Slashdot Mirror


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."

132 of 620 comments (clear)

  1. The ones that I hope get fixed by DeadSea · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

    1. Re:The ones that I hope get fixed by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:The ones that I hope get fixed by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  2. Wow Alpha Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  3. Good. by Maskirovka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Real competition. Good.

    1. Re:Good. by CSMastermind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Good. by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:Good. by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      "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.

    4. Re:Good. by CSMastermind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Good. by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    6. Re:Good. by Fwonkas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
    7. Re:Good. by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    8. Re:Good. by hazah · · Score: 3, Informative
      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>

  4. middle-click for tabbed browsing by SpecialAgentXXX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by NetNifty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by HerbertLipschitz · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    4. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by Rs_Conqueror · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by karthik_r085 · · Score: 2

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

    7. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
      --
      If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
    8. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by zaq121 · · Score: 2

      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...

    9. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by Mancat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, why were you logged in as Administrator?

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    10. Re:middle-click for tabbed browsing by xgamer04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  5. nuts to -moz-border-radius by rebug · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
    1. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by DeadSea · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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.

    2. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by rebug · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --

      there's more than one way to do me.
    3. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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)!

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by handslikesnakes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

    5. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by Myen · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

    6. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by kae_verens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    7. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by DrXym · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:nuts to -moz-border-radius by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  6. Mmmm! Competition! by Bonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Mmmm! Competition! by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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...

  7. yawn. too little, too late by stirlingneg · · Score: 3, Funny

    are people still using that old browser?

  8. Too little...too late by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Too little...too late by Husgaard · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Too little...too late by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Too little...too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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...

    4. Re:Too little...too late by glaucopis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Too little...too late by kosmosik · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 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.

    6. Re:Too little...too late by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Suggest they un-integrate IE by havaloc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

    2. Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE by Loonacy · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Suggest they un-integrate IE by Trepalium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
  11. Competition is a good thing by CyberZCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. shall by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:shall by fallendove · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  13. only 90% of the population by rebug · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
  14. competition? by boring,+tired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. I look forward to IE7. by Construct+X · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:I look forward to IE7. by RichM · · Score: 5, Funny

      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 ;)

  16. min-width and hacks by UnConeD · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:min-width and hacks by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:min-width and hacks by Feztaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:min-width and hacks by richard.york · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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).

    4. Re:min-width and hacks by Kitsuneymg · · Score: 3, Informative

      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]-->

    5. Re:min-width and hacks by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:min-width and hacks by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:min-width and hacks by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    8. Re:min-width and hacks by rainer3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    9. Re:min-width and hacks by jisatsusha · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's this:

      Max-width in IE.

      it uses IE css extensions with javascript.

    10. Re:min-width and hacks by Kitsuneymg · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:min-width and hacks by kaens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    12. Re:min-width and hacks by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  17. video plugins by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. Too many features to match. by Max_Abernethy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Too many features to match. by Tyrdium · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  19. Thank you, Microsoft by wyldeone · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
    1. Re:Thank you, Microsoft by mmusson · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      SYS 49152
    2. Re:Thank you, Microsoft by medeii · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
    3. Re:Thank you, Microsoft by _xeno_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:Thank you, Microsoft by RJabelman · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

  20. Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titanic? by rewinn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  21. IE7 would be perfect if... by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:IE7 would be perfect if... by kscd · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    2. Re:IE7 would be perfect if... by arevos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
  22. Thank God! by paragonc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 :)

  23. Remember winsock? by xtal · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Remember winsock? by jesterzog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Remember winsock? by snorklewacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > 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.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
  24. IE holding a big percentage of usage may be good by thanasakis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 .

  25. Bad news for Firefox by xRelisH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  26. CSS Problems by ArAgost · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  27. They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK by argoff · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK by rpozz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK by argoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK by insert_username_here · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- Dramatisation - May Not Have Happened
    5. Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    6. Re:They want feedback? I'll give em FEEDBACK by DavidD_CA · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?

      --
      -David
  28. IE will always be behind by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:IE will always be behind by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

    2. Re:IE will always be behind by ChatHuant · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

    3. Re:IE will always be behind by EchoMirage · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  29. Gecko's needs fixing too, you know by rebug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
  30. Acid2 by Omniscientist · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:Acid2 by 33degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Acid2 by cuijian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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/

    3. Re:Acid2 by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

  31. the rest of the story by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 4, Funny

    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".

    --
    Obama is a twitter sock puppet
  32. Re:So long, Firefox by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  33. What a company! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re: CSS by Malfourmed · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Notice that they talk about making CSS "more consistent"... but don't mention making IE "standards compliant".

    ;-)

  35. No Thank You, Microsoft by Zancarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  36. Who gives a damn about IE anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  37. IE domination beneficial? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  38. Re:Repainting the Deckchairs on the Security Titan by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.

  39. Consistent support? by porneL · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Improving CSS support consistency" means that CSS in IE is going to be consistently broken.

  40. Re: CSS by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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...

  41. Weird. by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  42. Another reason? by Quixote · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

  43. Scrolling TBODY by eGabriel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  44. Re:Woah... Reality check! by Max_Abernethy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  45. what I'm worried about is... by dickens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  46. Re:I want Cross-platform support. by Mancat · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
  47. There is only one update they need... by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  48. Re:I want Cross-platform support. by Bulk+Tape+Eraser · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  49. Re:Get this security feature by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Informative

    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)

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  50. When has that ever stopped them? by kaiwai · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  51. Re:So long, Firefox -- NOT!!! by stretch0611 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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?...)

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  52. Maybe Microsoft is starting to feel the heat by sopuli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

  53. Re:I want Cross-platform support. by digitalchinky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  54. Background Color by Nurgled · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  55. What difference? by (pvb)charon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  56. It's still fundamentally flawed. by TractorBarry · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  57. I can't wait to hear Microsoft claim by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 3, Funny

    that they invented tabbed browsing. They'll probably give it a fancy buzzword name too, something like "XPTab" or whatnot.

  58. Skeptical, as always... by XeRXeS-TCN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.