throughout our lives.

Fundamentally, this is our environment today. It's engraved in us since birth, and it is part of who we are as a result. This creates a very different mental playing field. The very same playing field that corporations invest "R & D" in. The very same playing field where you watch the latest commercial of the newest chick with the biggest breasts, on the biggest car, with the phatest rims..... *ahem*. (Wow... that was so not why I coughed... weird.)

This is very recent. Before the last century, only a minority could actually afford to live like this. Parents were the most influential, sure, but people relied many others very early in their lives, and learned how to coexist in a very different social structure than that we have today.

To top it off, we have the big dogs, for which there are *no alternatives elsewhere. And they will "parent" themselves into population's lives. Creating a sort of "vision", they have us, by the masses, invest in their cause.

*There are, but you have to look for them. A task especially made more difficult by the big dogs.

I don't know about you, to me, this doesn't look sustainable. Frankly, I don't think that this is reality. So why childish? Because of the way we used to mature. Because of how we created our networks before. Today, it's simply a bombardment of messages catered to hit a nerve with the time frame where trust and love were more natural and given. So it is preferable, to various influential entities, to suspend the full human potential for maturation.

Might *seem minor, but just today, I've seen a national geographic. It was a statement about the environment (obviously). But more specifically, global warming. Now we both know that there are intense climate changes taking place as we speak. The cause: the global climate has gone up by 1 degree Celsius in the past 100 years due to carbon burning (mostly), and other miscellaneous causes.

*<tinfoil value="hat">Do you know who your "observers" are?</tinfoil>

Re:Good.

[1u3hr]

. For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. Right now there isn't one.

Yes there is, browse porn without having your system hosed with spyware, popups and malware. Free porn is used to recruit spam zombies and even nastier stuff. Porn forums will just laugh at people who complain about side effects while visiting porn sites with IE.

Re:Good.

[davesag]

yep, cos we'll see IE7 on the mac sometime after we see IE6 i guess. too little too late i say.

Re:Good.

[namekuseijin]

"or the world moves on from the web"

like what M$ is actually trying to do with Avalon and XAML in LongHorn?

Re:Good.

[man_of_mr_e]

I think you're mistaken. There is already adware/spyware for Mozilla/Firefox. See here.

Lots of spyware gets installed via social engineering rather than automatic installation. It's included in "helpful" programs like Weatherbug or cuteftp. On top of that, it's looking like bugs in Flash will be a place for spyware to enter the system as well. Yes, you can block flash, but honestly.. how many average end users are going to do that?

Remember, Mozilla has plug-ins, that means spyware can be installed by any third party program. Remember, Mozilla has extensions, and spyware can be hidden in otherwise legitimate extensions.

This "Moz/FF is so secure it's impervious" attitude is going to get you in trouble.

Re:Good.

[man_of_mr_e]

By the way. I don't use tab browsing *AT ALL* on Firefox or Mozilla. It's too annoying. I prefer to use alt-tab to switch between applciations. I don't want to have to switch to Mozilla, then switch to the correct page afterwards. I also frequently have multiple pages open concurrently and want to view them at the same time.

Tabbed browsing just doesn't work for me. Your attitude that everyone will love it is downright obnoxious. In fact, I don't believe the majority of users out there would ever use it, assuming they even know it exists. Most users open one window at a time and close it before going to another one. They're very single tasking oriented.

If you've ever walked by a Mac lab and looked at all the apps running in the background (because most mac apps don't exit when you close the window) you know what I mean. If it's out of sight, it's out of mind.

Re:Good.

[Morden]

I installed Firefox on my manager's PC when she had spyware all over it. She uninstalled it because she didn't want to change her online banking bookmark.

Not sure which aspect of the story is more worrying :)

Re:Good.

[mdfst13]

"This is very recent. Before the last century, only a minority could actually afford to live like this. Parents were the most influential, sure, but people relied many others very early in their lives, and learned how to coexist in a very different social structure than that we have today."

This is not correct. Prior to the industrial revolution, people living with their parents was expected. It is only in the last two hundred years that it has been somewhat normal for people to move away from their families. I.e. what you are describing as new is actually the traditional norm. What you describe as traditional is actually the modern alternative.

You can still see this if you look at the pattern in other countries. Many still have traditional families where multiple generations live together.

A better question is why there has been this regression back to the way things were. I.e. why is industrial society returning to the structure of agricultural society (or at least parts of it).

One possibility is that the initial form of industrial society is actually abnormal, a blip caused by the strains of industry. I.e. industrial families are unable to support the large families possible to agricultural families. Initially, this resulted in the break up and spreading of families. Now that families are smaller (reducing the maintenance cost) and transportation is cheaper (so that members don't have to move to the job; instead, they commute from home), it is possible for families to stay together longer.

Re:Good.

[triso]

...There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about....

Except for the virus, worm, spyware and a few security problems.

Re:Good.

[shaitand]

"Your attitude that everyone will love it is downright obnoxious."

Your right, because one guy out of everyone I have ever encountered does not like tabbed browsing, that makes a personal belief that impacts nobody else obnoxious.

Tabbed browsing is not about the user multi-tasking, tabbed browsing is about organization and computer multi-tasking. For instance, using the current site as an example. One would read down the story summaries and open TFA and/comments of interesting stories in tabs and continue to read the headlines down the page. In the meantime the slashdotted article loads in the background and is ready for viewing by the time I get back to it.

For work and research I often have numerous windows AND tabs going at the same time. If I am googling multiple related but distinct subjects I might open a window per google and within that window open candidate results in new tabs (again, letting them load in the background).

You having a pet peev about tabbed browsing does not make it any less useful a feature. It does not make my opinion that it is a useful feature obnoxious. In fact, it really has no relevance at all.

Re:Good.

[shaitand]

"This "Moz/FF is so secure it's impervious" attitude is going to get you in trouble."

Having a fine day trolling. I explicitly stated that all browsers were vulnerable. Since I did so it makes your link to a firefox spyware extension that users must very conciously install meaningless. This of course is not a Firefox vulnerability, firefox even has a time delay before you can click to install the extension! This is the idiot vulnerability, the idiot vulernability exists in all applications and is not resolvable.

"It's included in "helpful" programs like Weatherbug"

Glad you read my post where I specifically mentioned the extension that results in not needing weatherbug. Really though, these are uncommon now (or rather there are only two or three common spyware among them) but might become more common since they use vulerabilities elsewhere to install spyware. What does that have to do with Firefox?

Are you saying we might as well just leave the front door (browser) open (use IE) instead of putting a deadbolt (firefox) on it because a burgler (spyware) might come into the house another way? Does the weakness of a window affect the strength of the deadbolt? I tend to think that securing the front door is only one part of securing the whole house (PC). I also tend to think it is a little ridiculous to call the deadbolt weak if the burgler can open it once he is already inside the house (like a local application).

Re:Good.

[shaitand]

lolol *cries*

Re:Good.

[hazah]

Well, I do agree with you. I didn't mean to undermine history.

But reguardless, I still see things in the same light. The fact that we're regressing back is only evidence that certain things are not sustainable as they stand. The problem is, as I see it, that this very scenario is being taken advantage of by those with money/influence. Hence, I think my point remains valid. There was no bombardment of information, designed specifically with the idea of keeping people from maturing, in past times.

My argument really boiled down to one thing. It isn't normal for mature adults to concider only one solution to a problem, and have the problem satisfied with it. Nature is about redundancy. Now, concidering the discussion in the context of software, I really can't understant what would be so good if microsoft became the ONLY solution. The entire dialogue was brought up because nature dictates otherwise.

While I don't necessarily concider myself "bound by rules" of one thing or another (nature, government), nature deserves respect. It's the altimate example of how things do, and don't work. The parent post of that reply specifically said that there would be a benefit in a system that undermines nature. Well, I'm not convinced that (s)he was correct. It's very hard to trust entities that have been described by a simple psychology method, as a born psychopath (one angle, of course).

Re:Good.

[man_of_mr_e]

Hmm... I do exactly the same thing with IE without tabs. I just right click and choose "open in new window" then continue reading the page while it loads in the background. A simple alt-tab switches between them without having to alt-tab first, then ctrl-tab to find the right tab.

I didn't find your opinion that tabbed browsing was useful obnoxious. I found your claim that everyone loves it obnoxious.

Re:Good.

[antrik]

> Most of Mozilla's problems with complexity and bloat/size are their own doing. They came up with a completely meglomanicial design plan (XUL etc) and it took them 5 long years to make acceptable to the end user. The only reason for this is because they were playing with AOL's $$$ -- it could've been done much more simply and quickly.

This is quite an outrageous insult on the Mozilla developers, and I wonder what evidence you claim to it. Have you worked on a browser project? Can you give some example that did it better?

Konqueror maybe, claimed to have such a clean layout engine? Sorry, konqueror is a joke. It doesn't support *one* of the newer standards, it is about five times as bad in CSS support, plus loads of other bugs and compatibility problems. (Yes, it *did* get better with Apple's support; but last time I checked it was still ridiculous to compare it to Mozilla.)

Or Opera maybe, the one hyped for being standards compliant and efficient at the same time? Last time I compared it supported maybe half of the newer standards Mozilla does, and CSS support was about twice as bad. (This is not to say Mozilla has anything near good CSS 2.1 support; only Opera is still worse.) Plus, it isn't that much faster in most regards, either.

Or do you claim that all of those are just incompetent, and someone else could put together a much better one in half the time? Micorsoft maybe? With their last browser (which took about 6 years development time) not even coming close Konqueror in most regards?

Well, I for one *did* work on a browser. I have considered the problem of implementing web standards in a complete, correct, and efficient manner well enought to be able to claim that the problems are *not* Mozilla's (or any other browser vendor's) fault. It's not just bad luck that even the best browsers available are very very far from deserving to be called really good. It's an inherent complexity problem.

(XUL makes for terrible UI perfomance BTW, but certainly isn't responsible for any of the other problem Mozilla faces.)

Re:Good.

[antrik]

> an OS does A LOT more than a browser

Well, depends on how broad you define "OS". You talking about Linux all the time would imply that you mean kernel only, in which case it is most certainly much simpler than a browser at the same completeness level.

> I guess I could agree with it if you're extreme about the modifier "simple."

There is nothing extreme about it. It's widely known that a single person can implement a perfectly useful UNIX system in a reasonable amount of time. (See Minix for example.) Everything else is broadening the scope, convenience, and tuning for performance; but not part of a *simple* OS.

> However, any OS that supports enough hardware to actually be useful to the world is going to be much more complex than the most complicated browser.

An OS can be perfectly useful without supporting all possible hardware on the planet.

Also, adding more hardware support for the most part only makes for total size, but not *complexity*.

> Firefox is in the 10's of MB. I don't know of any useful OS that is that small.

Go check for embedded systems. Some of them can even be used as a fairly comfortable desktop.

> Which has taken more development hours and time to mature, Linux or Firefox? Which is the most criticized as not being mature enough for the average person to use even though it has had a longer time to develop and has more development effort put into it, Linux or Firefox?

This is a very bad comparision. Linux gets its complexity from about every feature the developers could thing of being implemented (often in several redundant approaches), and being optimized for getting every last ounce of performance.

Mozilla on the other hand hardly implements the bare minumum for a halfway complete browser. (If you really consider all the newer web standards. it actually falls far from that.)

middle-click for tabbed browsing

[SpecialAgentXXX]

The only reason I use Firefox and not IE is due to middle-clicking for tabbed browsing. Once MS adds that into IE, I'm going back. All of my video plug-ins work instantly with IE, but not without some tweaking for Firefox. I already switched from Thunderbird to Outlook 2003, so I'm excited to see what bells & whistles MS can put in IE7.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[tepples]

Then I probably shouldn't tell you about Maxthon or any of the other IE wrappers that add tabs and retain all the ActiveX holes.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[NetNifty]

It wasn't the tabbed browsing, or extensions like adblock, or better standards compliance that I switched to Firefox. It was getting infected by a piece of spyware that used the same security hole I was pissing about with THREE MONTHS BEFOREHAND that I saw it on a security bullitin, and despite being fully up to date on my patches it still infected me.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[HerbertLipschitz]

All my porn, er, video plug-ins work fine in Firefox.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[jseale]

Direct tab access (via Ctrl-numbered key) would also be a nice touch.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Rs_Conqueror]

Although the ease of browsing was also my main reason for swiching over to FF, you cannot disscount the hundreds of browser extensions that FF has going for it. I currently have my browser so over customised that if I were to even TRY to swich back, I just wouldn't be able to navigate.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Captain Splendid]

That would be kind of stupid, for those of us who open waaaaaaay more than nine/ten tabs. As it is, Ctrl+Tab works real well in this situation, I just have to keep remembering to use it...

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[NanoGator]

"The only reason I use Firefox and not IE is due to middle-clicking for tabbed browsing. Once MS adds that into IE, I'm going back. All of my video plug-ins work instantly with IE, but not without some tweaking for Firefox. I already switched from Thunderbird to Outlook 2003, so I'm excited to see what bells & whistles MS can put in IE7."

I'm a little irritated at the overrated mods slapped onto this post. (if you think he's misguided, hit the reply button instead, folks!)

He has a point. Though FireFox is getting better and better, IE still is still the best supported out there. Sometimes I have to use IE from time to time due to lack of support for the browser I'm using. Admittedly, MS would have to do a hell of a lot of work for me to use IE7 exlusively, but I can certainly understand this guy's point of view.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[NanoGator]

Or I simply go to different sites than you do. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck what YOUR experience is. I know when I can't visit certain sites or do certain things. What happens to you is completely irrelevent.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[karthik_r085]

It is becoming very popular. Lot of companies are starting to support firefox like yahoo.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Bear in mind, that middle-click thing only works on the Linux Firefox, not the Windows version. In fact, the Windows version of Firefox lacks a lot of features, it's like an afterthought. Perhaps if they want more people to convert they should make sure they get a good experience when they try it out on Windows.

Uhmmm. Wrong. I use FireFox on windows at work exclusively and it most definitely does have the middle click. I don't even remember having to change any settings to enable it. In fact I find no difference in interface between windows at work and Debian at home. Both work exactly the same way with no trouble. MPLayer's plugin even works to play WMV and ASF files with no trouble or tweaking. I may be unique or something but I do know that firefox on windows offers all the same functionality of firefox on linux.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[zaq121]

I find it funny what some people consider important, drives me nuts.

My browser of choice starts with an O. 99.95% of the time plugins are turned off. 99.98% of the time, gif animation is turned off. 99.999% of the time sounds in web pages is turned off. A lot of web pages I view without images.

If there was a problem with web sites using java to drive me crazy, it would mostly be off too. If a web site decides that something needs to follow my mouse, javascript is gone.

Sites that insist on using colors that make the font unreadable, I go into 'user mode' which basically disables their style and makes the site look like a 5th grader made it, but can now be read. (In IE I would do a 'select all')

Different people want different stuff...

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Anonymous Coward]

so basically, what you're saying is that you're a humorless, self-righteous prick, and no woman in posession of her senses would ever share your bed.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[jseale]

Aww c'mon! Firefox has this feature and I use it quite a bit in such situations. Give it a chance!

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Mancat]

So, why were you logged in as Administrator?

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Lehk228]

Stop surfing porn... no more infections!

I thought the point of porn was to AVOID getting infections o.O

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[horza]

IE still is still the best supported out there.

I'm sorry, but wasn't the whole idea of Vint Cerf inventing HTML to make the data application independent? Glad you are excited about the bells and whistles. I hear they've invented something called the 'blink' tag.

Phillip.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Captain Splendid]

Dang...so it does.

Still, don't think I'll be using that. That's the thing with Firefox: It does a ton of shit that I'll never get to use whereas IE doesn't even do the shit I want it to do.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[xgamer04]

Sometimes I have to use IE from time to time due to lack of support for the browser I'm using.

This is why I exclusively use a non-IE browser (and the fact that I'm in Linux most of the time, but I digress...). Getting a stranglehold on the web and forcing people to use proprietary applications to exchange information is like adding new words and conventions to a language and charging people to use them.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[BackInIraq]

Uhmmm. Wrong. I use FireFox on windows at work exclusively and it most definitely does have the middle click. I don't even remember having to change any settings to enable it. In fact I find no difference in interface between windows at work and Debian at home. Both work exactly the same way with no trouble. MPLayer's plugin even works to play WMV and ASF files with no trouble or tweaking. I may be unique or something but I do know that firefox on windows offers all the same functionality of firefox on linux.

I think he may be talking about one of the beta releases...if I remember correctly either .8 or .9 (might have been as old as .7) didn't by default have the middle-click to tab feature, though there was a tabbed browsing extension that added this option. It has been standard since either the .9 or 1.0 release.

Now one can use Firefox on Windows with no extensions whatsoever (except perhaps the java and flash plugins) and be perfectly satisfied. Except for the odd site that uses hordes of IE fudgecode.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[NanoGator]

" Getting a stranglehold on the web and forcing people to use proprietary applications to exchange information is like adding new words and conventions to a language and charging people to use them."

I don't blame ya. I'd prefer it if everything was open and free, too. But, at the end of the day, a LOT of people out there only care if it works or not. That may be sad or whatever, but it cannot reasonably be expected that everybody be an expert on everything. For example: I have reasons to not want you to not play games that used 3D Studio MAX. Would you really give a flying fuck?

(Note: I don't really have reasons to not use 3DS Max in a game, but it's not something that's totally unrealistic with them or any other 3d software company.)

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Sancho]

This doesn't change the fact that web developers use IE-only content. Right now, I don't know of any site that works in Moz/Firefox that doesn't work in IE. The opposite can not be said to be true.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Spad]

Being logged in as Admin is not a prerequisite for spyware installs. Go to any large company with a fairly badly administered network that uses IE (I recently worked for one) and you'll see hundreds of users - who have no privillages whatsoever - with spyware up to their eyeballs.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[NetNifty]

As the other poster said, apps unfortunatly requre it, and besides it still wouldn't prevent infection most of the time - just limit it to one user account.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[drsquare]

How the fuck is that redundant? And how can it be overrated at 0? I'm the first person to fucking mention that. If you disagree then post something to argue with it, don't just select an option from a drop-down fucking menu, any fucking 12 year old geek can do that.

Anyone else think ther should be a holocaust of moderators?

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[Mancat]

Yes, but in that case it's only a matter of removing the user's profile and starting over. Otherwise, the whole system gets infected.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[damiangerous]

Ok. Prove it, dipshit. Show me a site that doesn't work without IE, and then prove why you need to go to it. You almost certainly don't need to (about the only thing that qualifies as a need is employment or government related). It's just too inconvenient for you to use an alternative. Your convenience is different than your wants and needs, don't pretend otherwise.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[elemental23]

You misspelled Tim Berners-Lee.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[NanoGator]

" Show me a site that doesn't work without IE, and then prove why you need to go to it. "

Heh. I don't need to, you made my point for me.

First you overtightened the definition of 'need' so that I cannot possibly rebuttal. I didn't even use the word 'need'! Heh, ass. (This is the sign of somebody desperate to win, btw.) Like anybody here, including yourself, has a net connection because their life depends on it.

Second, you've acknowledged that it CAN be too inconvenient to use an alternative. Blammo, shot yourself in the foot there, buddy.

And, finally a bit of satire: "Your convenience is different than your wants and needs..." Okay then, you should all be using IE because, as you said, there are sites your life needs to sustain itself and IE's the best supported! You're only using FireFox for convenience!!!!

Heh. Thanks for the chuckle and for forgetting to hit the post anonymously button. ;)

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[damiangerous]

I didn't even use the word 'need'!

"Have to" is synonymous with "need".

Like anybody here, including yourself, has a net connection because their life depends on it.

Umm, what? You're the one who said you "needed" to use IE. I said you can get by just fine with anything.

Second, you've acknowledged that it CAN be too inconvenient to use an alternative.

Again, no. I can't use IE. So at no point do I find it "too inconvenient" to use something besides IE. You're the one who made the case that you yourself "have to" use it even if you don't want to and I merely pointed out that you are choosing to use it based on convenience and you just don't want to not use it badly enough. How you manage to argue that I'm confusing convenience and need is baffling to me, unles you're doing it deliberately to cover for your previous misstep.

and for forgetting to hit the post anonymously button

Actually, I forgot to log in the first time. I don't post anonymously, karma is for trolls.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[NanoGator]

"Umm, what? You're the one who said you "needed" to use IE. I said you can get by just fine with anything."

I never said I couldn't live without IE. In some cases, you get the data or you can't. Simple. Even Slashdot occasionally links to stories that cannot be viewed in FireFox. You've made a decision you can live without that data, I've made a decision that it isn't a big f'ing deal.

Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing

[mysticalreaper]

But, at the end of the day, a LOT of people out there only care if it works or not.

Yes, i agree with you. However, people are short-sighted in their wants. They do not realize that in wanting things to 'just work', and thus using IE, they have actually made things worse for the rest of the world that doesn't want to pay money to microsoft. And that same user may be surprised that when they go to their public library which uses a Linux in order to save money, that the video doesn't work, because of their selfish decision to use IE just like everyone else.

A chief objection amongst the Open Source users to proprietary software is that proprietary software eventually leads to the day when you get screwed because the corporation you were relying on is greedy, and they don't actually like you. Their interest is always to take more money from you, not help you out. So despite the fact that their effort has made it 'just work', you might not be getting the best bargain in the long run.

I'm saying that people are responsible for the outcomes of their actions. And thus, people using microsoft software are responsible for the sucess of MS, and all that MS has brought with them, like horrible business practises, support of DRM, and software patents like the one that killed email reform, which would probably have been the most important development in email in the last 20 years.

So despite the logic "the user just wants things to work" supporting using IE, in the long run, supporting open standards will help you and your fellow human EVEN MORE, despite any short term pain.

nuts to -moz-border-radius

[rebug]

Instead of implementing a vendor-specific tag, why not support the proposed CSS3 border-radius property?

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[DeadSea]

I believe that mozilla did implement the proposed standard but put it in their own namespace for now because it isn't a standard yet and they didn't want to be accused of "embrace and extend" the way that Microsoft does.

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[rebug]

They support CSS3 selectors, which are still candidate recommendations.

I think it's that their support for the border module is terribly incomplete, so they're not going to suggest that they support any of it quite yet.

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If they were actually going to support the proposed standard, surely anything other than naming it in the standard way is embrace-and-extend (or, in this case, embrace-and-rename)!

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[handslikesnakes]

The problem is that if the standard changes before it's released then you've got a lot of nonstandard implementations out there with no easy way to distinguish between them. (incidentally, AFAIK -moz-border-radius isn't entirely in line with the proposed recommendation. i still use it, because it's nice)

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[Myen]

Correct; they seem to like to keep the -moz- prefix until it actually (mostly) works as advertised (i.e., according to spec).

The same happened with opacity (it was left as -moz-opacity for quite a while until they fixed some bugs to actually let it conform to standards).

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[kae_verens]

The -moz-border-radius does not conform to the W3C standard. If I remember right, the Mozilla version was coded before the W3C had a draft for the radius.

The main difference is that Mozilla corners are circular (one radius), while W3C corners may be elliptical (an x and y radius).

I'm working on correcting that difference. My JavaScript rendition of a solution can be seen here: http://verens.com/demos/borders/borders.html

Kae

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[DrXym]

But if the standard is actually a draft and subject to change, how can they possibly implement it and guarantee compatibility? That's exactly the kind of mess that IE got itself in with CSS, XSLT and DOM where they ploughed ahead when the draft hadn't been finalised and consequently became non-standard in the process.

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[lintux]

At least the version of Mozilla I got here doesn't behave as described by CSS3. When you specify two values, it doesn't use those correctly. You can see that very well because the top-left and bottom-right borders are okay, but the bottom-left and top-right seem to use the opposite values.

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But if the standard is actually a draft and subject to change, how can they possibly implement it and guarantee compatibility?

They can't, but at least they'll be encouraging web developers to use the standard notation, so that those pages will work in any browsers that do implement the final standard later (probably including the next version of their own).

In the meantime, their functionality might not be complete, but then whose will be if the standard isn't finished yet? This is the way software works with any standard, and always has been. The alternative is, effectively, proffering a competing standard at just the time it's most destructive to do so.

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[Darren Winsper]

Candidate Recommendations aren't what you think they are:

http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1111107793&count=1

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[stonecypher]

If you were to read the Mozilla project's documentation on the issue before announcing your judgements, you'd learn that the naming prefix is actually a measure of caution. It has been common practice in the Mozilla projects since around 0.6 days to expose partially implemented standards under incorrect names, so that designers can test drive the implementations and look for problems. The same has been done with dozens of other CSS properties, and the same is currently true of quite a few CSS3 properties.

The general pattern is that when the Mozilla foundation is convinced that the implementation is both complete and correct, it will be altered to respond to its correct name.

This is hardly embrace and extend. More accurately this is "keep the not-finished stuff out of the hands of people which blindly use anything they can find, instead of reading the documentation, deciding something half-done is broken, and go off trumpeting how broken Mozilla is." Which is, I suspect, exactly what you'd be doing right now, since you're so willing to judge things you haven't even bothered to look up.

They are going to support CSS3; I don't know where this "if they were going to" crap comes from, since a significant chunk of CSS3 already is supported. Here's a hint: Mozilla does many many things that CSS3 does not. That's not embrace and extend at all; that phrase refers to ruining existing standards by bloating them out, pretending that things which aren't part of them are, and confusing the end-user as to the nature of the standard. Netscape used to participate in things like this, but hasn't in a long, long time.

Mod parent down until he learns to RTFM.

Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I can read just fine, thanks. I'm aware of the official line about the different naming; I just happen to disagree with it. If you feel that holding a different viewpoint merits moderating some down "until they learn to RTFM" then I'm very sorry for you.

They are going to support CSS3; I don't know where this "if they were going to" crap comes from, since a significant chunk of CSS3 already is supported.

It's an "if" until it's supported. There is no prejudice implied; it's simply a factual qualifier.

Here's a hint: Mozilla does many many things that CSS3 does not. That's not embrace and extend at all; that phrase refers to ruining existing standards by bloating them out, pretending that things which aren't part of them are, and confusing the end-user as to the nature of the standard. Netscape used to participate in things like this, but hasn't in a long, long time.

Aside from the fact that the above is irrelevant -- we are, after all, talking about a point that is already listed in the standards -- other companies (notably Microsoft) have frequently been attacked for exactly the same behaviour. Indeed, Microsoft's actions around IE3/4 time were, for a long time, the textbook example of "embrace and extend" for many of their critics, despite the fact that others claimed they were simply adding features that were ahead of their time.

Mmmm! Competition!

[Bonker]

This is why MS's brand of 'innovation' is bad and real competition is good. Remember when they halted development on IE6 because all the other browsers were 'finally dead'? Now that Firefox is pissing in their hard-won territory, they're actively hunting again. This isn't just good for Microsoft, but it's good for Firefox and good for us too.

Re:Mmmm! Competition!

[drooling-dog]

This isn't just good for Microsoft, but it's good for Firefox and good for us too.

It doesn't really address the trust issue, however, even though some of the more abusive "features" of IE may be toned down due to competition and heightened user awareness. Microsoft still largely sees its end-user base as property that it owns, and to which it can sell access for commercial or marketing purposes. Firefox, on the other hand, being FOSS, is naturally more user-centric. IE users can thank Firefox for making the Beast a little kinder and gentler, at least for the time being...

Re:Mmmm! Competition!

[karthik_r085]

MS believes in this rule: "Only if it is required, we will do it. Even if it is highly recommended by customers, we won't do it"

Re:Mmmm! Competition!

[l0b0]

Firefox, on the other hand, being FOSS, is naturally more user-centric.

I really do hate to say it, but Firefox is one of the very few user-centered pieces of FOSS within a huge pile of geek-centric applications.

Re:Mmmm! Competition!

[dimator]

What I love is how you'll always hear the top brass at MS saying just how important the "customer" is to them, and how they just love to listen to the "customer."

How long, exactly, have "customers" been asking for transparent PNG, at least?

Re:Mmmm! Competition!

[drooling-dog]

Firefox is one of the very few user-centered pieces of FOSS within a huge pile of geek-centric applications.

That may be true, but geeks are users, too, and a lot of the software used by geeks simply isn't going to be of interest to the general public and therefore doesn't require the same "training wheels". Besides, I'd easily take a good, versatile command-line driven app that gets the job done over a prettier proprietary one bursting with baby talk, spyware, adware, and God-Knows-What-Else along with the eye candy. Being free (as in beer) is just icing on the cake!

Re:Mmmm! Competition!

[karthik_r085]

Not just transparent PNG, they have been asking for stable OS for a long time.
Longhorn is going to be so fucked up. If there are 1000 security enhancements, it means there are going to be 1000^10 bugs atleast.
Lot of people belive Longhorn to be revolutionary, but infact, it is going to be evolutionary. Its security features will be built on top of Windows XP SP2.No wonder Microsoft is screaming at the customers, now forcing them to update to Windows XP SP2. Windows XP SP2 makes windows more secure by crashing ZoneAlarm, etc. Till Windows XP SP1, only hackers could compromise a system. Microsoft didn't like that. It made SP2, so everybody can do it.
Let's see how SP3, oops, Longhorn does.

yawn. too little, too late

[stirlingneg]

are people still using that old browser?

Too little...too late

[Foofoobar]

Fixing those bugs will not show customers that their product is good. People now have the name Microsoft associated with insecurity. It took them only 8 years to update their browser and since then people have been screaming for support, better features, etc.

No... Microsoft burned quite a few bridges with alot of people and unless they can turn that PR machine around 180 degrees, people will continue to see them as bullies who are looking out for nobody but themselves.

Even if IE7 turns out to be the best product ever created by mortal man, people will immediately assume it sux (minus MS zealots of course).

They need to reinvent themselves in the eyes of the consumer, the business and world.

Re:Too little...too late

[Husgaard]

Microsoft burned quite a few bridges with alot of people and unless they can turn that PR machine around 180 degrees, people will continue to see them as bullies who are looking out for nobody but themselves.

I think you overestimate the general population of browser users. Most of those who have not switched have nothing else to compare MSIE with, and thus think that MSIE is the best browser that ever existed. And even among those who got burned there is the general problem of short memory (ie. most will forget if they see something acceptable from MS).

And Microsofts PR machine has a history of successfully turning around 180 degress. Just thinks of the events that lead to the first browser war.

Re:Too little...too late

[Psiren]

Even if IE7 turns out to be the best product ever created by mortal man, people will immediately assume it sux (minus MS zealots of course).

Bullpats. People will use IE7 regardless. Especially when it makes its way into Windows Update.

They need to reinvent themselves in the eyes of the consumer, the business and world.

I wouldn't entirely disagree with that, but people will still use Mircosoft, because at the end of the day, it works for most people. Those that know enough to admin their machines correctly have few problems. Those that don't, call people that do, or carry on regardless. It's a sorry state of affairs, but it's the way it is.

Re:Too little...too late

[khellendros1984]

To fix IE, Microsoft must first fix Windows. Most (all?) of the holes in the browser are carried over through holes in the OS, and its the unrestricted access to OS functions that allow the OS holes to be exploited through explorer. Also, most people don't know about Microsoft's rep for insecurity (I'm talking about Joe User here), they don't understand the depth of the problem, or they don't care. My father is getting extremely upset with "those spyware bastards", yet I can't get him to leave Explorer. He just won't. My mom's comp (using Firefox): It's kept clean without me fooling with it over once per month. My fathers (IE only, even though NS is installed): Let's just say there's a reason for his discontent. Frankly, if they cleaned up their act, I'd go back to Windows as my primary OS. It's just easier for general use. But as it is...I couldn't make a logic-based decision to go back. I'd rather deal with incompatibility than insecurity.

Re:Too little...too late

[symbolic]

You're talking about enlightened consumers. I'm sorry to say that bsed on my own observations, it seems they're a small minority.

Re:Too little...too late

[rpozz]

To fix IE, Microsoft must first fix Windows. Most (all?) of the holes in the browser are carried over through holes in the OS, and its the unrestricted access to OS functions that allow the OS holes to be exploited through explorer.

Yes. This is the problem with IE. Most people don't notice its lack of standards. What they do notice however, is when they get flooded with popup ads, and 'extras' get added to IE as soon as they connect to the Internet. If people knew exactly what spyware was doing (keyloggers, reporting browsing habits, etc), I'm sure most would go apeshit.

The very idea of directly attaching something like a web browser to an OS is fucking insane. If anything, it should be put in a jail of some description. That is why I'll continue to recommend Firefox to anyone running Windows.

Re:Too little...too late

[Foofoobar]

Very true in all regards. But the PR machine has to turn around ALL of Microsoft; the misgivings and bad karma associated with the browser is also associated with the company and ALL it's products. People who have been burned by the browser have more than likely also been burned by their tech support, their OS or another product.

So in the consumer or the businesses mind, the browser IS Microsoft, Microsoft IS the browser (and all things computer related).

Though they have turned their ship around before, it has never been this much of a behemoth and in so troubled waters.

Re:Too little...too late

[Foofoobar]

Not true. I'm talking consumers... period. Most consumers do not realize that their hardware can run anything other than Microsoft or that their is even an option other than Microsoft. These are consumers who have been burned not only by the browser but by the OS, Office or any other number of products made by Microsoft.

As a result, all fingers of blaim can only point in one direction as far as Joe Average is concerned and that's straight at Microsoft. They can pretty much blame everything on Microsoft due to Microsoft's attemopt to dominate all software on the desktop.

This is why it will be harder to turn this ship around from a PR perspective.

Re:Too little...too late

[Foofoobar]

Any pro-MS guy talking about memory bloat needs to paint his kettle a new color first before opening his mouth.

Re:Too little...too late

[maxpublic]

people will continue to see them as bullies who are looking out for nobody but themselves.

Most slashdotters, perhaps. I doubt that most people give a shit one way or another. I certainly don't hear Joe User bitching in the street about that 'evil Microsoft'.

Max

Re:Too little...too late

[rpozz]

Yeah, I'm sorry for that previous comment. It was all total shit. IE doesn't really have a spyware problem at all, and Windows only uses IE to view websites, and nothing else.

Re:Too little...too late

[Anonymous Coward]

The very idea of directly attaching something like a web browser to an OS is fucking insane.

Too damn right. I'm glad I don't use Windows, where the integrated web browser literally causes giant demonic phalluses to erupt from chairs and take people up the ass while they work. Nope, I use KDE, in which the web browser is... uh... integrated, and... is also the file manager... and the help system... and... uh...

Re:Too little...too late

[drsmithy]

To fix IE, Microsoft must first fix Windows. Most (all?) of the holes in the browser are carried over through holes in the OS, and its the unrestricted access to OS functions that allow the OS holes to be exploited through explorer.

Tell me more about this "unrestricted access" IE has that other applications do not. Sounds interesting.

Re:Too little...too late

[TWooster]

I think you overestimate the general population of browser users. Most of those who have not switched don't even know what a browser is, let alone that there are viable alternatives any more.

And if the product is acceptable, why not use it? It may not be exceptional, but if it gets the job done and isn't full of security holes, and if they kowtow to the web dev's whims... hey, good times for all..?

Re:Too little...too late

[tepples]

Tell me more about this "unrestricted access" IE has that other applications do not.

Java applets run within a sandbox. ActiveX objects run with the full permission of the user and may leak the entire contents of My Documents, which may contain confidential things.

Re:Too little...too late

[symbolic]

Do you actually think that most of them care?

Re:Too little...too late

[jc42]

Most of those who have not switched have nothing else to compare MSIE with, and thus think that MSIE is the best browser that ever existed.

Actually, they don't. Rather, they think that IE, "the browser" and "the Internet" are synonyms. But it's not the best; it's the only one.

Those who are aware that other browsers might exist have generally found out quickly that not only they exist, but there are better browsers that are free. And those who believe that "You get what you pay for" have bought Opera.

But such people are a small minority. The majority of Windows users simply don't think about the topic at all.

Re:Too little...too late

[jc42]

I certainly don't hear Joe User bitching in the street about that 'evil Microsoft'.

Nope. What you hear is people bitching about how evil "computers" are. They don't generally pin the blame on Microsoft, because they aren't aware that there's any other kind of computer.

A minority is aware, true, but they aren't Microsoft customers.

What's really annoying is that the media pushes the same idea. Listen to the next news stories about the latest virus/worm/trojan/whatever. You'll almost always hear it described as infecting "computers", with no mention of Microsoft whatever. This is semi-intentional, because they don't want to offend a major sponsor. But it's only semi-intentional, because many media folks are also unaware that there's more than one brand of computer. (The ones that are aware are generally carrying around a Mac. ;-)

Re:Too little...too late

[aldoman]

I agree on principle but I'm not sure that it's the case in reality.

On XP SP2 it does quite a good job at keeping all the spyware and popups out (quite suprisingly good actually). Nevertheless people still get flooded with ads because they download .exes and double click them - this happens on both firefox and IE.

I disagree with your second comment. IE uses COM to attach itself to the OS. Mozilla uses XPCOM to do.. the exact same thing. Just because IE can look like windows explorer when you type C:\Program Files doesn't mean it is.

No 'jail' is going to be bulletproof. Look at the amount of problems people have with chroot, you'll find one process that has to both be run at 'root' level and also user accessible. SELinux has gone some way to solve this but it's going to be some way before it's 100% fixed.

I do think some people are slightly niave at how good MS is under competition. They have some incredibly talented developers at MSFT and very good rewards packages aswell as providing an excellent working atmopshere for their developers.

Re:Too little...too late

[glaucopis]

And I think you might be underestimating them. I visit a couple of game bbses whose users include a lot of fairly computer-clueless twelve year olds (clueless as in "RAM? I have more than enough RAM to play this game. 80 GB, to be exact"). And yet when you ask them, the majority of these kids are already using Firefox. They've picked up from their friends at school or from more knowledgeable users on various bbses that IE is the reason their computer keeps getting infected with spyware and slowing to a crawl, and that Firefox will let them spend more time using their computer and less running cleanup utilities. And they're wonderfully matter of fact when they talk about it -- of course they use Firefox. They're not idiots, are they?

I realize that these kids aren't representative of all computer users (if nothing else, it's a lot easier to reeducate kids than their parents...), but I think there is a reasonably widespread growing distrust of IE. I do agree, though, that if the new version of IE is more secure there will be far fewer immediately recognizable benefits of switching to Firefox, so next year's twelve year olds will likely just use the browser pre-installed on their new computer.

Re:Too little...too late

[kosmosik]

> Even if IE7 turns out to be the best product
> ever created by mortal man, people will
> immediately assume it sux (minus MS zealots of
> course).

If MSIE 7 will be better product I'll use it. What defines better product that it is better for me. So if it is better why I need to use worse? But it will not happen. ;) My definition of good product:

1. It actually works.
2. It actually works on my system (X11 and so on).
3. It is actually better.
4. It (as I am developer) is easy to develop against.

I don't think MS will manage with those points. :)

PS. I am using Opera on Linux and Windows.

Re:Too little...too late

[XMunkki]

And Microsofts PR machine has a history of successfully turning around 180 degress.

And they even did it twice for the XBox 360! That's some impressive marketing right there..

Re:Too little...too late

[jp10558]

But it is good for those who charge to clean up PCs.

Re:Too little...too late

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

But the events that led to the first browser war were Netscape's server technology and the Andreesen hype about Netscape producing a web-based Application server that would make Windows redundant.

None of that is happening, now.

Re:Too little...too late

[m50d]

And uh COMPLETELY OS INDEPENDENT. That's why it runs fine on Linux, BSD, OSX or even Windows. Try again.

Re:Too little...too late

[Foofoobar]

Oooh an intellectual response. It's nice to know that Microsoft is still hiring the best and brightest. :)

Re:Too little...too late

[Foofoobar]

Heh... when your mom, boss, coworker, friends, etc all feel the same, chances are it's not localized. When the media, the government and the industry are closing them out, chances are they aren't being well received.

Re:Too little...too late

[Foofoobar]

But this is changing, it is the latest meme. Spreading through media, TV, radio, word of mouth. I have talked to technophobes who have switched merely because a friend did. I have even met a few moms who did.

Internet cafe's are disabling IE, businesses are switching to Firefox internally. It is spreading and people are waking up to the fact that there ARE choices.

And once they realize that there is another choice for their browser, they will also begin to wonder if there are other choices for their other products like the OS, Office apps, media players, etc.

Once the browser begins to fall (as it already has), people become aware that there are choices and once they are aware that there are choices, they will begin to make them.

Re:Too little...too late

[drsmithy]

ActiveX objects run with the full permission of the user and may leak the entire contents of My Documents, which may contain confidential things.

That's nothing at all like "unrestricted access". IE runs with the same "access restrictions" as every other application a user launches.

Re:Too little...too late

[tepples]

IE runs with the same "access restrictions" as every other application a user launches.

It's still "unrestricted access" to the user's local environment, especially given that Windows XP Home Edition has no user privilege level between "limited user" and "administrator" analogous to the "power user" level in Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro, which strongly encourages users to use the computer as an administrator. Unlike Java applets, ActiveX controls introduce no extra security level for untrusted web programs. But Microsoft could fix this to an extent by making IE run ActiveX controls as Guest.

Re:Too little...too late

[I_Wrote_This]

> I think you overestimate the general population
> of browser users.

And also ignore the fact that many of them are corporate users who have to use what the company supllies them with, and that tends to be whatever MS supplies. The "quality" or "standards-compliance" is irrelevant to them, as everything is written using tools which are only ever tested against IE anyway.

Personally, given way that IE will happily "parse" any old rubbish and produce a page, I am reluctant to place any great faith in what I see being what the author intended, which is of great interest to me in pages containing important/confidential information, but is (apparently) of no concern at all to large companies.

Re:Too little...too late

[drsmithy]

It's still "unrestricted access" to the user's local environment [...]

There is a *very* significant difference between saying "unrestricted access" to "OS functions" (and the accompanying implication that IE is somehow circumventing the OS's security model - requiring changes at a very low level), which is what you originally said and "ActiveX controls don't run in a sandbox" (which is what you apparently meant).

If you mean "ActiveX controls aren't sandboxed", then *say* that, don't try and come up with some bullshit hyperbole to make it sound like IE has mysterious and privileged hooks into the Windows kernel that circumvent the OS's security model. IE runs as a user space application, just like Firefox, Word, or anything else and is subject to the same access restrictions they are. There's nothing a bug in IE can allow that a similar bug in Firefox couldn't.

But Microsoft could fix this to an extent by making IE run ActiveX controls as Guest.

Sandboxing it would be smarter and probably require less pointless hacking around (IE runs in the user's context - I iamgine getting bits and pieces of it (the ActiveX part) to run under a different user context would be rather fiddly).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Suggest they un-integrate IE

[havaloc]

The biggest problem with IE in my eyes, if that your install of IE goes bad, you have to reinstall the whole operating system, as opposed to Firefox, where you can uninstall, remove the Firefox directory and start over.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[cortana]

It sounds like you need a new hard disk. I'd be worried if files on a disk of mine randomly corrupted themselves!

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[blargosity]

Don't forget the profile folder. Back in the pre-1.0 versions of Firefox, some people had some weird issues caused by something in their Firefox profile that the uninstalling and reinstalling of Firefox did not fix for them. But, if they moved their profile folder from its normal location or deleted the profile folder entirely and then restarted Firefox, they didn't have the problems anymore.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Night Goat]

OK, how do you reinstall it then?

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Anonymous Coward]

If IE is so integrated into Windows that it cannot be removed (as MS says), then how does IE also run on the Mac?

Poorly?

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[iCEBaLM]

Apparently someone has never heard of malware which, I don't care how hardend your IE settings are, unless you're blocking everything from getting to IE it's still going to get infested.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[tepples]

If IE is so integrated into Windows that it cannot be removed (as MS says), then how does IE also run on the Mac?

By being a completely separate product with a separate codebase but the same name. Besides, does Microsoft maintain IE for Mac anymore? Or has it given up in favor of Apple's Safari, based on KHTML?

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[moosesocks]

Erm. If you're using any modern OS, all you should need to do is to recreate your user profile to fix any trashed application weather or not it's part of the OS.

The guts of the browser should never be touched by the operating system just like the system files. User preferences are stored in the user folder.

Of course, IE just like the rest of windows is vulnerable to various permission-related bugs in which the core guts CAN get screwed up by an errant program -- of course, this is true of any part of the operating system. I for one actually LIKE the concept of the HTML rendering engine being a core part of the operating system.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[rekenner]

IE for Macs is still stuck on 5.somethingorother.
It's never going to be updated.
Which is a very good thing and a very sad thing... The large majority of people that I've seen with macs use IE because that's the name they know... -_-

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Loonacy]

They're not saying IE won't work without Windows, they're saying Windows won't work without IE.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[falconwolf]

Apparently someone has never heard of malware which, I don't care how hardend your IE settings are, unless you're blocking everything from getting to IE it's still going to get infested.

Up until a few years ago I had IE set to refuse ActiveX and still would get infected. Then I installed ZoneAlarm and didn't have any more infections. It's past tyme I get a new computer, currently I'm using an HP with ME, but I'm planning on switching back to Mac for my next one.

Falcon

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[ConceptJunkie]

People who run as administrator all the time deserve what they get.

You mean the ability to actually get something done?

I don't see how it would help since you need to be admin to do anything useful in Windows. Unless of course you're someone who randomly deletes system files for fun.

In theory, you're right, though. In practice, I don't want to waste the time it takes to mess around making things work as a non-admin. Of course, I don't break my OS.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[imroy]

IIRC, they withdrew support for IE on the Mac shortly after Apple released Safari. The announcement was the height of hipocracy, complaining that Apple shipping a web browser with the OS was unfair. Aw, so poor little Microsoft took their bat and ball and went home.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Trepalium]

No, IE isn't integrated into the kernel, but it IS deeply integrated into the shell. IE problems can prevent you from using the start menu, folder windows, control panel, or anything else that depends on MSHTML.DLL, SHDOCVW.DLL, or SHELL32.DLL. I have seen very many machines so infested with spyware that simply displaying the desktop is enough to bring the machine to it's knees.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Phroggy]

I for one actually LIKE the concept of the HTML rendering engine being a core part of the operating system.

As do I - but I rather prefer Apple's idea of making a clear distinction between the HTML rendering engine, the operating system that rendering engine is included with, and the browser that uses that rendering engine.

Safari can be deleted without affecting other apps that use WebCore. WebCore can be upgraded without affecting the rest of Mac OS X. And of course the kicker is, WebCore is open source...

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Barto]

Start > Run > sfc /scannow > insert your Windows XP disk

Yes, it's not as convenient as reinstalling Firefox, but it is possible to "restore" IE without reinstalling Windows.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Gary Destruction]

Actually, Windows will work without IE. 98lite is proof of this. It's IE's shared files that programs need.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Gary Destruction]

If you go to C:\Windows\Inf, you'll find a file called "ie.inf". Right click on it and go to "install". That will restore IE to its original state.

I wish that MS had included a standalone version with XP. Windows 2000 had one. It had the repair option which really came in handy.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[GlassUser]

I don't see how it would help since you need to be admin to do anything useful in Windows. Unless of course you're someone who randomly deletes system files for fun.

Sounds like you need to stop using crappy software. I have no problem doing anything I need to in windows, with a non-admin account. The rules are no different than with linux. Use an admin account do do administrative stuff, then stop using it.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[ak3ldama]

It's not as simple as 'just stop'. I have tried using Windows as a desktop environment in non-admin mode, and it's just not worth the hassle at all. And it's not as simple as just being able to stop using software. Having to be a different user to play a game is just lame.

And it's not a matter of crappy software, it's just that the previous way to write software for windows is so engrained into the developer base that it is close to impossible to change. The multi user aspect of Windows and the files for each user is even hidden from users. When you go to My Documents and the hit the up arrow, you go to either the Desktop or My Computer. When in reality you should be going to the so called HOME directory of SYSROOT/Documents and Settings/USER. So even in something like that it has a bad interface that leads to confusion. To actually see the Documents and Settings location that is your own directory for storing files, you would probably use Explorer. Now I would like to see the code that allows Explorer to do two different things like that at one time, seems like a lame arse hack to me. Though it is possible they have a neat path followed system, that initializes and recognizes when My Documents is clicked on from the Desktop or the Start Menu.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[Anonymous Coward]

On an actual implementation level, OS X differs very little from Windows. (Tiger even introduces the concept of "trusted zones" so you can run javascript that binds with OS objects, just like IE/Windows.) The inabiility to remove the iexplore.exe binary in Windows is purely artificial.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[pe1chl]

Don't forget that most Windows users are using the administrator account for daily work.
So even without permission-related bugs their system is constantly at risk.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention the fact that several control panels, including the Add/Remove software one are, in fact, HTML pages rendered by MSHTML, so if that breaks you're really screwed.

Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE

[moosesocks]

You're absolutely 100% right.

99% of windows security bugs stem from this fact. It's sheer lunacy to fault IE for some of these security faults when it's really the underlying OS that is the problem.

If mshtml.dll sucked, programmers wouldn't intergrate it into their applications. The fact is that they do. It works well and intergrates nicely into the OS (intergration is one thing OSS folks have a hard time understanding). It's Microsoft's longing for backward compatibility which requires its users to always constantly run their commputers with full administrative rights.

Personally, I like the apple approach where the OS nicely asks you to su (using a nice dialog box) whenever you need to install a program or modify a global setting.

Competition is a good thing

[CyberZCat]

Without software like Firefox, their would be no reason for Microsoft to ever make a better product, just look at how long IE's been in version 6! Now that Microsoft's starting to feel their browser dominance threatened they're playing for attention to their own product. Clearly competition benefits the end-user.

Re:Competition is a good thing

[Nasarius]

Indeed. And IIRC, there was little difference between IE5 and IE6. If you have the only browser around, there's little reason to improve. Between this and the anti-Linux ads, it shows that Microsoft is absolutely scared of F/OSS and sees Mozilla, Linux, etc. as serious competitors. As an F/OSS user and developer, it's really exciting :-)

Re:Competition is a good thing

[man_of_mr_e]

just look at how long IE's been in version 6!

Not as long as Mozilla has been at version 1 ;)

If you think about it. While IS is version 6, it's gone through several "updates" (mostly service packs, but also what would be a Mozilla point release).

debate site

[Anonymous Coward]

about open source vs proprietary apps, like IE vs Firefox, here.

shall

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So shall weall complain active X is still included when they ask for feed back? We could slashdot them with "feedback".

Re:shall

[fallendove]

I encypted a popup into my feedback (I'm a tester), but then they probably have Active X disabled.

Re:shall

[Kethinov]

IE doesn't support the document object model correctly, so in order to do things like Javascript HTTP Request (Or AJAX for you trendy people), you have to use an ActiveX hack in IE.

Unless MS wants to start supporting web standards corrrectly, I would appreciate my ActiveX hack still working in IE7, thank you.

Besides, ActiveX is used for windows update. I doubt they'll be pulling it, so don't waste your breath.

Re:So long, Firefox

[HerbertLipschitz]

In this case, I take it "Anonymous Coward" is a corollary to "Microsoft PR Rep"?

only 90% of the population

[rebug]

I guess it's kind of a niche product, eh?

Re:only 90% of the population

[Nogami_Saeko]

Nothing MS can do to IE will make me change from Firefox at this point.

Firefox development would have to completely cease before I'd consider switching, and even then I'd investigate alternatives before going back to IE.

MS messed up, and they're gonna burn for it.

N.

Re:only 90% of the population

[netsharc]

I find Firefox slow too, and the fastest and most efficient browser I've found (and use) is Opera, yeah the one whose CEO is going to swim across the Atlantic Ocean. I multi-task too much and usually have 30 tabs open after a short time surfing. Opera manages this with no problem. I don't think Firefox would manage this, I find it getting slower the longer it is open. I'm not even going to consider IE in this, because it lacks the features I want..

Re:only 90% of the population

[AlienRelics]

Has everyone forgotten that many browsers are set to spoof being IE? When I was using Ibrowse on my Amiga, I had it set to spoof being IE, because if I didn't a lot of sites were set to not even show me the page. Yet, Ibrowse had no problem with the majority if those pages; it was just sheer (shear?) arrogance on the part of the webmasters to show a "download IE" link to non-IE browsers. Yet somehow people look at the statistics based on what the browser reports to the website and think it means something. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure IE does have a majority, I just don't think it's as high as reported.

Re:only 90% of the population

[jp10558]

Heck, Opera has the same problem. If sites sent it the code they did for IE or Mozilla, 99% of the time the page works fine. So, Opera IDs as IE much of the time, so pages just work.

What is really frustrating about this is that it is basically web devs go through more work to put in place such scripts, and then users have to go through even more work to "bypass" those scripts, and I think everyone would have an easier time if such things just went away.

Or if they would at least check what the browser accessing the site supports rather than it's name.

Re:only 90% of the population

[wootest]

If nothing else it adheres to Sturgeon's law: "Ninety percent of everything is crud."

competition?

[boring, tired]

I find it hard to believe that many people will switch back to IE from FireFox (or others) after IE7 comes out. It'll probably get picked up by current IE6 users or corporate IT depts. But it would take some pretty spectacular changes to get me to switch.

Re:competition?

[NotoriousQ]

But it would take some pretty spectacular changes to get me to switch.

Same here. Are they planning to release a linux version?

I look forward to IE7.

[Construct X]

"Supporting exciting new standards in which life improving spyware bring you more features than ever before!" *sulks* I tried.

Re:I look forward to IE7.

[RichM]

In my experience IE7 will transform wireless relationships, repurpose frictionless models, harness visionary infomediaries and furthermore iterate end-to-end experiences.

I think I speak for us all when I say that we can look forward to an exciting new e-technology era where we can deploy plug-and-play e-services and engage mission-critical e-commerce at the click of a button, which will serve to enhance scalable e-business and orchestrate bleeding-edge content.

-- This post was brought to you by the Web Economy Bullshit Generator ;)

Re:I look forward to IE7.

[Loonacy]

I couldn't find this language on Babelfish. Where can i find a translator?

Re:I look forward to IE7.

[Phroggy]

Wow, you're talking about shifting to a whole new paradigm! Really thinking outside the box there.

Re:I look forward to IE7.

[Mancat]

But will it be best-of-breed?

Re:I look forward to IE7.

[Jesus_666]

But the main question remains: Will it be performance-driven and consumer-oriented? I think that Microsoft should tackle development of their new browsing solution on a go-forward basis.

min-width and hacks

[UnConeD]

Internet explorer actually treats width and height as min-width and min-height. Very annoying if you don't want it, but you can use it like this:

select {
min-height: 100px;
_height: 100px;
}

IE will (mysteriously) ignore the underscore prefix and parse the second style, while compliant browsers only recognize the min-height style.

This shows that the important question is in fact not "how many CSS bugs will IE7 fix?" but "how many CSS bugs will IE7 keep?". These bugs are currently needed to make IE6 behave properly. If IE7 fixes the rendering bugs but keeps the parsing bugs, we'll have to figure out new bugs to update the IE6-only hacks with.

Re:min-width and hacks

[DeadSea]

Know of any tricks for max-width?

Min-width is pretty easy to work around like you say. It can also be done with a 60x1 transparent gif to make something at least 60 pixels wide.

I haven't found a way to make internet explorer render something no more than 60 pixels wide.

Re:min-width and hacks

[smittyoneeach]

tricks for max-width

Tri(cks|x) are for kids!

Re:min-width and hacks

[falconwolf]

If IE7 fixes the rendering bugs but keeps the parsing bugs, we'll have to figure out new bugs to update the IE6-only hacks with.

That's why web standards should be followed, so you don't end up with spagetti code trying to support different browser versions. Admittedly I don't know everything that goes into creating a standards compliant website. Nor do I work on them other than my own, which I haven't worked in way too long.

Along the lines of web standards, I liked Jeffery Zeldman's "designing with web standards". I would of liked it if there had been projects to work on in it though. I only learn and retain by doing, if I don't do it I don't retain what I read. At least he includes references to other books some of which have exercises or projects.

Falcon

Re:min-width and hacks

[Feztaa]

This is exactly why I never use those stupid parsing bugs to "trick" IE into rendering the right thing... I'm scared to death that the resulting non-standard "tag soup" will break some obscure browser somewhere -- like IE7.

What I do is, I design a very simple design in Firefox, then I check it against IE that it renders "nicely" (nicely meaning, if IE renders it wrong, the mistake doesn't affect readability or anything). The idea is, my website designs are "so simple, not even IE could screw them up".

It really limits the possibilities, but at least the resulting pages are simple & elegant.

Re:min-width and hacks

[richard.york]

IE will (mysteriously) ignore the underscore prefix and parse the second style, while compliant browsers only recognize the min-height style.

If designers didn't rely on obscure parsing bugs like the one in your post, that wouldn't be a problem. There's nothing elegant or clever about exploiting parsing bugs to fix another bug. In an ideal world the browser developers would fix both the parsing bug and whatever other bug the parsing bug is designed to work around. Since we're never gauranteed of this, why take the risk? If you're a professional developer with past projects in the hundreds when IE7 hits the streets, can you then afford to turn back the clock and revisit most of them because you relied on parsing bugs, rather than more concrete methods. (Ahem, conditional comment style sheets) You'd be completely screwed. If you don't fix your client websites, your reputation will go the way of the dodo. If you do you'll have weeks upon weeks of unpaid work.

IE may have miserable CSS support, but at least it provides some very clear, built-in work-arounds for its problems. (JScript, behaviors, conditional comments, all that propreitary garbage that we can use to fabricate something resembling standards support).

Re:min-width and hacks

[Kitsuneymg]

You don't really need hacks to make IE display right, just an IE specific css file
<!--[if IE]>
<style type="text/css">
@import url("IE.css");
</style>
<![endif]-->

Re:min-width and hacks

[Phroggy]

That's why web standards should be followed, so you don't end up with spagetti code trying to support different browser versions.

Most of the time, when I hack my way around browser bugs, I do it by taking standards-compliant HTML that validates at validator.w3.org but looks wrong in a particular browser, and changing it into different standards-compliant HTML that still validates but looks the way I want.

Please don't tell web designers to "just follow the standards". It's REALLY not that simple.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Sentry21]

The worst is that web designers used specific parsing bugs in IE5 to trick it into rendering things the way it's supposed to. IE6 then went ahead and fixed the parsing bugs (so the trick doesn't work) without fixing exactly what it was that the trick was needed for in the first place.

The latest trend is to use Javascript to set the styles, which (imho) is a much better idea - never rely on bugs to implement features.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Phroggy]

If you don't fix your client websites, your reputation will go the way of the dodo. If you do you'll have weeks upon weeks of unpaid work.

Who says? The sites worked fine in IE6; that's what we got paid for. If they don't work in IE7, we can be paid again to fix them.

Re:min-width and hacks

[rainer3]

How then would you respong to the question of browser elitism and its follow up? Are you willing to deny a select group of users the benefits you give to others simply by their choice of browsers? Aren't the users the reasons for creating content on the web?

Re:min-width and hacks

[Elranzer]

I thought the whole point of pure CSS was not to have to use tables...

Re:min-width and hacks

[Anonymous Coward]

> The latest trend is to use Javascript ... never rely on bugs to implement features

Except that nearly every javascript useragent detector makes huge implementation-specific assumptions that are almost certain to break when new browsers come out. They're one big bug waiting to happen.

Re:min-width and hacks

[jisatsusha]

There's this:

Max-width in IE.

it uses IE css extensions with javascript.

Re:min-width and hacks

[havardi]

That's not a hack? Hmm,

<--[if whatever]-->

That should be an invisibile comment to any browser on the planet, but no, IE will simply display that entire comment (including the <----> on-screen. Why? Because they broke the specification.

Re:min-width and hacks

[ThePromenader]

Will this validate? I'm all for w3 standards too. In fact I've spent a lot of time trying to find 'non-hack' ways around IE's display and css roadblocks - namely "background-borders" instead of using "real" css borders. Something tells me that it would be safe to leave things the way they are for now...

Re:min-width and hacks

[Anonymous Coward]

You still need tables, but with CSS you can use them for what they were actually made for (displaying formatted data) and not for layout. If you need to represent data in a table use a table. If you need to handle page layout use CSS.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Kitsuneymg]

It's not a 'hack' because it was designed that way. The box-model hack is the result of poor coding, not purposfully non-compliant coding. Whereas IE supportg for and others was intentional, even if it is non-standard.

Also remember back when javascript wasn't supported very well and you had to wrap it in comment tags?

But hey, if you want to use a more broad definition of hack than I do, go ahead.

Re:min-width and hacks

[kaens]

How then would you respond to the question of user elitism? Do you think that web developers should make sure that their site renders in every single browser, regardless of complacency with standards? Aren't the developers the reasons for their being anything on the web for users to see?

Re:min-width and hacks

[Anonymous Coward]

One minor problem with this is that Dillo, a browser that maybe three people actually use (OK, maybe a couple more, since on certain old 486s and 386s, it's the only browser that will run) incorrectly renders tables (it doesn't do the whole "make sure the table fits in the browser width" and "when not, make sure all the table elements become ewually thinner" stuff that Netscape did and all browsers that want to be usable on the modern web do) that do this trick to implement max-width.

Since, maybe .1%, if even that, of people out there use Dillo to look at web pages, this is not a significant issue. The way I work around it is to make sure a single table cell isn't wider than 640 pixels. I've also posted a patch to the Dillo mailing list which somewhat resolves the issue.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a feature of IE called "conditional comments."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/ ov erview/ccomment_ovw.asp

Re:min-width and hacks

[Mycroft_VIII]

I dunno, from here it looks like alot of designers have problems designing a site that will render if you don't use the exact software and monitor and settings they used.
I've seen sites that can't even survive re-sizeing the font. Slashdot won't for example fit width wise when the font is enlarged (at least not under FF .8 through 1.0). And many sites lock the font size under IE and the collum widths are fixed by pixel count or inches or some other stupid absolute measurement without any need, usually such that the sum of the collum widths is NOT a typical monitor width (I've seen sites that are to wide for 800x600 and too narrow for 1024x768?!?!?).
I really wish people would stop over fixing the layout of thier sites so they could be view without exactly matching the designers preferences, and wierd ideas of proper page width (I'm assuming whatever fits inside the toolbars of his design tool).
Used to be web pages were viewable because almost all markup was proportional, not absolute, and it didn't matter that much what browser you were using or resolution.

Mycroft

Re:min-width and hacks

[Freexe]

To make it easy to read the width of a block of text shouldn't be over a certain width, Now that width shouldn't be defined in pxs and should easy resize without breaking the layout.

Good design will improve accessibility by imposing these rules and making content easier to identify

Re:min-width and hacks

[DeadSea]

Thanks, that is fabulous. IE now has a max-width on those entry fields on my contact form that I was complaining about.

Re:min-width and hacks

[wideBlueSkies]

>>Who says? The sites worked fine in IE6; that's what we got paid for. If they don't work in IE7, we can be paid again to fix them.

Parent should be modded insightful. He's right.

Personally, I am looking forward to regression testing my (web delivered) application against ie7. Not.

wbs.

Re:min-width and hacks

[handslikesnakes]

What if Javascript's turned off, Mr. Smartypants?

Re:min-width and hacks

[handslikesnakes]

Conditional comments are a horrible bastardization of .*ML, but I think it was actually pretty decent of MS to include them in IE. Other UAs can just throw the contents away, as they should. It's certainly preferable to relying on things like the underscore hack, IMO - no worries about your stuff breaking when they finally get around to bug fixes.

Re:min-width and hacks

[handslikesnakes]

It won't validate. The underscore hack is still a hack (though a rather elegant one).

Re:min-width and hacks

[penix1]

"the argument but what if the browser does not suport javascript does not float, if it does not suport javascript it's not going to suport those fancy css properties either."

Sure it floats....You are forgetting those that turn off javascripting because they don't want to bog down their surfing with silly stuff like pop-ups, pop-unders, and other stupid shit javascripting is used for. CSS works fine but your code doesn't.

B.

Re:min-width and hacks

[fyngyrz]

No; CSS doesn't address many of the issues that that tables do. Mixing tables and CSS is perfectly acceptable and expected approach to web markup.

Someone actually modded my comment flamebait. Well, I guess that's how I know I'm on slashdot. ;-)

Re:min-width and hacks

[stonecypher]

It is believed that Trident 7 will do the same thing previous Tridents have done: keep broken backwards compatability in quirks mode, and get as close as the engine is able to get to compliant in strict mode.

By the way, only width is treated as min-width. Height is treated correctly.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Art Tatum]

The problem really is that automatic proportional layout looks like crap compared to a document or interface designed by hand. The same goes for SVG icons. Yes, they scale up to any size. But the overall look and effect at larger sizes is *not* the same as at smaller sizes. And a larger icon designed by a good artist would look totally different than a simple "upscaled" small icon.

Re:min-width and hacks

[havardi]

Here's why I call it a hack, and why it annoys me so much;

If you copy some text from a Microsoft Product (word), and paste this into a mozilla product, the latter will "correct" the MS "bullshit" comments and make them more like regular comments. The result will be stuff like <--[if !supportlists]--> which Microsoft products (IE, Outlook) will simply display on-screen,

Mozilla users get blamed for making this messy code that doesn't work on MS, (it renders fine on any other browser engine) but really what do you want Mozilla to do? Mozilla is trying to make correct html, so you can't ask them to make a special case for conditional comments. IT'S A (broken) HACK. (broken because MS treats this code as neither a conditional comment nor an html comment-- it just displays the whole thing!)

Re:min-width and hacks

[Kitsuneymg]

Comments can cross multiple lines. A comment continues until the end marker is encountered. Once a comment has begun, the only thing an HTML or XHTML parser recognizes as a command is the end of comment tag, which is a double dash (--) not immediately preceeded by an exclamation point. ( xhtml comments)

I just tried the pasting "if[IE]" comment into NVU, and while it did collapse the whole thing down to one line (see below), it worked as expected in both firefox and IE 6.(Firefox displayed nothing, IE displayed a block element) The only pitfall I found is when pasting the <!-- part. If you put that in the comment text box, the generated comment is <!--<!-- with a matching set of closing tags, the second of which is (correctly) ignored. I've never had this problem since I do this sort of thing in note pad once I got a page looking the way I want it. What's more, both types (block and inline) of comment validate.

<style type="text/css">p.showIE{display:none;}</style>

<!--[if IE]><style type="text/css" />p.showIE {display:block;}</style><![endif]-->

Re:min-width and hacks

[Kitsuneymg]

the following is in a page on my hdd that validates as xhtml strict:

<!--[if IE]>
<link rel="styleSheet" href="siteIE.css" type="text/css" />
<![endif]-->

So if it doesn't validate someone ought to tell the W3C

Re:min-width and hacks

[LifesABeach]

Being a software contractor, I've seen more than my share of projects done by one person, and done by teams of people. After reading the reviews of ie7, I am amazed that the villagers of redmond would trivialize such an important first impression tool as a web browser. Is it possible that the village people, of redmond, are turning their attention to other ways of profiting?

Re:min-width and hacks

[Feztaa]

Well, I'm a firm believer in "graceful degradation"... the website is perfectly viewable and accessible in everything from lynx to a screen reader. Anything that Firefox or IE might do to the page is just eye candy on top of that.

For example, I recently started using the -moz-border-radius setting to give the "code blocks" in my articles a rounder corner. I chose to do this because those code blocks are the only thing on my website that use straight lines (the header graphic is a curve and there aren't really any lines anywhere else in the page's design). Of course, IE users will still see those boxes as having square edges. So what? It's not like the page now renders in 2pt non-scalable font for them or something. It's still perfectly readable and accessible, just slightly less pretty.

So yeah, just like that article mentions, I don't cater to broken browsers... I mostly code to standards, and then I just make sure that the degradation in the broken browsers is in fact graceful.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Mycroft_VIII]

I'm not shure, but it looks like your arguing for the fixed sizes for everything sites on the theory they look better.
Problem is that theory assumes your using the EXACT same setup as the designer.
The truth is that if sites that allow the browser to display according the readers preferences looks like crap, then the fixed ones look even worse 90% of the time because the reader isn't using xywebdesign pro's preview feature at 800x600 on a 21" lcd.
I'll take your 'crappy looking' sites over 'unreadble and very crappy looking' that you get most of the time with fixed sizing of fonts and collums and such.
And frankly I've seen sights that do look good, not crappy, that are properly desinged so that changing the browsers resolution or font sizes or other elements works just fine without destroying site readability or useability.
The excuse that locking things down is needed to maintain asthetic merit is simply false. I've seen to many counter examples. I'm not saying that it's easy to correctly design a web page, but it is possible.
I suppose if a particular artistic statement IS the reason for a site then it could be o.k. to lock things down.
But there is NO need on most sites such as news sites (one of the worst for microtype that's locked down) or tech sites (micro collums that are locked down) and some of the others out there that have nothing to do with art.
Of course it's possible I've missed what you were trying to say. If so I appologize for the vitriol, but I really am sick of dealing with bad web design and the stupid justifications therefore. And by bad I mean won't display reasonably except at the specific resolution on the specific monitor size the idiot designed it on.
Nor even if you meant there was some justification for the crap I'm venting against should you consider the vitriol aimed specifically at you, more at your argument (IF I did indeed interpret it correctly) and the web designers that buy it.

Mycroft

Re:min-width and hacks

[Art Tatum]

I know what you're saying and you're right. But the idea that letting the computer just 'decide' what something should look like isn't the panacea that some have sold it as. Particularly with user interfaces. It's not as bad with documents, especially if there is very little real layout or design. But the more 'real' design and artwork you do, the worse autolayout looks.

It's a range though. If you just throw some text in <P> tags and put it on a server, it looks fine at any size on any device. You don't really lose anything because there was no effort put in to helping the reader in the first place. Once you start employing design elements to improve usability, they start degrading on different output devices.

That's one reason many people still prefer hard copy books to online documentation. A book can be carefully crafted by a graphic designer to be easy to read. Margins, line and page breaks, absolute sizing, color calibration, the list goes on and on. You'd be surprised how subtle design elements can have major psychological effects on your reading experience.

I just took a technical writing course, so I'm kind of stoked about this. :-)

Re:min-width and hacks

[Mycroft_VIII]

There is an inherent difference between hard copy and the web, bad web-design sometimes comes from not noticing that the web-page will NOT display the same everywhere, all design work trying to enforce such nonsense just makes the problem worse by not allowing the end user to effectively tweak the defaults so he can read it at HIS end.
The phrase 'Once you start employing design elements to improve usability, they start degrading on different output devices.' is a contradictory statement. 'Design elements that improve useability' are things that enable you to use something with greater ease as I read it, and if an element reduces the set of potential users it by definition reduces useability.
One element of the idea behind the web is device independence on output, trying to foolishly lock away this key element only degrades the useability of a site and is NOT necessary to achieve the goals of most websites.
I've seen websites that work and look good despite resizing fonts or the browser's window and so on. The myth that locking down elements to exact sizes or placing is somehow needed or usefull is false to fact.
The other idea that seems to be in confusion is 'autolayout'. That implies to me that the webdesigner has no controll and neigther does the viewer, this is not what I'm talking about.
The real designers take into account the fact that thier site will NOT look the same everywhere, and will not use elements or depend on settings that cause thier site to fail if changed.
Good web design involves looking at how the page changes as the viewers preferences and/or environment changes and designing it to work with the change, not try and lock it out.
The scary thing is as more tools are developed that should make it easier for designers to build sites that adapt more intelligently than raw browser interpretation (style sheets, java, javascript, and so on) the more they tend to use them to do just the oposite, and lock in thier specific 'view' of the site irrespective of the reality at the end users monitor (or other device for some).
I'm not arguing against desingers making choices about thier site's layout, far from it. I'm arguing against thier making assumptions about the end viewers software, hardware, eyesight, tastes, etc. and trying to lock in those assumptions. Layout design should be robust which means non-absolute. Dependence on pixel or inch/cm based placing (as opposed to relative based) is almost always going to be bad design and break on some subset of output devices.

Mycroft

Re:min-width and hacks

[handslikesnakes]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You can put pretty much whatever you want inside a comment and have it valid, no worries there. I don't see what it has to do with the underscore hack though; if you use that, your CSS will be invalid. End of story.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Art Tatum]

'Design elements that improve useability' are things that enable you to use something with greater ease as I read it, and if an element reduces the set of potential users it by definition reduces useability.

Take orphan words as an example. If the last word in a paragraph is on a line by itself, the eye has a harder time finding it. It's an absolute that reduces usability. Of course, as you state, locking down a format so this doesn't happen causes *other* problems. It's an inherent usability problem with autolayout and device independence. That's all I'm trying to get at here. The kind of control that allows for the absolutely *best* reading experience simply doesn't exist on the web.

Re:min-width and hacks

[Mycroft_VIII]

Replace *best* with best reasonable and it does exist, it's the person viewing the web-page.
But html and the web was NOT intended to be the best possible layout, but rather always useable. Current tendencies to lock things down or use non-portable/absolute value layouts work against that.
And that is my point. Fixed layout elements and the like should almost never be used as opposed to the almost always used situation we have now.

Mycroft

video plugins

[green pizza]

All of my mozilla plugins required some fiddling to get them working. But you know what? I did the tweaking once, about 10 months ago, and it's still working fine.

Too many features to match.

[Max_Abernethy]

Even if IE implements everything that the basic Firefox installation has and then some, they still won't have the strong community of extension developers that Mozilla does. Will the next IE have anything like AdBlock, the web developer toolbar, or any of the countless little tweak extensions I like? Will I be able to easily change detailed settings like I can with about:config? I doubt it.

Re:Too many features to match.

[Tyrdium]

Will the average user care about those features, though? I doubt it. As long as MSIE is "good enough"...

Re:Too many features to match.

[NanoGator]

"Even if IE implements everything that the basic Firefox installation has and then some, they still won't have the strong community of extension developers that Mozilla does..."

I'd find this insightful if not for the various things Google etc did for IE.

Re:Too many features to match.

[man_of_mr_e]

Umm.. You do realize that IE has had a similar extension model for ages, and there are lots of tools that use it, right?

I'd love to see tools like you mention, but nothign is stoping anyone from making them if they wanted to. Aparrently, nobody has wanted to. Well, there are lots of third party adblockers, but i was referring to the web developer toolbar.

Thank you, Microsoft

[wyldeone]

They have finally added proper PNG support

I am so happy to hear this. In this IE6 world a webdesigner cannot use transparent pngs, because roughly 90% of your viewership's browser would not render them correctly. One was then forced to either use transparent gifs (which only support 2 level of transparency, i.e., on or off) or else try to fake it (which is difficult because IE and Gecko don't always render colors the same.) Hopefully they'll finally implement some more CSS2, like allowing the hover pseudo class to be used with any object, rather than just links. Oh, and perhaps they could finally fix the box model.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[BandwidthHog]

Here's a hack to enable 8-bit alpha in PNG images. It's a little flaky when used with an image map, but is essentially functional.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[mmusson]

In this IE6 world a webdesigner cannot use transparent pngs.

This is not completely true. PNGs with 8-bit alpha channels render correctly. Google maps uses this trick to create the push pin drop shadow.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[wyldeone]

Those hacks are very nice, but unfortunately they do not work for background images, which makes them much less useful.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[medeii]

Your assertion is misleading.

Firefox, Opera, Safari, and other "niche" browsers render PNGs correctly, with the use of the 8-bit alpha channel. IE6, on the other hand, ONLY recognizes boolean transparency in PNGs -- in other words, it treats them like GIFs. It is possible to force IE5+ to recognize the full alpha channel, but only with the use of a Direct3D filter command.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[BandwidthHog]

Good point, hadn't thought about that. But I'm having trouble imagining why one would need full alpha for a background image.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[_xeno_]

It is possible to force IE5+ to recognize the full alpha channel, but only with the use of a Direct3D filter command.

It's better (well, worse, actually) than that. You can add a Direct3D filter command to display a transparent PNG on top of an image.

So, for example, an image with transparency in Firefox, Opera, and Safari is simply:

<img src="myTransparentImage.png">

To make IE work, you cannot simply add an attribute or anything simply like that. Because if you do, your transparent image will display behind the Direct3D filter applied over the image, without transparency. So instead you must use:

<img src="infamousTransparentGif.gif" style="width: 32px; height: 32px; filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader (src='myTransparentImage.png');">

(Not sure if the above really works due to spaces added to make it format better, but you get the idea.)

Again, this means you can can't simply add the IE-specific "code" to make the image transparency work. Instead you must jump through hoops to get it to display as properly, since you can either make it work in IE (by displaying a completely transparent image with the PNG image draw over that) or work in other browsers. Ultimately, this means either using IE's conditional comments or a JavaScript based solution so that you give the right code to the right browser.

Usually with special code to catch when it's really Opera and not Opera pretending to be IE so you don't screw that up too...

Note that you must provide the width and height of the transparent image you want to display in Internet Explorer, otherwise IE will scale it to whatever size the transparent image you use underneath. Plus, strictly speaking, the above <img> tags aren't HTML compliant, because I left out the ALT attributes.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[the_greywolf]

one example that popped into my head almost immediately is an effect similar to HUDs in many 3D games - a partially translucent float that allows text underneath to partially show through. imagine, if you will, a fixed-position menu employing a translucent background so it doesn't completely obscure the page underneath.

all eye-candy really, but i know i've wanted to do it.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

My site is a good example (the link at the top, not the one in my sig).

The background shows through the description boxes. If it wasn't for PNGs, I'd have to create a GIF or JPG for each of the boxes, and I'd have to create another seperate image if I added another description, and would have to redo them all if I wanted to change the padding, height, font-height etc.

PNGs make things much easier when designing a site where you want to add a bit of flair, but still want changability. Unlike many graphics-heavy sites that are just a table with a cluster of cut-up images.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[RJabelman]

Or instead, you can use this guy's script to apply the filters for you on IE. Include it once and all the PNGs on the page work properly. (Why MS couldn't do this themselves is really puzzling).

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[BandwidthHog]

D'oh!

All I could think of when I read the grandparent post was page bacgkrounds. So of course, I was having a bit of difficulty imagining why you'd need proper transparency for the bottom-most image.

I'll just be over in the corner feeling stupid now.

Re:Thank you, Microsoft

[handslikesnakes]

It is possible to force IE5+ to recognize the full alpha channel, but only with the use of a Direct3D filter command.

Which doesn't work for CSS background images, AFAIK.

I want Cross-platform support.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have important customers (government agencies and academic customers) on Linux and Solaris; and we really can only afford to focus on supporting a single browser.

That essentially forces my hand at picking FireFox.

If IE were supported on Linux and Solaris, I might be able to consider it; and then it'd make the windows users happier.

Re:I want Cross-platform support.

[Mancat]

I know you're joking, but there is a version of IE for Solaris.

Re:I want Cross-platform support.

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

Hell, IE7 isn't even supported on Windows 2000.

Re:I want Cross-platform support.

[digitalchinky]

There used to be yes. Haven't seen it since way back in 1996/7 though. Used to run it on an Ultra 10 - found it on one of the sun support CD's if memory serves.

No idea if it's still being maintained, though I suspect not.

Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titanic?

[rewinn]

Not trying to flame M$ but ... most of the reason I junked IE was security issues. Once I made the jump, the other improvements like graphics-handling were nice, but not critical.

Would putting better graphics on the Titanic's deckchairs have kept anyone on board?

IE7 would be perfect if...

[green pizza]

IIRC, the *original* release of IE was based heavily on Mosaic. This always struck me as kind of funny, since even Netscape 0.9 was faster and had more features than any version of Mosaic 2.x.

At any rate, Microsoft should put their resources into making one killer browser. Make it as lightweight as Netscape 2.0 was, yet support the latest CSS kung-fu. Implement all of the latest widgets and hoohaws as plugins so I can remove ActiveX support if I want. And above all, make it cross platform. Use a library like FLTK so it can be used just about anywhere.

Doesn't Microsoft realize they could easily make the end-all browser that'll end up running on almost every palmtop, cell phone, set-top-box, automobile, and personal computer?

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[BagOBones]

Microsoft has a huge war chest of cash.. resources are not an issue.

They simply don't NEED to produce a better or much better browser since IE still holds most of the market.

Making a stand alone product would do them no good as well, since they already forced browsers to be free they can't go back to charging for them now.

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[MoogMan]

The problem is, if MS make an awesome browser that works faster and more reliable than any other browser, and distributes it with MS Windows, they're back in trouble with the unfair lockout of other programs.

With a shite browser, at least they can say "well, we give this below-standard one as a basic package, and allow the user to download better browsers if they feel necessary". This could potentially make the courts ignore the fact that its pre-installed.

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[BumpyCarrot]

IE still is based on Mosaic. That never changed. The Mosaic in IE isn't really the problem though, it's the MS in IE.

But yes, as the other reply in this thread states, MS could totally cripple the browser so that your computer runs at a snail's pace when you're browsing and you can't do anything about it. So long as the browser is the default with Windows, it will still stay in the majority.

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[irm]

That's a fabulous idea. Especially since people pay so much for browsers.

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[Fwonkas]

Actually, they bought Spyglass (which was, I believe, based on Mosaic).

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[jp10558]

Isn't that basically what Opera *is*, aside from ActiveX?

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[kscd]

not to be nitpicky, but they didn't exactly buy Spyglass. They licensed the code for IE for a percentage of sales revenue from it, plus a quarterly fee. Since they didn't sell IE seperately from Windows, that revnue stream ended up pretty dry for Spyglass. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[Fwonkas]

Ah. You're right. Forgot about that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[00lmz]

And above all, make it cross platform. Use a library like FLTK so it can be used just about anywhere. Doesn't Microsoft realize they could easily make the end-all browser that'll end up running on almost every palmtop, cell phone, set-top-box, automobile, and personal computer?

That would make the browser (IE) the platform, instead of windows. If what happened to Netscape is any indication, I'm guessing they don't want that to happen. Especially since browsers are (commonly) free and you have to pay for Windows.

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[pmsyyz]

IE is based on Spyglass Mosaic, not NCSA Mosaic.

Spyglass licensed the technology and trademarks from NCSA for producing their own web browser but never used any of the NCSA Mosaic source code.

See http://biztech.ericsink.com/Browser_Wars.html

Re:IE7 would be perfect if...

[arevos]

Doesn't Microsoft realize they could easily make the end-all browser that'll end up running on almost every palmtop, cell phone, set-top-box, automobile, and personal computer?

To what end? They make no money off IE. A cross-platform IE would just give people more reason to switch away from Windows. And Windows does make Microsoft money.

Thank God!

[paragonc]

Seeing as how i develope on a Mac all my sites seem to render perfectly in Safari - Firefox - Mozilla - and Opera. It usually takes me about a day to crank out a page. Then i have to leave myself 2 days to make that page compatable with IE 5 - 5.5 - and 6 with assorted javascript hacks and what not - even though IE 7 sounds like it might be a nice fix to many of my CSS issues, it's still gonna take years before everyone is running IE 7. I've actually opted into giving my clients a price cut if they just let me throw in a sniffer that excludes IE. + i can sell them on the fact that they are actually helping their clients by making them drop support for an awful product :)

Re:Thank God!

[LFS.Morpheus]

I highly doubt GPwas talking about IE for Mac, which has about a 3% Mac marketshare (and hence about a 0.1% total marketshare). I am guessing that after he designs and tests in Safari and Firefox, he then hops on a Windows box to test and fix it. Testing in Windows is the only way to test compatibility; typically IE/Mac is completely ignored.

(I do web development, and do it on a Mac.)

Re:Thank God!

[Mancat]

I have never been able to get Firefox/Moz to run on Windows95. It makes some nonexistant calls to Kernel32.dll. Why it would be referencing that library anyway, I do not know.

Re:Thank God!

[jisatsusha]

They're probably calls to Windows API functions added after Windows 95. Firefox doesn't claim to work on 98 anyway, so it's not exactly a problem; if you're using a 10 year old operating system, you have a lot more to worry about than a web browser.

Remember winsock?

[xtal]

No... Microsoft burned quite a few bridges with alot of people and unless they can turn that PR machine around 180 degrees, people will continue to see them as bullies who are looking out for nobody but themselves.


They got caught with their pants down in 1993-4 with the internet and TCPIP revolution, too. "It's good enough" certainly does sound framiliar. This was a multibillion dollar company that somehow MISSED THE WHOLE INTERNET THING. They pulled that one off and came out of it smelling like roses.

They got caught with their pants down AGAIN in 1997 with the widespread acceptance of Java and the beginnings of true cross-platform computing. They pulled turning that event into a stillbirth and came out of it smelling like roses.

So, here we are in 2005, and they've been caught again with a stagnant product in IE. Not just caught, but being actively made to look stupid by comparison by the third party browsers, and on top of all this, they have OSX and Apple breathing down their necks. I think the wake-up call has been heard.

I'm not a betting man, but I know where I'd be putting my dollars.

Re:Remember winsock?

[Foofoobar]

Keep in perspective the size of Microsoft's 'ship' that they have to turn around, the plethora of troubles that it has with it's products and add consumer/business discontent with open source and alternative software making HUGE instrides into their business.

They have a lawsuit, a competitor and an open source project at every door. And the company who stands to lose the most is MS.

They have themselves spread too thin, they have no focus (or their focus is on too much at once) and they have not followed through on consumer demands, industry standards or interoperability.

They have won in the past because they were able to spread money to a few key people. But this time, a few key people cannot keep them out of hot water. Consumers are pissed at them, businesses are pissed at them, governments are pissed at them and they are all beginning to work together and against them.

What can they do to stop this? Seriously.

I say they should start making their server side apps compatible with other systems, start getting out of server side and focus on desktop. It will be a long time before Linux takes over the desktop and if they put their focus back into the desktop, they will be able to cut their losses.

Re:Remember winsock?

[Foofoobar]

Said (and implied) that they will lose... not disappear. There is a difference you know. After all, Enron is still in business, IBM is still in business, SUN is still in business and they all lost a major battle at one time or another.

The point that you are completely missing however is that they think they can win it.

They think they can convince consumers for the millionth time that they are secure, safe and that they still have the consumers interests at heart.

They think they can convince businesses that buying their software is alot better than getting better, safer, and more stable software for free.

They think they can convince countries that they are not a monopoly, that software patents have that countries best interests at heart and that open source initiatives at the government level will not save anyone money.

That's an awful lot of convincing that they have to do. I just wonder if their deep pockets will be able to support it when sales keep falling.

Re:Remember winsock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, their sales are going up, so you just typed several long posts that are fundementally misinformed.

Re:Remember winsock?

[jesterzog]

This was a multibillion dollar company that somehow MISSED THE WHOLE INTERNET THING.

I'm not sure if it's quite correct to say they missed the Internet... it's more like they underestimated it and made a bad decision about dealing with it. Instead of embracing the open-ness of the Internet, Microsoft decided to try and undermine and compete with the Internet by effectively creating its own, Microsoft controlled Internet.

Remember The Microsoft Network? At the time, Microsoft managed to make some exclusive deals with certain entities (the official Star Trek franchise was the one that comes to mind), so that they would only provide online content on the Microsoft Network and nowhere else, forcing people to pay money to Microsoft if they wanted access.

Re:Remember winsock?

[pipingguy]

They got caught with their pants down AGAIN in 1997 with the widespread acceptance of Java and the beginnings of true cross-platform computing. They pulled turning that event into a stillbirth and came out of it smelling like roses.

Don't forget that even in ancient times like 1997, the value of the internet was still being debated in most "establishment" circles. IIRC, Google came alive in 1998 and kept accelerating.

Like it or not, Microsoft has been in the driver seat for most computer technology (I mean widespread adoption of the technology).

This has been a HUGE change in the day-to-day work routine for the average employee and even now some people are not comfortable with the "new way". Sure, "death will eventually solve this problem", but that sentiment is not the best PR for people being forced to upgrade systems regularly without getting much in return.

Re:Remember winsock?

[Foofoobar]

False. Their sales are going down. They report that they have met quarter goals and in some divisions, sales are going up (X-box for instance but this is after declaring a loss for the last few years, it has still to make a profit over expenses).

When you say sales are going up, it's a trick of reporting that they declare this. Server sales are at a loss, XP sales are down, Office sales are down, etc. They had to cut employee insurance benefits and perks (such as free sodas and towels for the locker room ever so recently) in order to meet quarterly goals.

Check your stats across the boards in each of their divisions and you'll see what I mean. Sales are not up, profit is not up, their stock price has stagnated for the last 5 years.

Re:Remember winsock?

[snorklewacker]

> They got caught with their pants down AGAIN in 1997 with the widespread acceptance of Java

Name one million+ hit site a day (other than Javasoft) that uses applets. For server stuff, the JVM ran just fine on windows from day 1.

Microsoft has never been a leader, but they pave the trail others blaze. The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

IE holding a big percentage of usage may be good

[thanasakis]

Well, since almost 90% is still using IE, it is logical to assume that most of the exploits, etc etc are targeted towards it. I personally know of many people that use alternative browsers just because of that. Being part of the minority in that case makes you a somewhat more difficult target (not invincible though). So even if IE7 becomes better than firefox or opera, it won't matter. If it is going to be used be the average user, many people will avoid it because of that .

Bad news for Firefox

[xRelisH]

I believe this might greatly slow down or even reverse the switching of browsers for a lot of people.

IE7 might just be "good enough" for people to warrant not switching to Firefox. For people who are new, and perhaps not computer savvy, getting plugins to work with Firefox on Windows is non trivial. This isn't Firefox's fault because development focus for most plugins is still on IE.

But then again, it might be good news for us. Competition is good, this might ramp up Firefox development and bring more innovations for the rest of us.

Newsflash

[Grip3n]

This just in...The new Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 will be Firefox rebranded to IE.

Re:Newsflash

[evilviper]

This just in...The new Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 will be Firefox rebranded to IE.

Simple test... Install IE7 and open it up to http://slashdot.org/

If it renders correctly, it isn't Firefox...

CSS Problems

[ArAgost]

They may have solved the consistency problems, but the standards supports is in great part unimplemented. IE is still far behind its biggest competitors as can be seen easily by doing a quick comparison. The user might not care, but the developer does.

They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[argoff]

First quit stuffing this proprietary crap down my throat, at least have the decency to put it under the GPL.

Second, please don't default load to the msn page, WTF, google.com would be much nicer.

Third, could you actually put something in there to block ads and popups, and any other crap that I don't want on my screen. Al least temporairly. Eg NO AD.DOUBBLECLICK.NET !!!!!

Fourth, last time I looked default IE has over ONE GIG of cache in the settings ... excuse me!!!!

Fifth, could you actually make it work with java????? .... no I mean the real java from Sun. And the same with the "real" javascript too now that I'm thinking about it.

Sixth, don't renember all my crap - I want privacy and security - and when I close the browser I want the option to not only take out the cache, cookies, and history of web sites visited, but also want it to TRUELY ERASE IT ... eg ... overwrite the blocks on the hard drive with random data. Get it!

Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!

Eigth, can't you natively render PDF's. Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap???? ... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it.

Ninth, please put something in there that makes it easy for me to "steal" (GASP!!!) someone's "intellectual property". Yeah I know that's hideous to you, but that's what I want so get with it or get over it and get lost.

Actually, forget this, mozilla's not perfict, but at least it's going in the right directions.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[rpozz]

Third, could you actually put something in there to block ads and popups, and any other crap that I don't want on my screen. Al least temporairly. Eg NO AD.DOUBBLECLICK.NET !!!!!

Putting an ad-blocker (pop-ups are fair game) on something as popular as IE would cause very serious disruptions to many, many websites (ie their revenue stream gets completely cut). Not to mention the inevitable lawsuit if doubleclick.net was in by default.

I think the request for it being GPL'd is wishful thinking too. Maybe you need to calm down?

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[argoff]

Putting an ad-blocker (pop-ups are fair game) on something as popular as IE would cause very serious disruptions to many, many websites (ie their revenue stream gets completely cut). Not to mention the inevitable lawsuit if doubleclick.net was in by default.

Well, that's sorta the whole point though. MS is working under the pretense of being a service to their customers, not a service to industry honchos. If that's what they really want, then fine lets force them to be honest about it.

I think the request for it being GPL'd is wishful thinking too. Maybe you need to calm down

I know they will never do that too. But once again, there the ones freaking out about how the proprietary coercive model gives more value to the customers than the open free one. Well, I call bullshit, show me how making IE closed adds more value to the customers ... especially for linux users, mac users, and others. I'd really just love to hear it.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

First quit stuffing this proprietary crap down my throat, at least have the decency to put it under the GPL.

Erm... You're free to use an alternative if you want.

Second, please don't default load to the msn page, WTF, google.com would be much nicer.

As opposed to Firefox, which just irritatingly changes your home page back to the Firefox home page by default every time it auto-updates, unless you remember to uncheck a box on one of the wizard-y dialogs?

Third, could you actually put something in there to block ads and popups, and any other crap that I don't want on my screen. Al least temporairly. Eg NO AD.DOUBBLECLICK.NET !!!!!

Like Firefox, except when the pop-up blocker doesn't work, you mean?

Fifth, could you actually make it work with java????? .... no I mean the real java from Sun. And the same with the "real" javascript too now that I'm thinking about it.

Of course. Now if you could just fix Firefox to support ActiveX from trusted sources, so it's actually usable with the vast majority of corporate intranets, that would be lovely.

Oh, I've worked it out now. You were just trolling. My bad.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[veg_all]

Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!

Try Ctl-F5

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[jc42]

Try Ctl-F5

So what's that do? I was curious, so I opened a copy of IE, visited a page of mine that changes with time, and typed CTL-F5.

The only change I saw was a funny little icon, sorta like a tiny menu, appeared to the right of the pointer. It stayed there until I touched the mouse, and then it disappeared. No reload of anything.

Do I maybe need some other meta-key down, too?

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[corblix]

Eigth, can't you natively render PDF's. Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap???? ... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it.

I agree with all the rest, but here you're yelling at the wrong people. Yell at Adobe & Macromedia if you don't like the way they handle their file formats.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[The New Andy]

I believe Ctrl-F5 is supposed to do a hard-refresh (or something like that), where if a proxy server gets the request, it won't use its own cache, but it will fetch from the source (since there are often a couple of caches along the way, the same instruction needs to be passed along)

Whether or not a proxy obeys it is another issue altogether.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[The New Andy]

Eigth, can't you natively render PDF's. Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap???? ... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it.

Hey that is actually a pretty good idea. I wonder if Firefox has ever considered doing something like that. Personally, I always save pdf files to disk and then open them up without using the browser plugin, but native rendering might change that habit.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[Phroggy]

Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!

Hold the Control key while clicking Refresh. Clicking Refresh without the Control key does reload the data "from the URL", but all the other URLs referenced by the page you're reloading (images, stylesheets, external JavaScript, etc.) may not be (especially if you're behind a caching proxy server). The reason for this is, if you don't need to reload all the bazillion other files and only need to reload the main content of the page you're looking at, clicking Refresh is MUCH faster than it would be if you reloaded everything.

The equivalent in Netscape/Mozilla-based browsers is Shift-Reload. In IE for Mac, Option-Refresh.

In Safari for Mac OS X, clicking the Reload button twice in a row does it (the first time reloads the page only; the second time reloads everything). I'm not sure if this sends the same headers Mozilla does with Shift-Reload though, so it may not work perfectly behind a proxy; I know it didn't, and Dave Hyatt told me he'd have somebody look at that, but I'm not sure if it actually works now or not.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[insert_username_here]

MS is working under the pretense of being a service to their customers, not a service to industry honchos.

Funny, that. I always thought they were being a service to their shareholders, and them alone.

Since Microsoft doesn't actually make any money from IE users, you can't expect them to follow a user-centric point of view. The only way they can make any money from their users (apart from Windows licenses, which they will get regardless of whether or not they use IE or another browser, or even switch to Linux after buying a new PC with Windows pre-installed) is from advertising revenue on sites like MSN.

Hence, allowing ads is the only way they can perform a service for the shareholders. Oh well, that's why I use Firefox instead.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[Phroggy]

Fifth, could you actually make it work with java????? .... no I mean the real java from Sun.

I'm sure you're trolling, but if you install the actual JRE from Sun, it works fine.

And the same with the "real" javascript too now that I'm thinking about it.

There is no such thing. Each implementation is different. For example, Mozilla's JavaScript implementation allows a list to have a trailing comma (handy when you've got one item per line, so you can move them around or add/delete items without worrying about the last line being the only one to lack a comma); Safari's implementation does not allow this (it's a syntax error and the whole script will fail to load).

Actually, forget this, mozilla's not perfict, but at least it's going in the right directions.

IE is much further from perfect, but is also going in the right direction.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[GreyWolf3000]

Plus, say goodbye to slashdot. And a whole lot of websites would either start charging or leave town. I like things better the way they are now--where I don't see any ads and no one notices.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[GreyWolf3000]

There is an extension, but I seriously hope in never gets into Firefox proper.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[Fwonkas]

Wait. You want them to license their browser under the GPL and have the default page be a major competitor?

You're being silly. Seriously.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[DavidD_CA]

First quit stuffing this proprietary crap down my throat, at least have the decency to put it under the GPL.

Yeah, like that will happen. Might as well ask for the Windows source code while you're at it.

Second, please don't default load to the msn page, WTF.

You do realize that Microsoft gets revenue from MSN Search, don't you? And is it really that hard to change your default?

Third, could you actually put something in there to block ads and popups.

Have you not heard of this new SP2 thing? Try it out. Blocks popups. As for ads, if they did that they'd piss off every web advertiser in existance and probably get class-action sued.

Fourth, last time I looked default IE has over ONE GIG of cache in the settings.

Tools, Options, Settings. Change it yourself.

Fifth, could you actually make it work with java?

Every Java app I've tried works. Gotta download the Java plug-in first. Blame Sun and their lawsuit for that.

Sixth, don't renember all my crap - I want privacy and security - and when I close the browser I want the option to not only take out the cache, cookies, and history of web sites visited, but also want it to TRUELY ERASE IT.

Paranoid much? There are probably a dozen third-party apps that do this already.

Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!

Hold down Control when you hit F5 or press reload.

Eigth, can't you natively render PDF's. Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap?

I have a suspicion that Adobe would take issue having PDF rendering part of IE without any Adobe app. As for Reader bloat-ware, go bark up Adobe's tree.

Ninth, please put something in there that makes it easy for me to "steal" (GASP!!!) someone's "intellectual property".

Uh huh. Why not just add a "warez" button which takes you right to your favorite IRC channel too?

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[omicronish]

In all seriousness, if you really want to give them feedback I suggest commenting on their various IE blogs. You can get in direct contact with the devs that way. On an amusing note, the IE blogs have the highest comment counts of all categories of Microsoft blogs. Interesting :)

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[dascandy]

> Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap???? ... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it. Flash is going to be bloated more too, Adobe took it over about a week ago. Prepare to see PDF's with embedded flash you cannot block.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[m50d]

Nope. They publish them. Konqueror can render them fine itself (just uses kpdfpart). Why can't IE?

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[m50d]

Try konqueror. It uses a kpdf backend, which is much faster, but will also let you switch to the netscape plugin if you need something not supported in kpdf.

Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK

[veg_all]

Well, I've used that for years to flush the cache and reload ie, but I wanted to see if I could reproduce the behavior you described. So I actually pulled out a computer with windows and booted it up to see.

First, let's be clear here: I'm talking about the Function Key F5, at the top. OK? Hold down the left Control key and while still holding it down, we hit F5. Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing. Now, with ie 5+ (tested 5.01, 5.5, 6, all on a single win2k box), Ctl-F5 indeed flushes the cache and reloads the page, picking up tiny changes in CSS that are often missed w/o a flush (though I can't find a consitent rule for not flushing the cache on a regular reload - sometimes it flushes anyway). The closest I could get to reproducing what you describe is Ctl-F, which of course brings up a Find dialog, but that doesn't go away just by moving the mouse.

All I can say is, it works for me. Always has.

IE will always be behind

[CastrTroy]

IE will catch up to Firefox 2 years after Firefox already had all these features. By the time IE7 is done, FireFox will have many more features, not to mention tons of extensions, that are the real key to it's power. By the time IE gets to where FF is today, FF will have advanced way beyond what IE can hope to achieve from typical corporate development.

Re:IE will always be behind

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"FF will have advanced way beyond what IE can hope to achieve from typical corporate development."

Are you an idiot?

It took the Mozilla project nearly five years to build what Firefox is today. Hell, Mozilla didn't even surpass IE4 until 2002, five years after IE4's release.

Microsoft went from not having a browser to having the *best* browser in two years.

If they have to, they will build a standards-compliant, fast, extensible browser.

The only question now is whether they will have to. But it already looks like the popularity of Firefox has answered that question.

The Mozilla Foundation has a lot of great talent. But they don't have 300 full-time developers. Microsoft has plenty of bright people - and plenty of money. Don't sell them short.

They are complacent, not stupid.

Re:IE will always be behind

[ChatHuant]

By the time IE gets to where FF is today, FF will have advanced way beyond what IE can hope to achieve from typical corporate development.

Remember your history; when MS became interested in this new intarweb thang, Netscape was far ahead in features and product quality. MS came from behind to catch up and pass Netscape (and before somebody starts whining about bundling with Windows, I'm talking product quality: remember the difference between IE 4 and especially 5 and the catastrophe that was Navigator 4). You may say that OSS development is quicker than corporate dev, but remember how long it took to get to Mozilla 1.0?

Re:IE will always be behind

[imroy]

If they have to, they will build a standards-compliant, fast, extensible browser.

But they won't. Because doing so would make it easier for people to switch to other browsers. So instead they will fix these big issues that web designers have been complaining about, forget about the rest, and add their own embraced-and-extended new "features". Thus they will be able to proclaim that they improved their standards compliance and added new features. And thousands of web sites/applications will again be locked into IE-only functionality. So basically, business as usual.

Re:IE will always be behind

[antrik]

Let's take a closer look at the numbers. MS hasn't started from zero; they have (as they usually do) bought an existing product for a base. Considering this, we can safely assume that going from zero to matching Netscape would has taken more than three years. It took about the same amount of time to go from there to IE6.

Now it also took Mozilla more than three years to master the complexity of the new code (IIRC they started by the end of 1998) -- but once there, it easily soared not only past IE4, but also IE6 and everything else within a few months.

In short: It took Mozilla about half the time to create a browser overwhelmingly better in nearly every regard. It will be funny looking at MS trying to catch up :-)

Re:IE will always be behind

[EchoMirage]

MS came from behind to catch up and pass Netscape

With no disrespect to you or the other poster(s) in this thread who've made this argument, a comparison of the Netscape Communications of 5 years ago and the Mozilla Foundation of today is asinine. When Microsoft overtook Netscape, it was because Netscape had left its front door wide open and placed a detailed map of its weaknesses in public view. The Netscape of yesteryear was shipping a hugely bloated everything-in-one application that didn't work right, needed constant patching, and failed to support some (even then) very basic rendering guidelines. The Netscape 4 series was a web designer's worst nightmare. It was a massive download (20-30M?) in an era where only a small minority of people had access to broadband. And it didn't fit visually and functionally with the rest of Windows. And of course, its primary competition (IE) was already bundled with the OS. Netscape itself was a for profit company in the dot-com era that, like so many dot-bombs, tried to build a business model out of one niche product when a) comparable or better products existed, and b) an established market presence (Microsoft) could far outstrip it in development and marketing resources. Furthermore, Netscape's focus was divided by its also trying to become a web portal leader and its trying to launch major litigation against a major Fortune 500 company. Bad product + outgunned resources + divided focus = business disaster. The remains of Netscape were eventually scraped off the pavement by AOL. The Mozilla Foundation, by comparison, is a non-profit community-driven organization that ships only a handful of specialized, well-targetted applications whose features equal and surpass its competition. Its products have a loyal following because of their technical superiority; this manifests itself in a massive grassroots marketing juggernaut whose collective weight is the envy of some marketing firms. Microsoft may well have strong competition for Firefox with IE7 (although I suspect they won't), but I think it's demonstrably clear that this isn't an instance of history repeating itself. The two major warring are, this time around, very different entities.

Gecko's needs fixing too, you know

[rebug]

Gecko polls servers for changed content when moving through history. As far as I know, Opera is the only major browser that gets that part of HTTP/1.1 right.

History mechanisms and caches are different. In particular history mechanisms SHOULD NOT try to show a semantically transparent view of the current state of a resource. Rather, a history mechanism is meant to show exactly what the user saw at the time when the resource was retrieved.

http/1.1 specification

well that's just super

[rebug]

You know, rah rah rah, go team! and stuff. Your cheerleading has nothing to do with my point.

Let's be more concerned about what MoFo can do to make people change from IE and less concerned with celebrating a victory that has yet to happen.

Acid2

[Omniscientist]

Looking at the blog's comments, I saw someone mention the Acid2 test. I did a google and took it, and my Firefox 1.0.2 failed it.

Anyone know more details about this test and what browsers do pass it (I'm guessing IE6 doesn't, I don't have it so can't test it)? I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.

This is the test and this is what it should look like. Here's some info about how it works.

Re:Acid2

[Anonymous Coward]

Safari is the closest at getting it right. See Dave go...

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/

Re:Acid2

[handslikesnakes]

Firefox is in accordance with most of the standards (as are Opera & Safari & Konquerer - basically everybody except IE). Acid2 was designed to demonstrate things that have been overlooked.

Re:Acid2

[Xarius]

All browsers, even W3C's own browser amaya, fail it horribly.

The only browser making active progress with fixing the bugs it highlights is Safari for mac.

Re:Acid2

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This was mentioned in another thread the other day. No major browser currently renders the "image" correctly. Firefox is close, but still has significant bugs/unsupported features in this area.

Re:Acid2

[gad_zuki!]

Standards and implementations are a funny thing. I went to the w3.org page, downloaded Amaya (their browser) and ran the test.

It ran beatifully, right? Wrong. It looked nothing like a smiley face, it fact it was a lot of junk that covered the screen. If you don't see it make sure to scroll down. FF is mostly there.

Acid5 kinda targets elements browsers tend to get wrong, so no one is going to pass it perfectly. At least for a long while.

This does bring up a good point - is there a reference browser? Obviously Amaya is a mess (it renders most pages like crap). There is no reference browser, really. Just code validators.

Re:Acid2

[33degrees]

None of the browser completely pass it, but Safari and Firefox are making progress. Right now, Safari's support is best, with firefox in 2nd place and Opera a bit further back in 3rd; Internet Explorer is so broken you can't even recognize the smiley face. There's a post on Dean Edward's blog that has been tracking progress.

Re:Acid2

[cuijian]

The short answer is that no browser currently passes the Acid2 test. I'm pretty sure the Firefox team is working on it. I know the Safari team is working on it as their progress is being talked about on David Hyatt's blog: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/

Re:Acid2

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The newest IE for Mac doesn't even try to render it. Safari for OS X 10.3.9 does worst than Firefox. Camino and Firefox both yield the exact same results for me.

I'm curious how they know for sure it looks that way if no browser does it right? I mean, it's possible that they made a mistake in designing the character?

Re:Acid2

[bunratty]

Firefox has been making progress (see bug 290297), too. And how do you know that Opera and IE developers aren't also fixing the bugs?

Re:Acid2

[the_2nd_coming]

wow... safari looks like it will be the first browser to pass the Acid2 test... that is the best looking error I have see... FF 1.0.3 fails worse than that.

Re:Acid2

[Phroggy]

I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.

That was a pretty silly assumption. Don't believe everything you hear on Slashdot.

Re:Acid2

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Newest IE for the Mac? Got news for you pal. Microsoft stopped supporting that about 2 years ago when Safari came out. Delete it off your Mac, there's no use for it. Basically an IE 5x release.

Re:Acid2

[computernut]

f.y.i Firefox 1.0.3 also fails the Acid2 test.

Re:Acid2

[Rogue Pat]

That makes sense. 1.0.3 doesn't contain any serious rendering updates. The 1.0.x updates are only meant to fix potentially serious bugs like newly discovered possible exploits. More structural changes shouldn't be included in maintenance updates. Instead they are going into the 1.1 release for Firefox.

Re:Acid2

[nicke999]

The Acid2 test is not about squashing browser bugs (although this is a nice side-effect). So far, most browsers claim almost full compability with CSS1 and CSS2. CSS3 comes with a new feature-set and although both Firefox and Opera have already implemented a few CSS3 styles they are definitely not claiming to have CSS3 support. Acid2 is meant as a way to speed the adoption towards CSS3 just as the orginal Acid-test was supposed to speed the adoption of CSS2 (which succeded, with both IE and Netscape rendering the test correctly).

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[Jugalator]

This comment is probably worth nothing on Slashdot, but they have earlier announced IE 7 will have further security improvements since the initiative they started with it in Windows XP SP2. You may already know this, you may not, but please don't assume just because a few more details were announced, none else had been.

Re:help me out.

[tnsimonson]

Is there a BugMeNot login for that?

the rest of the story

[ocularDeathRay]

They forgot to mention that the new IE will render the letter "K" as the letter "O", and vice versa.

This feature should be easy to deal with, so long as pages are designed with it in mind. Unfortunately this will cause some confusion when trying to use the expression "O.K." or the boxing term "K.O.".

The new feature that causes the letter "e" to appear as a tiny version of the explorer logo is now slated for version 7.1, it had to be delayed due to technical problems. Consumer research shows that people think that the explorer logo is cuter than the letter "e".

Re:the rest of the story

[Neoncow]

Request: A Firefox extension that does this!

Here, in FOSS

[SharpFang]

...we use 2nd minor version for bugfix releases like from the above mentioned list. e.g. MSIE 6.01, not 7.

Re:Here, in FOSS

[Loonacy]

But at Microsoft, bugfixes are a Major event.

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[NanoGator]

"Would putting better graphics on the Titanic's deckchairs have kept anyone on board?"

Uh.. what on Earth makes you think that's the only thing they're working on? Given all the black eyes Microsoft has taken in the last couple of years, do you really think proper PNG support was their big to-do item with everything else as "would be nice"?

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[dbIII]

Not trying to flame M$ but ... most of the reason I junked IE was security issues.

Good point, but now there actually is an IE team and they appear to have finished playing catch up on the issues that surfaced after the earlier IE team was disbanded. IE is the perfect example of what can happen when you stop development on an a popular application because you think it is "good enough". Historicly it looked like the push was to put a lot of effort in to bury Netscape, and then drop work on the application, since it was just an "extra" available with the OS. Thankfully that attitude appears to have changed, after negligence allowed the spreading of a lot of viruses and spyware.

I don't use IE, but I hate cleaning up spyware from the machines of people that do. Any improvement in it helps network traffic and possibly cuts down on the number of zombie machines if nothing else.

IE comes free with the OS, so people will use it - just like the timebomb that will eat all your email once it hits 2GB that they call outlook express.

Woah... Reality check!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Even if IE implements everything that the basic Firefox installation has and then some, they still won't have the strong community of extension developers that Mozilla does.

Sorry, but you desperately need a reality check. You are talking about probably the largest and most successful software company in the world. If the management wanted to, they could probably divert/recruit sufficient resources to implement every single popular extension to Firefox in IE, within a matter of weeks. The fact that they haven't (at least, not yet) says more about the business case they see for it than their ability to do it.

This is why competition is good: Microsoft are now losing market share, which means there is a business case for them to improve their product to compete. They will aim to do so in what they believe is the most efficient way to get users back, whether that is security, improved CSS support, ad-blocking or whatever.

Re:Woah... Reality check!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC (it's funny how the smart-asses so often are):

Sorry, it's you that needs the reality check. Adding more programmers to a late project just makes it later.

Nice try, but I've read Brooks. I'm also an experienced programmer and project manager, not that you really need to be particularly experienced with either to analyse the type of extension that's popular with Firefox and what it would take to implement equivalent functionality for another product.

The key features are usually a minor project that one or two people working independently could achieve in a short space of time. (That is, after all, how most of the Firefox extensions are written.) It wouldn't take a lot of resources for a company like Microsoft to task a few of the IE dev team to writing these extension-like modules and hook them in.

Re:Woah... Reality check!

[Max_Abernethy]

I won't deny that they have the capability to add those kinds of features, but I do think that there isn't any way to get the same potential feature set Firefox has without bloat/constant updates specific to what a given user wants without an extension system. I don't think MS will add one, and if they do it won't get the support that Firefox's has, for the same reason there isn't the abundance of skins for WMP that exists for Winamp.

In any case, there's a lot of features that I think Microsoft won't implement rather than can't. I'd be surprised to see them add anything like AdBlocker, since they run websites like hotmail that make their money from ads. And can you really see them integrating BugMeNot into their browser? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

Re:Woah... Reality check!

[jp10558]

Excuse me, but just what do you think BHOs are exactly? An extension system, that allows hooks into the OS and IE at about any level AFAICT.

Re:Woah... Reality check!

[Max_Abernethy]

Ok, fine, so show me where all the cool BHO extensions are. Oh wait, every time I look at browser BHOs (which it seems I can only do with a tool like HijackThis), I see a few legit plugins and some adware that the user installed without knowing it. In fact, if you search for "BHOs" on google, you mostly find references to spyware. So, let's get this straight: there aren't a lot of particularly nice BHOs (certainly not as many as FF), there's no obvious tool for managing them, and they have access to my OS. Good.

My original point was that IE won't ever have the rich feature set that FF does because it lacks the community of extension developers, and I'm still sticking with it.

Re:Woah... Reality check!

[jp10558]

Ok. I misunderstood your original post. I thought you meant that IE didn't have an extension system, which as you see is not true.

Re:Woah... Reality check!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The thing is, Mozilla extensions are free. If I want to tweak an extension a bit, make a personalised version for my own use, I can do that.

The thing is, that isn't really the thing at all. How many people, in the entire world, do you think have ever written/tweaked an extension for Firefox? Do you think it's 1% of the market? 0.01%? 0.0001%? Do you think losing these people make any difference at all to Microsoft's strategy?

The reality, harsh as it may be to some people, is that if Microsoft implemented major features like tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking, and beefed up security, then the vast majority of users would no longer have any reason to switch to Firefox.

Re:So long, Firefox

[NanoGator]

"In this case, I take it "Anonymous Coward" is a corollary to "Microsoft PR Rep"?"

There should be an ammendment to Godwin's Law for people who resort to accusing others of working for the bad guy.

Though I don't believe it's "Goodbye FireFox", you cannot honestly say to me that IE7 doesn't have the potential to disrupt FF's market share.

What a company!

[Anonymous Coward]

IE lay dead for several years before they decided to do anything with it. Competition is the order of the day. Firefox starts taking marketshare and now they add tabs and popup blocking. I believe it was only late last Fall they said their customers weren't asking for those things. I guess a lot has changed since last Fall. Anyway, I hope Firefox keeps stealing 'share.

Re: CSS

[Malfourmed]

Notice that they talk about making CSS "more consistent"... but don't mention making IE "standards compliant".

;-)

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[rewinn]

>please don't assume

Please don't assume that assumptions were made.

The article and the developer's blog to which it links (by "the lead program manager for the web platform in IE") talk a lot about CSS and PNGs and very, very little about security. They therefore talk very, very little about the biggest reasons people give for dumping IE: Security problems that cost time & money.

If in fact IE7 will fix these problems, then would it not be prudent for the leadpromanblog to mention it prominently?

Get this security feature

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like for it to be possible to tag any file downloaded from IE. The filesystem supports it. Essentially any file downloaded from the net via IE or Email gets the evil bit (remember that RFC? LOL) Anyway .. basically .. if it';s downloaded from IE .. I never want it being able to log keystrokes, auto start, become a service, or mess with internal settings. At least this will give time for the AV's to get updated and kill it off.

Re:Get this security feature

[CajunArson]

That sounds like a trivial subset of a certain thesis project I did In a nutshell... if you are running Windows I have bad news: malware downloaded via Firefox is still malware. And if you want real security for shit you download, the OS has to have some form of MAC system (Yes, most mean this as SELinux, but it usually means nastier policies than come with most distros)

I couldn't switch if I wanted to

[Lifewish]

As far as I know Microsoft aren't releasing a version of IE7 for Debian Linux. Looks like I'm stuck with Mozilla then. Oh what a crying shame.

Re:I couldn't switch if I wanted to

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

They aren't releasing a version for any Windows older than XP, either. I officially have been forced to become a Mozilla user on the 'doze.

Re:Tabs

[DuctTape]

I don't recall any mention of Tabs in TFA. Did they announce that earlier or are tabs still considered useless?

Several commenters of/in the blog mentioned tabs, including a link to someone at MSDN blogs that doesn't like them.

DT

No Thank You, Microsoft

[Zancarius]

I am so happy to hear this.

Let's not jump the gun here. There's been no beta released yet and honestly how long is it going to take for everyone who is using IE6 to adopt IE7? To illustrate my point, let us step back a few years...

Do you remember the rendering bugs in IE4? What about IE5? Then came IE5.1, 5.5, and 6. The only reason IE6 is now a majority market share browser is because most average computer users are using Windows XP. I dare say, but it really wouldn't surprise me if there are still a number of 5.x installs in use by those who are using Windows 2000. IE7 adoption won't hit a majority of the market until Longhorn is released and even then, how many people are going to be purchasing new computers right away? I remember when XP came out--the number of people still using IE5 two years after the fact was pretty incredible.

So before anyone gets incredible excited over this, take a moment to realize that the adoption of IE7 (assuming it actually does fix the bugs that have plagued IE before) is at least a year or two away. This isn't going to be an overnight thing--people have to buy new computers if they're not technically inclined and even then a very small minority of the almost-but-not-quite technically inclined will bother to upgrade. So, unless the upgrades are enforced by ISPs (through hand out discs, pre-configured packages, etc.), I encourage web developers to sit this one out.

The upshot? Don't plan on using PNGs with an alpha channel until 2007 or later. (Unless Longhorn is pushed back again, which means we could be waiting another FIVE years. Ah, and if you didn't detect it, yes that was mild sarcasm.) Remember, even CMSs like Plone still have CSS work arounds for Netscape 4.x--and how old is that?

Keep the stone tablets, my friends, this new "paper" thing is still buggy.

Re:No Thank You, Microsoft

[pe1chl]

This will not matter as they do not plan to release IE7 for anything but XP, so any users not using XP yet are left in the cold.
There will be no "adoption by existing users" as they have no opportunity to do so. XP users probabl y will get it fed by Windows Update.

Re:No Thank You, Microsoft

[Zancarius]

Ah, but let's be honest here--how many average users use Windows Update unless it downloads and installs the updates automatically? Furthermore, how many of those individuals get fed up with this mysterious spoon-feeding because it interrupts their game of solitare or forces a reboot when they're typing up a brownie recipe?

While I understand the merit of your post, the point is that wide spread adoption will still have to wait until people begin purchasing new computers with Longhorn preinstalled. I think one of the best examples of this sort of wait and see approach comes from a previous reply to my original post. Therein, I think the author perfectly illustrates a few of the problems Microsoft is facing. Their decision to drop software support for older systems (in the author's case, the Alpha), the fact that most technically savvy individuals are already using alternate browsers (relenting to IE only when strictly necessary for their particular set up), and the issue that you highlighted--Microsoft won't be supporting anything earlier than Windows XP.

Again, your post has merit. But I personally believe that web developers shouldn't jump to any conclusion here. IE7 will very likely not become widely used for at least a year or two after it release, regardless of how much spoon feeding Microsoft does through Windows Update.

Who gives a damn about IE anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft have proven - repeatedly - that they're going to ignore open standards and are unable to approach a technology without their classic "embrace and extend" asshole tactics. There's a reason for this - if they fully support open standards, competitors will be able to perfectly replace their products. And they will lose.

Their only hope is to keep making deliberately flawed products - and keep their consumers hooked. The consumer knows their products are bad, but nobody else (at least, nobody with a sense of self-worth and pride) is willing to produce a broken product.

For example, if IE 7 and Firefox supported the exact same standards, people would use Firefox because it does the things that Microsoft dare not do - free source code, cross platform (they're still stuck on IE 5 for the Mac), platform neutral plugin support and far faster turnaround for bugfixes since the community has so many eyes on the code. Small wins for Firefox, but they are wins nevertheless.

The only good version of IE was version 3. It was going up against the well-established Netscape. They manged by making it leaner, faster and better. They had no legacy customers hooked on their product - and had to prove that they were worthy. Today they are lazy and their main goal is to maintain their supremacy and suppress the peons - not to wow them back into the fold.

The worst example of this would be, as far as I'm concerned: ActiveX. The tech might have sounded cool on paper - but in practice it was a disaster. It introduced a new type of executable to uninformed and uneducated users who were simply unable to comprehend how dangerous it was, and a raft of thieves and liars who were trying to take advantage of it. As far as security goes: Worst. Feature. Ever.

Putting ActiveX in a browser capable of accessing the internet is like storing apples in a bucket of medical waste: you'll be infected with something nasty and be completely fucked within a very short space of time. But Microsoft didn't care, so long as they had more corporate buzzwords to achieve platform lock-in with clueless customers.

And this corporate character oozes out their products. If Microsoft was a person, he would be a compusive liar, thief, bully and control freak. He would be unable to hold a conversation without trying to take something, and would be instantly hatable.

I use Microsoft Windows XP because I am forced to and am held hostage by the platform - but I am a bitter, angry hostage with brutal vengeance on my mind. Unless Microsoft makes a radical change to it's corporate attitudes, I will never willingly use IE again.

Re:Who gives a damn about IE anymore?

[fermion]

Well, I never used IE as my primary browser, and my first browser was Moasiac.

However, I always have IE loaded because many organizations have chosen to be IE only, whcih means that some pages will not work at all without IE. At the very least I have to use IE to navigate to a page, then copy that URL into a better browser for future use.

SO, why are we worried about IE. Because so many organziations have a huge investment in IE as an application frontend, and even though the vast majority of the incompatibilites are in fact bugs that should be fixed, the organizations are unlikely to expend the resources to do so. Therefore we will be stuck with IE for a very long time, and, since most people will now use two browsers, it si up to MS to fix the pile fo shit they foisted upon the unsuspecting world.

Re:Fix HTTP! Admins will thank thee!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

For future reference, pages like that would be more impressive if they weren't misleading in many places and outright lying in some...

M$

[falconwolf]

That's an awful lot of convincing that they have to do. I just wonder if their deep pockets will be able to support it when sales keep falling.

But are their sales falling any more than other companies?

Falcon

Re:M$

[Foofoobar]

In comparison to what? Open source applications that people can download and install for free? How do you compaere sales for something that isn't for sale?

Oh sure, you can compare it to Redhat but that doesn't give a good comparison as their are several distros that are free and installed for free; the same cannot be said about Microsoft. It's sales are it's ONLY determining factor for industry wide absorption.

IE domination beneficial?

[sznupi]

I wonder...perhaps it's better for use to keep IE as dominant browser. After all crackers and advertisers come with popularity...currently I'm using Firefox (well, right now on Opera because of lack of ram on this machine), and I'd hate to abandon it because the browsing experience changed to worse (and I'd miss few extensions...)

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"most of the reason I junked IE was security issues"

What did you switch to? Mozilla?

I don't think that Mozilla is exactly a model for security. At my company, we've had to deploy three complete updates since the release of Firefox 1.0.

It's clearly not "perfect".

Of course, IE is far from a model citizen, but IE6-SP2 is much better, and *security* is the focus of IE7 according to the developers.

I think that Microsoft can build a competitive browser. They just need an incentive to do so.

Now they have that incentive. Firefox has given it to them.

I, for one, welcome the new browser wars.

Windows is easier for general use.

[falconwolf]

As compared to Linux and the various window managers, yes Windows is easier, but MacOS in it's tyme was the easiest and while I haven't used OS X much I think it's okay.

Falcon

Re:Web development optimization?

[Stevyn]

But how many people are going to switch? People will still use IE6 for a while forcing developers to keep the old hacks for a large percentage of their viewers.

Re:Web development optimization?

[TLLOTS]

In truth IE7 may give Web Developers more work as opposed to less, depending of course on how strictly they abide to CSS standards. Given Microsofts track record, and the lovely base they've created out of their lazyness in adhering to standards, I would not be surprised if there were still some parts that don't strictly follow CSS rules.

Of course Microsoft by its own lazyness is also in an unfortunate position. If by some miracle IE7 is fully compliant with CSS standards, then I can bet there will be a number of websites which simply will not render correctly. The point they're at now they either break a bunch of sites with IE7 so they get fixed, or they just screw standards over again and keep things compatible. Either way, Microsoft isn't in a nice position.

Of course regardless of how IE7 turns out, there'll still be people working away on IE5.x, so no matter what, Web Developers like myself will have to do just as much work as usual.

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[rewinn]

>What did you switch to?

Assuming that you are asking for information, and not just for effect, the answer is: Safari and Firefox. Again, I don't want to make this an attack on IE's vendor, but the fact is, keeping up with security updates, constantly having to run popup killers and all that other stuff, just got to costing me so much time that it was cheaper (using the old formula "Time = Money") to just buy a new PC every year and park the old one in the basement. This impelled me to jump to a competitor, thereby saving lots of Time=Money. Where I absolutely *must* use one of the old Win machines in the basement, Firefox has been o.k. for my capitalist-piggie, money-grubbing purposes; of course YMMV.

>I think that Microsoft can build a competitive browser

No doubt, but can they build a competitive browser within their comprehensive business model? If so, great!

Consistent support?

[porneL]

"Improving CSS support consistency" means that CSS in IE is going to be consistently broken.

Re:Consistent support?

[Mikey-San]

"Improving CSS support consistency" means that CSS in IE is going to be consistently broken.

So you're saying this isn't a new feature, then?

Amen

[Anonymous Coward]

The only good version of IE was version 3.

Truer words have never been spoken in regards to IE. Version 2 was a pathetic joke, lacking anything useful. In comparison, Netscape 2.0 introduced the world with frames, Java, and Javascript. IE 3 was the only browser ever made by M$ that even attempted to have anything useful. After the Active Desktop chaos introduced in IE 4 (which rendered other browsers inoperative once installed and rendered Win 95 and NT unusable once IE 4 was uninstalled) I never looked back at IE. I thought for sure they shot themselves in the foot when that happened, but bundling it in Windows 98 only made consumers ignorant of the existence of competition.

Satan works the same way, thriving on ignorance.

Re:MODERATORS ... please give them FEEDBACK

[Yosho]

Or they might realize that your feedback suggestions are wildly unreasonable -- especially since several of them are things that either no browser does or IE already does. At least do your research before you troll.

Re: CSS

[Feztaa]

"more consistent", well, it depends on what they're trying to be consistent with. Consistent with other browsers, that means they're working towards standards compliance. Consisten with past versions of IE, well, that's not so good...

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[Phroggy]

Would putting better graphics on the Titanic's deckchairs have kept anyone on board?

Keep in mind that a lot of people bought tickets to sail on the Titanic.

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[ConceptJunkie]

just like the timebomb that will eat all your email once it hits 2GB that they call outlook express.

Don't you mean Outlook? That's exactly what happened to me with Outlook. Once your e-mail store hits about a gig and a half it starts losing mail. I don't know if OE did that because none of my folders ever got that big. Outlook 2003 though kept everything in one file so after importing all my messages from OE, I found a bunch of them missing.

I finally solved the problem by using Thunderbird. I'm convinced Microsoft hates me.

Weird.

[OwP_Fabricated]

I'm about as disaster prone as anyone when it comes to X thing not working, but I've never had to mess with any of my browser plugins in Firefox.

Quicktime, Real (well, Real Alternative), and amazingly, even WMP work perfectly with Firefox for me.

My pet peeves with Firefox have to do with its memory footprint and how it doesn't render some IE-designed websites correctly. The latter isn't even Firefox's fault really, since it's more standards compliant than IE.

I only touch IE when I use Windows Update.

OK, how do you reinstall it then?

[falconwolf]

I don't know if it's changed since I had to do it 3 or 4 years ago, but back then I used the add/remove control panel. When started it gives the options to uninstall or repair.

Falcon

Re: OK, how do you reinstall it then?

[handslikesnakes]

Speaking as an ex-Windows XP "Support Professional" (read: phone monkey), this hasn't been possible since Windows ME. If you break IE on 2000 or XP, you're doing a repair install at the very least.

Re: OK, how do you reinstall it then?

[falconwolf]

Speaking as an ex-Windows XP "Support Professional" (read: phone monkey), this hasn't been possible since Windows ME. If you break IE on 2000 or XP, you're doing a repair install at the very least.

Thanks I didn't know if M$ had changed procedures or not after Windows ME, which is what I'm using now. I plan to get Win 2000, both to upgrade my PC and to install on a Mac using Virtual PC, however unless MS gets rid of Activation that's the last M$ OS I plan to get.

Falcon

Another reason?

[Quixote]

I view this as more than just a competition issue. Yes, FF is gaining share. Yes, people are turning away from IE in droves. But the fact is: as long as 90% of the people use IE, Microsoft of yore wouldn't have given a damn. So what gives?

I think Microsoft is worried about the way Firefox is being extended and turning into a true thin client. Just look at what Google has done with maps, GMail, etc. With AJAX (or whatever they are calling it), FireFox becomes a serious long-term threat to Microsoft. And the folks there aren't stupid. As Bill Gates said in The Simpsons, "Homer, I didn't get to be the richest man in the world writing checks" (or words to that effect). Microsoft has a bunch of nerds on the payroll too, toiling away. They see the looming threat and are responding now instead of waiting (like IBM did when it failed to recognize a similar looming threat from Redmond ;-) ).

I would like to hear points/counterpoints, if any.

Scrolling TBODY

[eGabriel]

It's the only thing in the whole world I want. Why IE doesn't support it, I don't understand. IE generally does pretty well with a lot of things.

I guess there are two things in the whole world I want. The second is for IE to show me a big nasty error instead of my web page if it is not compliant with the DTD. If browsers worked that way the whole web would be in better shape.

Re:Scrolling TBODY

[Elwood P Dowd]

The second is for IE to show me a big nasty error instead of my web page if it is not compliant with the DTD. If browsers worked that way the whole web would be in better shape.

In that either people would be forced to spend millions of dollars to re-implement the web before it was functional, or everyone would stick with IE6, yes, it would be in better shape.

Not to mention, the behavior you describe would violate the W3C's recommendations on error handling. You are describing a non-standards-compliant browser. So even the people who put the standards together seem to disagree with you. Idiot. IHBT. HAND.

Re:Scrolling TBODY

[antrik]

> The second is for IE to show me a big nasty error instead of my web page if it is not compliant with the DTD.

Actually, that's what the standard prescribes for XML -- including XHTML (if served with the right content type). Oh well, IE6 doesn't even know about XHTML...

Re:Scrolling TBODY

[handslikesnakes]

Clarification: XML parsing is supposed to fail on ill-formed content, not invalid content. DTDs have more to do with validity than well-formedness.

Re:Scrolling TBODY

[antrik]

Well, validating XML parsers also have to complain on DTD conformance failure, "at user's option". But yes, this doesn't apply to browsers, which generally are not validating. Seems I have implicitely assumed the comment was about well-formedness, as this is much more of a problem in practice... (As the original comment was referring to HTML not XHTML, it isn't actually clear whether it was relating to well-formedness only or also validity in the XML sense -- in SGML, there is no distiction.)

my ass would be perfect if...

[Erris]

Microsoft should put their resources into making one killer browser.

Then you woke up, looked at IE and realized it has not changed much since 1993 and the invention of the WWW when M$ bought a browser. My ass would be perfect if beer came out of it. If I were microsoft, I'd tell you to eat my shit anyway. Wake up and smell the coffee. Some things will always stink. People still using Winblows will pay money for them.

Doesn't Microsoft realize they could easily make the end-all browser that'll end up running on almost every palmtop, cell phone, set-top-box, automobile, and personal computer?

So could you. You have Mozilla, konqueror, dillo, links and dozens of others as models. Versions of them already run on all of the above mentioned hardware. You also don't have to sign a NDA or buy some stinking SDK to compile.

Why do you care about IE? It's like paying for water at a beer fest.

Also noted in the release

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be new security holes and exploits for everyone to enjoy!

what I'm worried about is...

[dickens]

that they'll make IE7 nice and standards compliant but break all the hacks we use to accomodate IE6 like the Holly Hack et al.

This would make it impossible to support IE6, IE7 and other standards-compliant browsers while still allowing them to (rightly) claim that they're compliant. Would they do this ? Hopefully not.

Good Grief, M$ was born to Suck.

[Erris]

I'm pretty sure that improving a product to maintain one's marketshare, even if it is the vast majority, is in fact competition already.

A vaporware announcement is not an improved product. It's not beta and what's announced is not as good as freely available alternatives. If if were a fifth, I'd be drunk all the time.

During the browser wars I used Explorer instead of Netscape because I really did like it better. Certainly they have the hackers and the resources to make the best browser if they want to.

Some people sleep on nails, go figure. They have the money for a mattress but prefer the pain of broken CSS, PNG, no tabs, with all the ease of 0wnership Winblows brings.

With stuff like Mepis which installs on any hardware in twenty minutes, is there any reason to run Winblows?

If Microsoft really does release a product better than Firefox, it will be sad to see the underdog lose, but really the consumers will win.

Microsoft has never released anything better than anyone else and that's not about to be changed by another silly promise. Their stated business plan is to buy into, "mature" to avoid development costs and being a "loss leader." Do you really think M$ will deliver next year what you can enjoy right now in free software? The developers left long ago so there are no more "loss leaders" for M$ to fuck over. They may have hired a few extra people last year to try and make up for it, but that's like pissing into the free software tsunami. If Sun and AOL were to pull the plug on OO and Mozilla, Microsoft would still be wiped out by the thousands of developers working on KDE, Gnome and dozens of other alternatives.

Re:Good Grief, M$ was born to Suck.

[antrik]

Well, this is really quite OT, but anyways:

Actually, I bet for the opposite. If free software developers weren't as busy and constrained by falling for all that "it's completely useless unless it copies every single obscure feature from it's proprietary competitors on top of any genuine functionality" whining anymore, they could produce much more innovative stuff.

Plus, it's just not true that there is little innovation if free software. While all the "big" applications, getting most exposure, are really mostly clones of proprietary conterparts, many smaller projects are doing genuine stuff, which taken together is really impressive. (Even Firefox has a glimpse of that, thanks to all the independently developed extensions.)

Re:Good Grief, M$ was born to Suck.

[aichpvee]

First of all when it comes to inovation have you ever read some of the discussion boards or blogs or email logs in the open source community. Let me tell you what I see alot of the time. "Oh oh M$ is coming out with (Insert feature here) we gotta beat them to to it". Or "Wow did you see what Apple just did, damn it we gotta implement (Insert feature here) too."

Stop reading the gnome development lists and you won't see so much of that.

Re:Good Grief, M$ was born to Suck.

[Ciaran_H]

Microsoft has never released anything better than anyone else and that's not about to be changed by another silly promise.

That depends on your interpretation of the word "better". Sure, most of Microsoft's releases have been bought from others, and they have better marketing, but they must have done *something* right in their development of the software, even if it was in the past - otherwise they wouldn't be in this position in the first place. You don't rise to become a monopoly by being worse than everybody else, dude.

So, sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. I hate Microsoft as much as you do, but saying they've never released anything better than anybody else is delusion. Or overenthusiastic zeal, take your pick.

same crap, different version

[dwntwnboi]

seriously, "fixed numerous css bugs". pardon me while i laugh until i shit my pants.

unless they re-write it from the ground up, it will be the same, bloated, slow-ass browser, out-performed by almost every other on the market.

anyhow, most people i know use alternatives for better security, and because IE is almost incapable of parsing dhtml/css anywhere near correctly. this is not to mention the fact that cookie management, pop-up control, and many other features that IE will either never have or will never function as well as jsut about any alternative.

i'll be happy to eat my words as soon as the little magic gnomes come out with a version of IE that isn't a waste of hard drive space. until then, any change to IE will only ever be for the worse, no matter how hard they try.

Re: CSS

[TelJanin]

Even if it's only more consistent with itself, that's a step up.

Right now, IE has a lot of bugs that make no sense. Something will work in one way, but a small change will make it work completely differently. This is a pain in the ass for developers.

that's a funny rose you have there.

[Erris]

They got caught with their pants down in 1993-4 with the internet and TCPIP revolution ... They pulled that one off and came out of it smelling like roses.

They got caught with their pants down AGAIN in 1997 with the widespread acceptance of Java ... and came out of it smelling like roses.

Put your glasses on, you are looking at a sphincter not a rose. Sometime in 2007, with the release of Longhorn, they will have a root user. It won't be your account, of course, but their bowser, email client and other userland programs will still have the ability to install malware for you. It's all part of the, "you only have a non transferable right to use this unless we think otherwise" mentality. M$ smells like ass today and will tomorrow.

Bah, who cares?

[RukuArtic]

This must be the least read topic in Slashdot. Everyone's moved on to Firefox :P

IE

[falconwolf]

Do you remember the rendering bugs in IE4? What about IE5? Then came IE5.1, 5.5, and 6. The only reason IE6 is now a majority market share browser is because most average computer users are using Windows XP. I dare say, but it really wouldn't surprise me if there are still a number of 5.x installs in use by those who are using Windows 2000.

I'm one of those still with IE 5.5 though I don't use it much. I used to use Firefox some but haven't reinstalled it since I had to reinstall Windows earlier this year. Now I use mostly Netscape 7.2. About the only tyme I use IE is when I want to save a webpage, IE includes the url of the page saved whereas Netscape doesn't. Oh, and I'm using ME right now though I also have NT. I rarely use it though because it's installed on an Alpha box and M$ doesn't support Alpha anymore. I also couldn't get many apps installed on it.

Falcon

Update IE?

[sl4shd0rk]

umm.. why?

*best* is subjective (as well as your timeline)

[IANAAC]

Microsoft went from not having a browser to having the *best* browser in two years.

If you removed "the *best*" from your sentence, it'd be the simple truth.

Some of us consider Opera to be (and always has been) a superior browser from the start. Firefox currently is better than IE.

Now, take a look at your timeline... Anything been going on at all with IE since 2001? How about Opera? Firefox? Safari/Konqueror?

It's very easy to say "They went from nothing to something" - going on 10 years ago. What have they been doing lately (other than saying they'll be coming out with something Real Soon Now)?

Re:*best* is subjective (as well as your timeline)

[jp10558]

Also, for all these "in the know" slashdotters, if MS is really pusing things, currently Opera does have 200 full time devs themselves. So they also have some decent manpower.

Major downside is the cost users have to pay (buy the browser) to actually support those devs.

There is only one update they need...

[argent]

There is only one update they need to do to IE, and they will never do it.

They need to abandon zones, put the application in charge of the security of a window, and NEVER let a window open, launch, link to, or reference a "more trusted" object than the one the link, embedded object, what have you is referenced from.

That means IE would be a hard sandbox. If you want to use ActiveX components that aren't sandboxed, you need to run a separate program.

Yes, that means that Windows Update would need to be a separate application shell around the HTML control. That's a teeny tiny problem compared to these sneaky damn zones.

Here's a translation

[melted]

It will be same old shit with the same old bugs, but with tabs and marketing campaign behind it.

Too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, MS. You've had YEARS to address these issues. I've switched, and won't be coming back. You should have listened to your users before now. And no, I don't really care about your newest "beta".

NO AD.DOUBBLECLICK.NET !!!!!

[falconwolf]

Third, could you actually put something in there to block ads and popups, and any other crap that I don't want on my screen.

I don't know if you know of them or not but you can use a host file to block many ads, such as those from DoubleClick. They don't block popups from popping up but the ads itself is blocked if the address of the server is in the host file.

Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!

On Windows a way to force the browser to reload from the server is to use [ctrl][F5].

Falcon

[ctrl][F5]

[falconwolf]

I've been using [ctrl][F5] to force a reload/refresh of a webpage for years and I've never had a problem.

Falcon

Try Avant

[Kioti]

Avant is an IE extension that supports tabbed browsing. http://www.avantbrowser.com I actually like the tabbed browsing controls in Avant better.

If IE wants to really leapfrog Firefox...

[MtViewGuy]

...they need to add in features (in addition to the proper PNG graphics rendering and improved CSS support) like those used in the Maxthon or Avant Browser "shell" programs for IE.

Having used Maxthon since Version 1.12 (they're now up to 1.2.4), it is a very nice program that adds a lot of nifty features that Internet Explorer by itself lacks, particularly tabbed browsing, RSS support, easily changeable "skins," and the very powerful AD Hunter feature that blocks out many ads, pop-ups, Flash animations, and even most ActiveX objects, which results in a very fast browsing experience even on dial-up connections.

Re:If IE wants to really leapfrog Firefox...

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Hmm. Sounds like you're trying to make IE like.....Firefox. It's a free download you know and you don't have to buy or dowload a lot of 3rd party propgrams to get RSS, pop up blocking, Flash blocking, immunity from Active X, tabbed browsing, proper PNG rendering, CSS support, etc... See a trend here?

Re:If IE wants to really leapfrog Firefox...

[MtViewGuy]

While Firefox is great, you have to download and configure third-party programs to get the type of online ad blocking that you get with the AD Hunter feature of Maxthon. AD Hunter has a pre-configured list of blocked providers of online ads, which usually blocks out most of the online ads you see.

If IE 7.0 uses the technology of Maxthon the incentive to use Firefox will drop dramatically for Windows users.

Re:So long, Firefox

[aichpvee]

Which wouldn't really affect Firefox's marketshare so much as potential marketshare. In order for it to take away FF's marketshare it would have to be unsucky enough for people running windows and Firefox to switch back to ie.

And I think it's foreslash and backslash, like the two sides of the hand with which you can smack someone.

Test flawed?

[Luke-Jr]

The test certainly doesn't *seem* standards-compliant...or even functional.
Tell me, WTF is "data:application/x-unknown,ERROR"? Why would *any* browser know how to handle that?
And a 404 on the middle of the page?

Standards testing should be conducted with feature-intensive *standards-compliant* data, not by checking to see what a program does when it gets illegal/broken/standard-incompliant data...

Re:Test flawed?

[Neoncow]

I believe there are clauses in the standards that specify how browser agents should handle broken input. That way all browsers will handle the broken stuff the same way.

Re:Test flawed?

[Eustace Tilley]

The test authors explain in painstaking detail here what the purpose of those lines are:

The two ancestor object elements should both display their fallback contents -- which is the inner object element. The fallback content of the inner object element should not be displayed as the data attribute returns a valid PNG image (depicting the eyes).

They are testing the ability of the browser to display fallback content.

Please explain how you propose to test a browser's ability to display fallback content if you rule out deliberately specifying invalid content which it should reject.

Inet Tabs

[Lehk228]

iNet Tabs was IIRC the first mshtml based browser with tabbing, a bit more primative than newer tabbed browsers but i loved it at the time.

Re:So long, Firefox

[rapidweather]

Unless they have IE7 for Linux, then I'll have to stick with Firefox, or the new Opera 8.

When has that ever stopped them?

[kaiwai]

they didn't want to be accused of "embrace and extend"

Good lord, when has *that* ever stopped them from embracing and extending - heck, they're doing it RIGHT NOW when it comes to implementing protocols on .NET.

Now, don't get me wrong, some cases, the standards are *VERY* thin on detail and could lack features that could be deemed important - hypothetically, a wireless protocol that doesn't have a secure enough encryption algorith as one example of this.

With that being said, the lack of improvements, and a sudden surge of interest in developing IE further has NOTHING to do with all altruistic stance by Microsoft, but more of a reply to the threat from Firefox.

Firefox by itself isn't a threat, but when you take into account Microsofts long term view of their long term view of .NET, XAML, their application server technology, remotely hosted applications, delivered to the webbrowser, using IE specific technologies (as apposed to the current thin client/dumb terminal model) - you can see how Firefox could turn out to be a royal pain in the ass if they don't box it in, and reserve it to the alternative platforms.

Dream on...

[antrik]

Sure, they could make such a browser, at only somewhat more than an order of magnitude more developement effort than has gone into Mozilla... Oh wait, that would be about two orders of Magnitude above IE6.

Seriously, even MS couldn't do that. Not if they focused all the resources they have for a considerable amount of time. Sorry, browsers just aren't that simple anymore.

Abandonware from on the Security Titan

[dbIII]

Don't you mean Outlook? That's exactly what happened to me with Outlook. Once your e-mail store hits about a gig and a half it starts losing mail

Outlook express has an interesting "feature" of a 2GB file size limit, and corruption of the database of that file if you attempt to go beyond that mark. You don't just lose a few messages, you lose the lot - and have to rely on third party tools to get it back.

You can get around this by just making sure that your inbox (or any other mail file) never gets that big. The problem is a consequence of putting the index, messages and attachments in one big binary file - as distinct from every other email format on earth. They re-invented email badly, and not even for the purposes of vendor lock in since those third party tools were written by others that worked out the file format.

The big problem with Outlook express and to a lesser extent Outlook is that they are almost abandonware - considered good enough to not update and overwhelmed by years of changes - like businesses changing from dial up to broadband thus email volume increasing. IE was abandonware for a while after the team was disbanded, but isn't now.

Re:So long, Firefox

[Matilda the Hun]

Actually, I think it might be fair to say that. Or, at least, not seriously disrupt. Geeks, obviously, will be using FF even if they buy a computer with preloaded IE. And just because IE 7 comes out, doesn't mean people running FF now will say "Oh, IE7! Don't need this anymore." That'll just be the ones running IE6. The only ones that might switch will be the ones who run FF now, go buy a new computer, and don't bother reloading FF beacuse IE7 works. More or less. Until the next gigabyte or two of IE7 insecurity patches are unmasked.

This is important for all Windows users

[William-Ely]

We can use Firefox and avoid a good portion of the crap on the internet but Windows users we are still vulnerable in less obvious ways. A lot of Windows apps (Steam for example) use IE as part of their interface. So if IE has security issues and an app uses IE then the app suffers from the same issues.

Local Machine Lockdown, MOTW, etc...

[venomkid]

I just hope that, in the end, they can do away with the hamhanded security kludges like the Local Machine Lockdown and its contingent fixes like the ridiculous "Mark of the Web" and such.

It's one thing to try to secure your browser. It's another to become a paranoia caricature.

Re: CSS

[iamlucky13]

That's exactly what I thought when I read the article. They have cited two areas where they plan "become more consistent." That's a marketing phrase. It means nothing. I've heard a comment attributed to someone in the IE design team suggesting that Microsoft didn't want to fully accept the W3C standards for reasons I don't remember. They claimed the standards would restrict them. I claim they restrict us poor saps who have to find work arounds for a funky box model and simple CSS2 applications like dynamic nested lists.

I've been anxiously awaiting more info on IE7, hoping it would turn around and embrace the W3C recommendations. Instead, this news worries me simply because it is so limited.

Re:So long, Firefox -- NOT!!!

[stretch0611]

Though I don't believe it's "Goodbye FireFox", you cannot honestly say to me that IE7 doesn't have the potential to disrupt FF's market share.

Of course IE7 has potential to disrupt Firefox's share. However I doubt it will affect share much at all.

In order for Microsoft to steal share from FireFox it needs to improve and innovate to a point that surpasses Firefox. Right now, I believe that IE7 is playing catch-up to FireFox and Microsoft will not introduce anything innovative enough to bring share back to IE7. Microsoft will only be able to slow the tide of people leaving IE.

Remember, people are using FireFox fo the following reasons:

• They hate Microsoft
• The are not using windows
• They liked the features of FireFox
• They got fed up with viruses, spyware, and security problems that only hit IE and downloaded FF as an alternative.

In the first two cases, IE will not win back any share. The feature crowd will only return if Microsoft truly innovates(doubtful in my mind.) The last group of people will only return to IE if they can trust Microsoft to fix all of the problems. Considering Microsoft's record since they made "security their number one priority" over a year ago (or has it been 2?) I also doubt this happening.

And remember, the reason IE has the most share is because it was on the computer when the user got it. People resist change. That same fact will keep some user from changing from Firefox back to IE. So, no, Firefox will probably not lose much share unless development stops on it over the next 4 years. (Ooops, who did that before?...)

Re:Web development optimization?

[pe1chl]

IE6 is often not the real troublemaker as it has doctype switching and you can use .htc files to fix some of the bugs. IE5 is the problem.

Maybe Microsoft is starting to feel the heat

[sopuli]

Now that companies like SAP have started putting out support notes advicing their customers to use Firefox instead of IE, Microsoft may start to take things seriously. For example take a look at the following support not from SAP (note 828595 for those with access to OSS):

Symptom

When you are using the SAP GUI for HTML in the Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, the "progress bar", which describes the load progress for the page, may in some cases continue to display activities although the page is fully loaded, and it never confirms that a page has been completely loaded.

Other terms

Microsoft Internet Explorer; IE; HTMLGUI; load; webgui; login page; status bar; status bar; loading progress; blue horizontal bar;

Reason and Prerequisites

This is caused by a visual error in the Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Solution

SAP has consulted closely with Microsoft, to eliminate this error. Unfortunately, Microsoft is not prepared to implement a correction and suggests workarounds that can be implemented in SAP software (SAP ITS). All workarounds proposed by Microsoft are not acceptable due to the considerable quality-related risks posed for all SAP customers using the ITS. There is therefore no solution for this error, other than changing Browsers (the problem described above does not occur with Mozilla / Firefox).

Re:Maybe Microsoft is starting to feel the heat

[Rogue Pat]

Can you provide a link?

Re:Maybe Microsoft is starting to feel the heat

[sopuli]

Yes, here, but you'll need a password for the SAP Service Marketplace.

Background Color

[Nurgled]

IE blends PNG images with an alpha channel against their default background color. When there is no default, it uses one of the system colors that happens to be the default for GDI surfaces.

You can give IE a better (but still solid) color to blend against by having pngcrush write in a bKGD chunk with the desired color. This doesn't help you if you are trying to blend against a texture, but it's handy if, as in your case, the image is blended against a solid background color anyway.

Re:Background Color

[DeadSea]

I saved this image with the background color of my page and IE is doing the right thing for that page now. Thanks for the tip!

What difference?

[(pvb)charon]

Now, tell me, what difference will this actually make? Except for all the website developers being happy to get yet another browser on their compatibility list, who is going to download and use it?
Somehow I can't believe that the 80something percent (yeah, sure, depending on the site we're talking about) are going to miraculously switch to IE7 so that all our problems as webdesigners suddenly go away.
IE7 may be a good product, it may really be a very good product (and with all the competition that MS is facing right now I'd be really surprised if they didn't produce something fairly good) but it won't make up for all the crap MS has thrown at us with the last versions of their browser.
charon

Re:What difference?

[goynang]

I largely agree.

The older versions of Explorer are not going to suddenly disappear. All the nasty hacks currently being used and all the problems with trying to make stuff work with pokey old Explorer are still going to exist.

The kind of people that use non-IE browsers are more likely to upgrade to the latest and greatest versions. The kind of people that do use IE (i.e. most people) are a lot less likely to do so. Perhaps auto-update will have an effect but there will still be people that don't upgrade.

Whilst I'm glad that Microsoft are finally doing something with IE it is a double edged sword. As IE can't be un-invented I guess it's better that it is improved though.

It will be interesting to see the take up of IE7 and to view some access logs in 12 months time.

PNG support

[dreadlock9]

So finally IE will be properly supporting 24-bit PNG graphics, years after they announced they would support it. It's anyone's guess what they took years to write a program someone could write in less than a day.

I have held back on a lot of my creative ideas for web sites, because of lack of PNG support in IE. I made a design that used a transparent layer scrolling over a static background. It rendered flawlessly in Mozilla, but the scroll rate was diminished. Mozilla could use a faster implementation of what it uses to blend bitmaps.

Expect to see some clever scripts that use transparent layers to animate graphics. If they simply added a scroll rate property to CSS, one could display a multi layered parallax video game, similar to the SNES side scrollers.

It's about time browsers start getting more rendering capabilities, without relying on Flash to do the complex animation.

Re:So long, Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for it to take away FF's marketshare it would have to be unsucky enough for people running windows and Firefox to switch back to ie.

No, it merely has to be unsucky enough for people to not switch to Firefox next time they get a new computer (or probably if they upgrade to Longhorn).

You have a very short term perspective. Have you considered a career in banking?

It's still fundamentally flawed.

[TractorBarry]

Who cares ?

Anyone who doesn't understand that a web browser should NOT be integrated into the guts of an operating system deserves all the problems that IE will give them.

Have they changed this major flaw in this release ? No. So only use it if you're an idiot.

Tell me again why we should trust a broken blog?

[drange_net]

It seems like the IE7 developer team didn't even manage to make a blog validate to HTML 4.0. How can this be possible?

Why so long?

[OberonX]

Why has IE7 taken so long to be released?

Re:Why so long?

[polyp2000]

It'll take that long to copy all the cool features in mozilla firefox!

Re:Fix HTTP! Admins will thank thee!

[lintux]

I think it's more that lazy/ignorant admins are right now really glad that IE doesn't care about MIME-types, because they think it's very convenient that IE can handle their badly configured webservers... :-(

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Mycroft_VIII]

Agreed, unfortunately I've already posted in this thread and can't mod it. However there is always Meta Mod.

Mycroft

PNG fixes...

[Morden]

So if they could just click their fingers and fix the PNG bugs like that, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY ALREADY!

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[TeknoHog]

I, for one, welcome the new browser wars.

I love this line! Particularly as it's not only funny but insightful. I also thought of a variant:

Begun, this browser war has.

Re:Fix HTTP! Admins will thank thee!

[LuckyStarr]

Ok. So this page lies. Have no problem with that. Didn't know.

Please point out where exactly.

Oh please!

[LuckyStarr]

In other news, my car is "Not a car" because it has a non-functioning headlight and therefore would not pass the standards set down for a "car" by the government of the area in which I live.

Please spare me with this stupid analogy. Of course is a car a car if its light is broken. There is no standard (as HTTP) which defines what a car is regarding the status of its lights (even if its illegal to drive without a working light in certain countries).

There is however a standard which defines what a webbrowser must do to fulfill it's duty as a webbrowser. IE does not even try to do it. And even if this document I pointed to is factually shaky, the HTTP implementation is absolutely unpredictable! I checked it out myself. For me IE is no webbrowser, but a bad joke with a massive userbase.

Re:Fix HTTP! Admins will thank thee!

[LuckyStarr]

Exactly my thought. I don't really remember how often I wanted to download a rpm and RealPlayer kicked in. This is so ridiculous.

Re:Fix HTTP! Admins will thank thee!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Misleading:

It is proof enough that Windows XP comes with an "auto-update" program so that its users can download and fix vulnerabilities as Microsoft gets around to them.

(So does Firefox, for exactly the same reason.)

Outright lie:

If you didn't run Internet Explorer, you wouldn't be seeing any pop-up ads at all.

(As a Firefox user, I can dispute that from immediate personal experience.)

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[man_of_mr_e]

What about the constant stream of Firefox updates? And you do realize that IE has a popup blocker built-in, right?

I can't wait to hear Microsoft claim

[IntergalacticWalrus]

that they invented tabbed browsing. They'll probably give it a fancy buzzword name too, something like "XPTab" or whatnot.

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[marcosdumay]

I don't think that Mozilla is exactly a model for security. At my company, we've had to deploy three complete updates since the release of Firefox 1.0.

Firefox isn't a model for security, but it is adequate for most of the users, IE is not. Most people don't wat to exchange other qualities by security improvements if it is already fine.

Of course, IE is far from a model citizen, but IE6-SP2 is much better, and *security* is the focus of IE7 according to the developers.

MS developpers have been focusing on security for years now, see what they have done. Yes, IE6-SP2 is safer than IE6 (could they create something less safe than IE6?) but is far from secure yet. MS have the balls just to fix a few easy bugs, not to rewrite features or to change a flawed design. While they keep acting this way, people would better stay out of MS products.

Safari is not close either

[bach37]

Safari looks just as bad as Firefox on my computer. OS X 10.3.9, Safari 1.3. It doesn't look anything like the pics on his blog.

Re:Safari is not close either

[ckelly5]

Safari 1.3 (and 2.0 in Tiger) were in the release slipstream long before Acid2 was unveiled. The screenshots are from his private builds off of the Safari source code at Apple while he fixes the rendering bugs. These changes will most likely (hopefully?) make it into 10.4.x or an out of band release (Safari-specific patch).

Skeptical, as always...

[XeRXeS-TCN]

No offense to the IE7 development team, but as usual this just seems like the standard Microsoft ploy.

They stopped all IE development and let the browser utterly stagnate because they had no real competition; there were many complaints about the insecurity of ActiveX, the refusal to follow the w3c standards, the refusal to provide proper PNG alpha support, and the amount of work involved in trying to get sites rendering the same in IE as they did in pretty much any other browser around.

Microsoft have had *years* to address these issues, and selectively chose to do absolutely nothing about them, because they couldn't care less about the customer, just about stifling competition and making money. (Granted at engineer level you may well have people taking offense at the suggestion that they don't want to make a better product for their customers, but that clearly isn't the corporate policy.)

Now all of a sudden along comes Firefox, which provides an amazing base, and doesn't have any of the IE issues. Microsoft have some competition in the first time in a while, and suddenly they're back to how trumpeting about how wonderful they are, and how they're implementing all these brilliant new features, like popup blocking, better (but still not perfect) CSS compliance, proper PNG alpha support, and all the other things that people have been complaining about for years, and the things that other browsers have had since day one.

Sorry Microsoft, but I find your claims insincere. You had years to implement this stuff, but you didn't bother your ass to help your customers out until you had a whiff of competition come your way. I'll stick with FireFox.

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[Emetophobe]

I don't think that Mozilla is exactly a model for security. At my company, we've had to deploy three complete updates since the release of Firefox 1.0.

Compared to Internet Exploiter (IE), i'd say its exponentially more secure.

Just check out http://secunia.org/ for a comparison of Internet Explorer and Firefox.

Internet Explorer (versions 5.0 to 6.0):

-Found: 138 Secunia Security Advisories
-Found: 2257 Viruses

Mozilla Firefox (versions 0.x to current 1.0.3)

-Found: 39 Secunia Security Advisories
-Found: 7 Viruses

Of course, IE is far from a model citizen, but IE6-SP2 is much better, and *security* is the focus of IE7 according to the developers.

I wonder how many people actually upgrade to SP2? I know I havent, and I probably won't until I'm positive it wont break any of my games/apps.

I should also have mentioned...

[fyngyrz]

...that while CSS is presently in flux, and requires significant browser-specific code effort to manage maxwidth and other tabular issues across the currently in-vogue browsers, HTML table markup itself is quite stable and almost entirely uniform. I regularly create extremely complex tables and test them in Opera, FF, IE and Safari, and I can barely remember the last time I saw a problem, which was in Netscape, which would not properly render the table on the timeline pages of this site, which uses variable size horizontal cells as bar graphs. :-)

The bottom line is that pages that use tables for detailed control of tabular markup are a lot more likely to remain correct during the transitional period while CSS settles down (and it'll probably be a while... IE is still pretty far back in the back for just vanilla CSS, and CSS2 is no walk in the park for any browser!)

What the hell, you can major in that?

[falconwolf]

Major in web programming? Sure, that's one of the degree programs at the collect I go to. The problem I see with it is that the college is only a two year college, and I have yet to see a help wanted ad that didn't require a Bachelors and at least a few year experience. The college does offer majors in Visual Basic, but though I looked at the online catalog I didn't see one for Shell Scripting. The closest I see is Windows Networking or MCSA.

I'm glad to see you have the good sense to move to a more generic, multi-discaplined course. Web development is simply software development. If you learn to be a software developer you can do web development, but it won't work the other way 'round.

At one tyme, years ago, my major was Computer Engineering with minors in Physics and Mathematics. To get the minors all that was needed was to take two additional classes in each so I figured what the heck I'd go ahead and take them. However that all changed several years ago after I survived a bad accident, I suffered a serious injury and now am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. Those commercials about using drugs "This is your brain on drugs" showing scrambled eggs. Well that's my brain. After I left the hospital and moved into a rehab house I tried to do some simple problems in both physics and calculus and realized I couldn't as I couldn't recall how, my memory is BAD. While I no longer want to follow that path even if I did I know I'd have to start all over again and repeat all those classes.

As for web/software development, that's not really what I want to do professionally, the closest I can come with to what I want to do is international development and I believe IT can help in that. So I'm thinking doing the multi-discilinary approach with a basis of IT or maybe EE with business and maybe communications as other areas of study will be beneficial.

Falcon

Re:Parent Is A MS Astro-Turfer

[NanoGator]

Heh. Despite what I said about MS getting beat up over it's buggy product, I'm an MS astro-turfer.

Idiot, heh. Didn't even look at my posting history!

Insight limited to the 2' radius around your chair

[Adapt or Die]

as it is obvious that you don't do much website work. Believe me, for those of us who do, it will save a lot of redundant toil.

And isn't this the point of competition anyways? Kudos to Firefox, and kudos to MS.

Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan

[sremick]

Define "had to".

Yes, there have been issues found with Firefox. The differences?

1) Compared to the severity of exploits found in IE, the FF ones have been relatively minor
2) They are patched extremely quickly

Typically, by the time MS gets around to patching IE for something, it's because a few thousand computers a day are getting 0wned as a result, being turned into spam-zombies or being rendered unusable due to spyware/adware. A FF fix, on the other hand, seems to involve patching some theoretical exploit that, if the stars are in perfect alignment on the 3rd Tues in March on a leap year, could be exploited. But you don't tend to see any exploits actually in the wild.

Basically, it boils down to a quote I saw somewhere that went like this:

What would you rather have? 100 litterbugs or 10 arsonists?

Still no IE 6 SP2 for Windows 2000

[tepples]

There's nothing a bug in IE can allow that a similar bug in Firefox couldn't.

In theory, vulnerabilities in IE and Firefox have the same effect, but in practice, the development models differ such that a Contributor will check in a patch and drivers will get a new build out before crackers get a chance to widely deploy exploits. In addition, MoFo doesn't use security holes to upsell paid product upgrades, unlike Microsoft which still hasn't patched at least one critical security hole in the latest version of IE for Windows 2000 except by charging $three figures for the upgrade to Windows XP.

Sandboxing it would be smarter and probably require less pointless hacking around

ActiveX controls are native Win32 programs. How do you sandbox a native program other than by running it with the different set of access privileges assigned to a different user?

Get HTML Tidy

[goldfndr]

HTML Tidy, while it won't substitute a non-DTD-compliant page with an error for anyone's pages, at least you can nearly immediately see some issues.

For the record

[Foofoobar]

...and as if to prove my point just a few days later, Microsoft even says that their sales are down. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/122023 0&tid=109&tid=187&tid=98&tid=1

now who are you going to believe?

Yeah.

[game kid]

If and when IE7 comes out, I'll still use both that and FF (and sometimes Opera) interchangeably as usual.

When a page needs a specific browser I'll use that one. Otherwise, I'll just use whatever's closest to my mind and mouse.

I haven't had big problems with IE these days. If I'm really scared I'll just turn off teh ActiveX and such nonsense. Or use Firefox.